Technical Specs Released For Aussie Net Filtering

smallkathryn writes "Technical specifications have just been released for the Australian net filtering trial. The trial, which aims to prove that ISP-level filtering is a viable way to stop 'unwanted content' from reaching users, will go live on 24 December. The trial will involve ISPs choosing a commercially available hardware filter from an internet content filter (ICF) vendor, adding it to their networks, then loading the blacklist of unwanted sites. Still no indication of how peer-to-peer information will be addressed."

Comments

Voluntary

[QuantumG]

Only the ISPs are against voluntary filtering at the ISP level.. because it will cost them money to implement. It's a bit sad that my country seems to be populated by people who are afraid of seeing "the wrong thing" on the Internet, and it's even more sad that our government panders to them. But, so long as it remains voluntary, this is just typical overreaching government regulation. I'm sure there will be no "trial" of non-voluntary enforcement.

Re:Voluntary

[batdragon]

Only the *testing* is voluntary.

When (if, hopefully) the real thing goes live, "Filtering will be mandatory in all homes and schools across the country".

See: http://nocleanfeed.com

Re:Voluntary

[QuantumG]

That's what I said.

Re:Voluntary

[batdragon]

Ok. Seems that we're in violent agreement. :)

The way I read your comment, "so long as it remains voluntary", it sounded like you thought there were currently plans to *keep* it voluntary.

Just wanted to make sure no-one was in any doubt there are no such plans at the moment.

Apologies for misinterpreting.

Re:Voluntary

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The awesome thing here is that the ISPs are now responsible for all the actions their users take.

Did Bob Aussieman pirate a movie? Well, the ISP should have filtered that out. Did Steve Kiddyporn upload/download illegal pictures of children? The ISP should have stopped it.

By even doing token filtering, they're taking responsibility for everything that happens on their network.

Re:Voluntary

[QuantumG]

Is this the retarded "common carrier" myth in a negative form? We don't have that kind of stuff in Australia.

Re:Voluntary

[Opportunist]

The government panders to them only for a single reason, namely that it is in the interest of the government to pander to them. More precisely, they're the excuse because "see, at least SOME want that!"

Else it would have been easy. You want filtering? No problem, we make a law that your ISP has to provide it at your request, for free (i.e. everyone has to pay for it, because no provider will ever sit on expenses and not brush it off to its clients). If you're concerned that you don't want to see OMGWTF content, here's an easy solution. That would have been pandering to those people if the government wasn't interested in filtering.

Since they are, the solution is to make filters mandatory.

So I wouldn't just say it's the fault of the OMFGPR0N! crowd. They're just the excuse to do what has quite different reasons but can somehow not really be "sold" that way.

Re:Voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

Did Steve Kiddyporn upload/download illegal pictures of children? The ISP should have stopped it.

His name is Bryan Kiddyporn! Not everyone in Australia is called Bob or Steve!

Cheers
Bruce

Re:Voluntary

[ozphx]

You want filtering? No problem, we make a law that your ISP has to provide it at your request, for free

Australia already has that law. Free NetNanny for everyone that wants a "clean" connection.

Now ask me how many people have taken up this offer...

Re:Voluntary

[Opportunist]

Rest assured there will be a law that absolves them. Else the lights will go out pretty fast in the fiberoptic cables of Aussieland.

Because, as everyone here knows, there WILL be downloads and there WILL be illegal content, and you can filter however and whatever you like, it will get through. Now, ISPs are usually international companies, few are still single country. And when I am in constant danger of a lawsuit that threatens my very business in some country, I'll pull out. Providing internet services is a lossy business in Australia? Ok. Shut down the branch, we move the resources to some other country. It's done everywhere? Most ISPs are either also in telco or cable TV, so let's shut down the ISP biz and concentrate on the rest.

If ISPs become the new scapegoat of the sue happy industries, they will close their doors. Unlike real people, corporations can easily move, and they can easily "die" without anyone being hurt.

Re:Voluntary

[Fluffeh]

42.

That's actual people that took up the Netnanny offer before you start going on about some answer to life, the universe and everything.

Re:Voluntary

[DRobson]

You want filtering? No problem, we make a law that your ISP has to provide it at your request, for free

Australia already has that law. Free NetNanny for everyone that wants a "clean" connection.

Now ask me how many people have taken up this offer...

Only until the end of the year, at which point the government is mysteriously discontinuing the software...

Re:Voluntary

[Barny]

So if I get a business account I will be unfiltered?

If so I need to call internode about changing my plan :)

Re:Voluntary

[scurvyj]

Just can't trust them unfortunately, now that the two major parties are just 2 lobes of the same entity.

Btw - there IS a slower moving series than Terminator TSCC, its called True Blood aka Buffy For Chicks 101.

Re:Voluntary

[noz]

I could not find the statistics but I had read that very few were downloaded, and very few were subsequently "updated" (this was poorly defined; could be a database update or software).

It is called NetAlert.

Re:Voluntary

[Matt_R]

iiNet have said that NOBODY has EVER downloaded the free filtering software from their website.

Re:Voluntary

[Opportunist]

So we got proof that not a single user (ya know, like, we, the people) wants that crap?

Remind me again, who elects governments and for the reason to protect whose interests? I guess I got something wrong when we learned that at school.

Re:Voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

The better question would be: How long did this AU$84MILLION filter take a 16 year old to bypass?

Re:Voluntary

[Hurricane78]

Maybe they just want to be sure to never see TEH GOATSE (again).

I'd recommend nuking australia from orbit, but they never listen. :(
Besides: My death-to-ozone conspiracy will have the same effect is a few years anyway. MUHARHARHAR!! XD

Re:Voluntary

[Merusdraconis]

I'm confused: as far as I can see, about the only people who want this implemented are Stephen Conroy and Family First. The Liberals don't want it, the Greens don't want it, citizens don't want it, child protection groups don't want it, and ISPs are only doing it to prove to the government that they're lying about the speed impact.

Re:Voluntary

[QuantumG]

Australia has classification and censorship (aka banning) of film, tv, radio, video games, newspapers, magazines, advertisements.. why wouldn't we want classification and censorship of the Internet too? I, personally, think classification is a good thing, but it should be voluntary and banning/censorship is just draconian. But are my views in the majority? Who knows. The current policies of my government would not seem to indicate so.

Re:Voluntary

[DimmO]

G'day Bruce. Bruce 'ere.

Re:Voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't.

It may have been what you meant, but it's most certainly not what you said.

Re:Voluntary

[jamesh]

I only wish that the law was that broken. If it really is that broken it will get tested in court and it will turn out that it conflicts with a bunch of other things and be overturned.

Re:Voluntary

[LBt1st]

Sorry I'm having trouble understand you. Half of your post was filtered.

Re:Voluntary

[cheater512]

Or how many little kids have bypassed it within half a hour?

Re:Voluntary

[Platinumrat]

Don't you know anything about Australia. All Aussie males are called Bruce. All Aussie females are called Shella. All Aussies BBQ prawns and drink Fosters Lager. All Aussies keep Roos as pets.

Re:Voluntary

[rdnetto]

Now, ISPs are usually international companies, few are still single country.

I don't know how it works in the US (or wherever you live) but the 2 of the top 3 ISPs in Australia (Telstra and iiNet) only serve within Australia, AFAIK. There headquarters are here too, meaning it would be difficult to move, especially since they own so much of the local infrastructure.
The reason for this is likely that Australia is geographically isolated from other countries, being a continent in its own right.

Most ISPs are either also in telco or cable TV, so let's shut down the ISP biz and concentrate on the rest.

Telstra is a telco, but iiNet is only an ISP. There's actually talk of them providing IPTV next year, but that would be over the internet.
Besides, at least one company will remain, and feel free to charge whatever they want (probably Telstra, due to their government given monopoly on the infrastructure). Isn't that the situation in the US - few people can choose an ISP other than Comcast?

Re:Voluntary

[Anonymous Coward]

iiNet have said that NOBODY has EVER downloaded the free filtering software from their website.

I don't know anything about iiNet, but the American content filtering company I used to work for contracted in the latter part of 2007 with the Australian government (a division called the ACMA) to provide one of four different filtering options on netalert.gov.au. We alone had around ten thousand people (as of July 2008) download our software, and around half of those continued to use it month to month.

Ten thousand is far from none, but it's definitely not a lot. And yeah, the software is reeeeaaally easy to get around (if you aren't completely retarded).

Re:Voluntary

[svunt]

In fact, I can only think of one ISP in Australia - Optus - who *isn't* purely domestic...although a few like Dodo have NZ operations, but you'd hardly pull out of Australia and rely on NZ business.

Re:Voluntary

[dotar]

42 people who sure as shit won't be finding out about life, the universe, and everything...

Re:Voluntary

[GrpA]

  Actually, Verizon (Once, MCI, WorldCom, UUNET, and a long long time ago OzEmail) is one of the few International ISPs

  Optus is an Australian ISP - Don't confuse them with Singtel. Singtel *own* Optus, but Optus is a standalone company.

  There are other Aus/NZ ISPs - eg Maquarie, AAPT (Telecom NZ).

  Just off the top of my head.

  GrpA

Re:Voluntary

[tjonnyc999]

Oh hai. My name is Bruce too. Nice to meet you, chaps.

Re:Voluntary

[couchslug]

"Only the ISPs are against voluntary filtering at the ISP level."

Interesting asserted conclusion, which implies that the entire public want a completely filtered internet experienced determined by their ISP.

Re:Voluntary

[theaveng]

I'm looking forward to seeing Australian parents arrested because they posted naked photos of their children having fun at the local clothes-optional resort. Or a husband arrested because he took photos of his wife at the topless beach and posted them on the family website.

It will make the Aussie government look incredibly stupid and Puritan.

Re:Voluntary

[theaveng]

That's the thing - in a TRULY free society, things like films and books should not be banned. They should be restricted (i.e. "for adults only") but not banned. In the United States for example, children in sexual acts are banned. Photos of adults dressed as children or CGI children are not, due to freedom of expression.

Re:Voluntary

[FredFredrickson]

CGI children are not, due to freedom of expression.

Actually, heh, in the US, I'm not so sure that's the case. In fact, it's kinda up in the air. I certainly wouldn't try right now...
PROTECT ACT 2003
LOLICON

Re:Voluntary

[w0mprat]

Actually participation is voluntary. Considering how trivial it is to circumvent.

Re:Voluntary

[Opportunist]

Then you'll probably see their stock plummet when they are hit with the first lawsuits, someone will buy them out, crack open what's valuable and dump the husk.

Point is, when operating a business becomes unprofitable, shareholders will drop stock and pull out their money and the company goes under. Whether Australia has an ISP or not is of no importance to them. I hardly think the main backbone providers of Australia are small mom&pop shops operated by the very people who own them, who pretty much have to continue their business to have a job. Money goes where money is to be made, and risky business venues are usually not where the majority of stock owners want to put theirs, especially not in instable economic times.

Encryption

[vvaduva]

This is the time to invest in and bring to market an encryption product to the masses in Australia. What would stop a US company from selling cheap VPN tunnels to end users down under?

Re:Encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

What would stop a US company from selling cheap VPN tunnels to end users down under?

Not a damn thing. Which is one of the primary reasons why this whole thing is such a stupid pointless waste of time and money.

Re:Encryption

[olesaltyballs]

Or perhaps a chunk of shoddy hardware that only works with a sacrifice to HAL on the 13th full moon. I can think of several vendors able to fill that role.

Re:Encryption

[Hatta]

That's brilliant! Good thing there's no way for the Australian government to stop its citizens from accessing your site.

Re:Encryption

[compro01]

There's plenty of options already available, such as TorrentFreedom and VPNTunnel.

Re:Encryption

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

IIRC, TPB currently offers such a service for a small fee.

Re:Encryption

[Tovok7]

Nothing. There already is a Swedish offering: https://www.relakks.com/?cid=gb

Re:Encryption

[Opportunist]

As someone who watches the success of botnets despite widespread efforts to blacklist trojan servers (by URL, IP, subnets...), I'd say when a group of zealous, dedicated and passionate people fighting malware can't even gain a foot, a group of underpaid, usually underfunded and undermotivated public officials won't really succeed either.

Re:Encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a damn thing. Which is one of the primary reasons why this whole thing is such a stupid pointless waste of time and money.

To a degree...

Filtering hits China, and people say "The fools! Anyone in China can just tunnel out to somewhere without censorship, like Australia!"

Filtering hits China, and people say "The fools! Anyone in Australia [and those previously tunneling from China] can just tunnel out to somewhere without censorship, like the US!"

Yep, I like where that's going.

Re:Encryption

[Onthax]

Would this be hit under the DMCA for circumventing a copy protection mechanism? since they will be blocking the downloading of illegal material (movies, music, etc) it would be illegal to use a vpn to the us to bypass the filter the joys of picking up the DMCA with the free trade agreement

Re:Encryption

[sr180]

There are a plethora of products already, all designed so we can access 'US only' websites - such as media sites, extras on Itunes etc etc.

Re:Encryption

[bds1986]

You answered your own question:

Would this be hit under the DMCA for circumventing a copy protection mechanism?

since they will be blocking the downloading of illegal material

The filter does not prevent copying, it prevents downloading. So it is not a copy protection mechanism.

Re:Encryption

[westlake]

This is the time to invest in and bring to market an encryption product to the masses in Australia.

But do the Aussies want encryption more than they want filtering? The upstream block against hard-core porn is an easy sell to most parents. That makes your cheap VPN tunnel a product for the geek and not a product for "the masses."

Re:Encryption

[Bane1998]

What would stop a US company from selling cheap VPN tunnels to end users down under?

Not a damn thing. Which is one of the primary reasons why this whole thing is such a stupid pointless waste of time and money.

Saying it won't do anything is missing the point, and selling out your own beliefs. It's the inverse of 'If you have nothing to hide, being searched shouldn't bother you.

You are correct. The people who want to get through it will always be able to. But that does not in ANY way make it a pointless waste. I will explain...

There will be new laws. Now if you access any blocked content, you broke a law about circumventing government filters. Just because you can still do something even if it's illegal, doesn't mean it's ok for it to be illegal.

Secondly, it may be easy for YOU to get around the filters, but your average person doesn't have a clue. And since selling services to get around it will be illegal, they won't be able to buy it either. They'll have to find it underground, which implies they even know that an underground exists in the first place, or how to get there for that matter. They are effectively controlled. And that's a bad thing.

Saying it's pointless is really shortsighted. You fail to understand the full ramifications of an action like this. The fact you can easily get around it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue itself. At best, it's stupid thinking. At worst, it's pure selfishness. (As long as YOU can still access the internet, you don't care)

Re:Encryption

[rdnetto]

But from a legal perspective, isn't downloading the act of copying data? The only users of the service would be intent on downloading illegal (or controversial, since they want to expand the scope of the filter) material, so the service could be seen as encouraging illegal acts.
iiNet is getting sued for the same thing, and that's only because they are the only ISP which provides high speed connections with large caps relatively cheap, meaning that they are the ISP of choice for BT users.
http://www.iinet.net.au/about/media/releases/201108_iinet_to_defend_court_action.pdf

Re:Encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to popular belief. There exists other countries than the US.

Why would Australians be held to laws local to the land of Fat, Loud and Stupid ?

Re:Encryption

[mpe]

But do the Aussies want encryption more than they want filtering?

Considering how many governments appear to want to be able to spy on Internet traffic why wouldn't they want encryption?

The upstream block against hard-core porn is an easy sell to most parents.

If you ask N people on what should be blocked you will get at least N different answers.

Re:Encryption

[HungryHobo]

Any idea of the legality of publishing simple a step by step explanation of how to use a VPN along with a list of providers in various countries and their prices in australia?
Not selling the service, just letting the uninformed know that such things exist.

Re:Encryption

[mblaney]

Not a chance of this happening! If you try to offer such as service or mention one on your website, you will be added to the all consuming blacklist. You see, we have a smart government down here, they will always be one step ahead of you...

Re:Encryption

[msormune]

So why would you pay a US company for the VPN and download warez, when you could go to a store and buy the warez legally with the money? :)

Re:Encryption

[jbolden]

I'd assume if you are going start ISP level net filtering and not just use some netnanny type thing, you block all encrypted communication. You probably also switch from black lists to white lists and some sort of direct connection isn't allowed in TCP. You assume in the system that the people on both sides are engaged in circumvention and make that impossible.

Re:Encryption

[jbolden]

I don't know the numbers for Australia but porn and sex chat represents a huge percentage of America's paid internet usage and has for a long time. What do people do on Second Life?

I don't think the situation is symmetrical at all.

Re:Encryption

[Chris Mattern]

You assume that anybody involved in this project has any real interest in actually making it effective.

This is all about being able to go the voters next election and say, "I helped fight Internet child porn!" Or, to be more accurate, it's to prevent the opposition from saying, "Politician X voted in favor of Internet child porn!"

Re:Encryption

[jbolden]

I hope you are right and this isn't like China's system. Having a well documented total failure will be good for the rest of the free world as well as Australia.

Re:Encryption

[elrous0]

What's to stop the Australian filter vendors from adding those cheap VPN tunnel sites to their blacklists?

Re:Encryption

[elrous0]

My feelings exactly. The logical response to trolls taking over your village's bridges isn't "Don't worry, we can still swim."

I hate trolls.

Re:Encryption

[theaveng]

>>>If you have nothing to hide, being searched shouldn't bother you.

The problem is that you might BELIEVE you have nothing to hide, but the police uncover something that you did not realize is illegal to own, and thus you consented to getting yourself arrested. Always, always say no to a search unless the police can provide a warrant.

Re:Encryption

[VeNoM0619]

Let's just be perfectly honest with ourselves... The internet isn't free to host whatever material you like. The internet is ALREADY being censored everywhere. Last I checked there are not as many (if any at all, I heard rumors of 'private' ones still being active though) kid porn sites as there were 10 years ago. We have already removed them, or blacklisted, and anyone who does go to them; expect the police at your door.

The only difference here is: the government will choose sites they deem not in the best interest of providing them more power over its citizens, without scrutiny.

I find this whole situation laughable, because people weren't in an up rise about the filtering until they no longer had control of what would be filtered. It's not the fact it's being filtered (like some people act like it is) that people are mad.

Re:Encryption

[theaveng]

EXAMPLE:

The police are searching for illegal immigrants hiding in your car, but instead find a copy of Britney's latest song that you innocently downloaded from amazon.com to your Ipod, and thereby you get yourself arrested. Even if you are later freed, it's a massive inconvenience to be drug downtown and thrown into jail. Better to "just say no".

Re:Encryption

[RobertLTux]

because Businesses in AU want to be able to trade with the Businesses in the land of The Fat Loud and Stupid

Re:Encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

The logical response to trolls taking over your village's bridges isn't "Don't worry, we can still swim."

(Original AC replying here.)

This isn't trolls taking over our bridges - this is our village elders hiring trolls to guard our bridges in order to stop gypsies from stealing our children. What I'm trying to say is that the elders are wasting everyone's time and money by hiring the trolls in the first place. Firstly because not all gypsies are child-stealers, and secondly because the child-stealing gypsies are just going to swim across and come in to the village anyway. The trolls are also going to cause massive problems for the local farmers bringing their produce in to market, because they'll have to search every cart and barrel in case there's gypsies hidden inside. And then there's those in the village who enjoy gypsy music, who will now have to swim across the river to go hear it played...

(OK, and that's stretched that analogy about as far as it can go.)

Re:Encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact you can easily get around it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue itself.

(Original AC replying here.)

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that I don't care what they do because I know how to get around it. I was saying that the fact that this system is not actually going to perform its intended function is one of the reasons why it's a waste of time and money implementing it, whether you think that there's a legitimate reason or need for such a system (which I most definitely don't).

Dangerous

[Eravnrekaree]

I do not believe any government should censor speech. This sort of technology is ripe for abuse. There will probably be sites which "accidently" are filtered, maybe sites with unpopular political views, or legal material, such as adult pornography. As well, this sets dangerous precedents as well, that government has a right to censor things. It could set a dangerous precedent for censoring things we all agree should not be censored, like pornography of consenting adults and unpopular (communist, marxist, etc) political views.

Re:Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

They're already adding otherwise legal sites to the blacklist. From the second link:

One of the more recent concerns over the blacklist is its extension from 1,300 sites to 11,300 sites containing "objectionable material", the content of which has not been made clear. The only details that have been divulged about them is that pro-euthanasia and pro-anorexia sites will be included on the blacklist.

Re:Dangerous

[QuantumG]

You say this like it's a new thing. The Classification Board has been censoring stuff for decades.

Re:Dangerous

[Chabil Ha']

Funny, I blogged about something similar:

Recently, I wrote about the concept of an Internet that knows no boundaries in relation to how content is distributed and consumed, but today I would like to talk about it in the broader sense of free speech and censorship.

I find Internet censorship to be a deplorable concept, not because it prevents me from consuming things that a jurisdictional entity considers inappropriate or immoral, but because it stymies the legitimate aggregation and consumption of ideas.

One of the more interesting side effects of the Information Revolution has been the unification of our people--not in some patriotic or otherwise political sense, but our entire race. We can now explore and understand the world around us in ways that were not previously possible. I can converse with someone that was present in the Mumbai attacks last week, talk to an Islamic jihadist, converse with my parents across the country, and participate in a discussion on the election of a black president. I can read about the newest innovations in the scientific world, find the latest juice on my favorite celebrity, watch a movie produced by some indie director, and play a game that some 12 year old wrote in his mom's basement. The Internet is free (libre) to our imaginations and thoughts to explore.

Therefore, it is not too hard to imagine that there are those that have expressions that differ from our own tastes and acceptances. Does that mean that the we have the right to muzzle them? Remember, the Internet is free (libre) from jurisdictional bounds, so who are we to restrict what is published there? Is child pornography justification enough to silence the innocent voices of those who may become collateral damage in the censorship fight against it? Is copyright so sacrosanct that it should smother legally distributed content as well?

Australians are in the fight of their lives to take back their freedom of speech, revoked by the government, a victim in the so called fight against child porn. It is very easy to say that these new powers won't do very much as far as stopping and preventing child porn, but it isn't too much of a stretch to say the sole purpose of these laws is to grant the government self-anointed power to control the things that its constituents publish and view.

The Internet is still new territory, that is for sure, but we have an opportunity to break down language, cultural, racial, educational, and political barriers with it. Why would we destroy it with crusades against things over which there is little or no control? Are we so myopic that we think the the tragedies of child pornography and human trafficking will be reduced (or even end) with maiming the one medium of humanity's greatest achievement of interpersonal communication?

I trust no man, not even myself, to control such power because even the wisest of the wise are not infallible, incorruptible, or undeceivable. No, let the Internet be what humanity shapes it to be. Through the portals of this great experiment in human discourse, we get to peel back the layers of filters to see what humanity really is. And maybe that is what makes it so uncomfortable to ponder--because we may not like what we see.

Re:Dangerous

[plasmacutter]

It could set a dangerous precedent for censoring things we all agree should not be censored, like pornography of consenting adults and unpopular (communist, marxist, etc) political views.

if it's unpopular, clearly we don't "all" agree on that.

I don't condone the censorship, but let's be logical in our analysis.

Also, religious reactionaries world-wide would love to see the internet devoid of consenting adult pornography.

Re:Dangerous

[Opportunist]

What a coincidence! I would love to see the internet devoid of religious reactionaries.

But I guess when everyone gets to blacklist what he doesn't like, the internet gets quite dark pretty quickly.

I don't like a few political, religious or other views. But their right to voice their opinion is as valid as mine. I consider it wrong to tell anyone what to read, think, write or say. The only line I draw is at the "do" part of your freedoms, if they cut into someone else's freedoms.

Or, put another way, there cannot be harm in knowledge. There may be harm in applying it (like, say, knowing how to build a bomb vs. actually building and using it), but knowledge alone has never harmed anyone nor can it harm anyone.

Re:Dangerous

[Fluffeh]

Yup, they liked what they saw in China, and thought... "Hey, I want me one of those firewall things...". Disgraceful.

Re:Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

pro-euthanasia and pro-anorexia sites will be included on the blacklist.

Bring it on, KRUDD! Stand between me and my blog will you?

I got through my boyfriend's firewall and I'll get through yours!

Re:Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

You can see their list of RC (Refused Classification, ie illegal in Aus) content tho. The clean-feed blacklist will not be publicly reviewed.

Re:Dangerous

[deniable]

And unlike the MPAA in the US, they do things in the open and subject to public review.

Re:Dangerous

[srjh]

MPAA ratings are purely voluntary, though. In Australia, the Classifications are legally enforced.

And the Australian Classifications are pretty draconian - if a video game is unsuitable for children it's banned outright (GTA, Fallout 3, F.E.A.R. 2, Silent Hill, Singles: Flirt Up Your Life, Manhunt have all been banned in Australia). Every state in Australia has all X-rated material on the RC list. Even fairly tame Penthouse-level material is banned if they don't verify the user's age using a credit card or other equivalent.

Until now, though, it's been impossible to enforce for overseas websites.

Re:Dangerous

[deniable]

MPAA ratings are purely voluntary, though.

Really? How do I show a film that I haven't had voluntarily classified?

if a video game is unsuitable for children it's banned outright (GTA, Fallout 3, F.E.A.R. 2, Silent Hill, Singles: Flirt Up Your Life, Manhunt have all been banned in Australia). Every state in Australia has all X-rated material on the RC list.

States, but not territories. There are efforts to allow R rated games, but these are being blocked by one state Attorney General.

Re:Dangerous

[daver00]

The best part: Unclassifiable material is banned... ok, and? I hear you say, well in our grand nation there is no R rating for online content, much like there is no R rating for video game content. Thus these things will be banned.

This leads us to the absurd situation whereby under the current proposals you will not be able to legally stream video content that you can hire from the video store down the road... if its rated 'naughty'.

Re:Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro-anorexia sites will be included on the blacklist? There go all the fashion magazines.

Re:Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

It's likely that pornography of consenting adults will be blocked somewhat. All DVD pornography is illegal in most states here and all states ban at least some DVD porn.

Re:Dangerous

[mpe]

I do not believe any government should censor speech. This sort of technology is ripe for abuse.

In practice it's likely to be a provate company under government contract. Which is if anything worst. Government is in theory answerable to the public. Also the political views of a private company can be considerably less transparent (and even more extreme) compared with the vast majority of political parties.

Re:Dangerous

[jbolden]

You deserve the +3, pro-euthanasia and pro-anorexia this is pure political censorship.

Re:Dangerous

[Chris Mattern]

Really? How do I show a film that I haven't had voluntarily classified?

By showing it in theaters that are willing to show unrated films. They do exist, you know.

Re:Dangerous

[elrous0]

But what of the pro-bulimia sites?!?!? I really NEED those, dammit!

Unwanted?

[Tubal-Cain]

then loading the blacklist of unwanted sites.

Obviously someone wants these sites, else there would be no need to blacklist them.

Re:Unwanted?

[77Punker]

then loading the blacklist of unwanted sites.

Obviously someone wants these sites, else there would be no need to blacklist them.

What about the majority of the videos on Youtube?

Re:Unwanted?

[QuantumG]

Actually. The government's assumption is that reasonable Australians don't want to see hard core porn and other "offensive" material. You disagree? Oh, you're just being unreasonable.

This is what decades of tolerating film and media classification has done to us.

Re:Unwanted?

[Tubal-Cain]

Eh, if the government didn't classify movies and such, we'd have a hodgepodge of private organizations doing it; with wildly varying results. One family's NC-17 rating is another family's PG. Also, the rating system has grown more lax over time. Imagine this occurring in the aforementioned hodgepodge at varying rates of decay.

So I'm fine with a single classification system, but I want them to be guidelines for consumer convenience, not rules set in stone.

Re:Unwanted?

[QuantumG]

The problem is that it is illegal to sell a film in Australia without a classification, and that the Classification Board has the right, which it exercises often, to refuse classification. This effectively bans films which are considered "offensive".

My solution would be to make all films immediately R18+. You must be 18 years of age or older to purchase them. If the distributor wants to apply for a lesser rating, they can do so. Now all the "think of the children" morons are placated and the rest of us can watch a movie revolving around the abusive home lives of teenage skateboarders without the government getting involved.

Re:Unwanted?

[spoco2]

I'm fine with them having blacklists... but I want it to be OPT IN.

This making it mandatory, and the default starting point is TERRIBLE.

Allow households to opt in to blocking sites and at a number of different levels
[ ] Pornography
[ ] Hate literature
[ ] whatever...

That would be fine.

But making it the default, and you having to OPT OUT means that the vast majority will let this slide, the apathy will allow it to become the norm.

AND then the government is going to have to wear the shitstorm that will occur when parents have their kids accessing 'objectionable' material even though it was supposed to be blocked.

I used to work for FreeOnline, the largest free internet provider that ever was in Australia. We had a 'freezone' that had sites that didn't eat into your free time each month, and then everything else did.

The WORK to keep that thing maintained was horrendous... the government just doesn't understand how unworkable this is.

Re:Unwanted?

[enoz]

Reasonable Australians don't want to see hard core porn (X-18+), yet the only two places where it can be legally sold is ACT (home of the federal government) and NT.

Re:Unwanted?

[QuantumG]

Actually, the idea is that the clean feed for kids will be opt in. The controversy is that apparently there will be mandatory filtering for "offensive" material.. which includes anything that would be X rated (which is only available in the ACT and NT) or refused classification (NC). Particularly, this includes any porn where the participants are engaged in sex (rather than just pretending to be).. aka, all hardcore.

Re:Unwanted?

[Anonymous Coward]

But making it the default, and you having to OPT OUT means that the vast majority will let this slide, the apathy will allow it to become the norm.

You seem to think we can OPT OUT... The censor/filter is mandatory, not optional

Re:Unwanted?

[dougisfunny]

They don't care how unworkable it is, as long as they have the power to censor things on demand.

Re:Unwanted?

[TapeCutter]

As a fellow Aussie I find most of your posts insightfull and informative. However I feel compeled to point out the phrase "which it exercises often" only applies for certain definitions of often.

I think the classification board does a great job but I disagree with outright bans on philosophical grounds. The current push for filtering is a storm in a tea-cup and is driven by the governments need to placate senator Fielding. After KRuddy has got what he wants out of Fielding the mandatory filtering legislation will fail to pass the senate and the political fallout will land directly on Fielding at the next election.

Re:Unwanted?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, I disagree. I'm NOT fine with them having blacklists. Allowing households to opt in to blocking sites and at a number of different levels is NOT fine. Simply put, the government has no reason to be doing this. If the people want filtering, the private sector can provide it (and they do.) Why does the government need to stick its nose in this?

There's no reason except as a tool for censorship.

Re:Unwanted?

[deniable]

Actually, the rules vary from state to state. There are things (like Peter Jackson's Bad Taste) that sell themselves on being "banned in Queensland." There is also the fact that Canberra is where you go for hard core porn. So, the solution is to get your local MP to pick some up while Parliament is sitting.

Re:Unwanted?

[spoco2]

No, there will be mandatory filtering on ILLEGAL material only. Child pornography, bestiality etc. And while, yes, X rated material is only available in the ACT and NT by law... that law is in NO way enforced. I can almost guarantee this mandatory blacklist will NOT block all hardcore sex.

They haven't actually stated what's in the list, but I would say it'll be:

Child Pornography
Rape (Or any non-consensual sexual stuff I would imagine)
Bestiality

I'm basing this on past Australian government things, and just the line they have taken in the past.

There will be lobby groups who will try and get all and sundry included in the mandatory list, and it will be fascinating to see how it plays out.

And scary.

And crap.

But still fascinating.

Re:Unwanted?

[repvik]

My solution would be to make all films immediately R18+. You must be 18 years of age or older to purchase them. If the distributor wants to apply for a lesser rating, they can do so. Now all the "think of the children" morons are placated and the rest of us can watch a movie revolving around the abusive home lives of teenage skateboarders without the government getting involved.

That is actually how things work here in Norway these days. Good Thing (TM) if you ask me.

Re:Unwanted?

[srjh]

Unfortunately that couldn't be further from the truth.

First of all, the filter's scope is definitely beyond illegal material. See here for a legal explanation of the terms - most RC and prohibited content is actually perfectly legal to possess.

Secondly, the minister has actually confirmed that sites such as pro-euthanasia websites will be banned. Drug use is also enough to get material put on the list. We're consistently told that the worst material on the list is child pornography, but that's beside the point - we need to know what the least harmful material on the blacklist is to make an informed decision. But we won't - the list is a government secret, and you will be jailed for revealing it.

And these "lobby groups" trying to add whatever the fuck they want to the filter? They hold the balance of power in the senate... in fact it seems that a major motivation behind the Government's plan is to buy their votes. Those lobby groups want all pornography banned outright, others want gambling websites blocked. The filter will in no way stop at "illegal" material.

Re:Unwanted?

[jaxtherat]

Man I wish I lived in your country :/

All *AUSSIE PRIDE!!!!!1111one* guys can shut the fuck up, our country has been going down the toilet since the mid 90's

Re:Unwanted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Before which it was coming out of Britain's arse :P

Re:Unwanted?

[hool5400]

That's an interesting point. If I'm in the NT or ACT, will I be subject to a less strict version of the filter? It doesn't look like that's their intention, but I wonder if it's occurred to them.

Re:Unwanted?

[srjh]

Close - the clean feed will be opt-out.

You'll be put on it by default, and if you want to access something that has been deemed inappropriate for children, you'll have to ring your ISP to change from the default filter.

Re:Unwanted?

[QuantumG]

Maybe for new customers. But they can't do that to existing customers.. it's a violation of contract.

Re:Unwanted?

[spoco2]

That link doesn't actually clarify anything they merely state 'It could be any number of things' and then go on to mention things that might be banned.

It's all conjecture.

Which is part of the problem, it should be completely transparent. Actually, it just shouldn't exist in the first place, but if it did it should be transparent.

Re:Unwanted?

[daver00]

No, because the filter will be more strict than what you see on state video store shelves. There is no R classification for online content, thus the situation online will be the same as the situation with video games: In the eyes of the government, we are all children.

Re:Unwanted?

[martinX]

Hard core porn is banned in the states. Canberra and the NT are territories.

Mind you, what passes for "hard core" in the Territories is nothing compared to what you can find with three seconds searching the net.

Even movies of consensual urophilia is banned in Oz. I heard. From an acquaintance. That I don't really know.

Re:Unwanted?

[spoco2]

I don't see why a purely opt in system would rub your nose so far out of joint.

Why are the private sector better for doing this than the government? You're telling me private enterprises wouldn't have vested interests in blocking certain sites... just slipping in things they want blocked? If it really were a purely opt in service, I would have no issue with the government handling it, as long as the lists were managed transparently.

Now... having said that, I still think it's a stupid and unworkable thing to be spending time on, I just don't see why you think that private sector would do this so much better?

Re:Unwanted?

[cheater512]

Jeez you need to get a life if you want to watch stuff like that. :P

Re:Unwanted?

[jaxtherat]

Touche.

Re:Unwanted?

[deniable]

If you're going to nitpick, Canberra is a city. The ACT is a territory. :)

Re:Unwanted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe for new customers. But they can't do that to existing customers.. it's a violation of contract.

Wrong. If the law requires filtering, that will override any contract.
Anyhow, most contracts will contain some clause about 'subject to legal requirements'

Re:Unwanted?

[LoztInSpace]

Well there are 100s of shops selling hard core porn of various flavours quite openly in Melbourne alone. You would never know it was illegal.

Re:Unwanted?

[mpe]

Eh, if the government didn't classify movies and such, we'd have a hodgepodge of private organizations doing it; with wildly varying results. One family's NC-17 rating is another family's PG.

This might not be such a bad thing, if people could choose to follow the ratings of whatever groups they trusted to represent their own POV.

Re:Unwanted?

[mpe]

Allow households to opt in to blocking sites and at a number of different levels
[ ] Pornography
[ ] Hate literature

At least with pornography it is possible to come up with some objective metrics. However when it comes to "hate speach" all too often definitions equate to how much the person (or group) making the decision agrees with what's being said or even who the "speaker" is.

Re:Unwanted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says reasonable australians dont want to see it?
With the latest political pary just created - the sex party, i would hazard a guess at least *some*
Uassies would want to see it.

Re:Unwanted?

[martinX]

OK, you win :-)

FWIW, I saw Bad Taste and even Caligula in Queensland. And I saw a really strange Debbie Does Dallas in SA - all the HC stuff was removed by zooming in on the video so you couldn't see much except Debbie's ear moving side-to-side, accompanied by gurgling and slurping noises. And some cheesy 70s porn music. Oh wait...

Re:Unwanted?

[martinX]

In Qld, we could pop over the border to NSW for HC mags. In fact, I first saw beastiality on a mag purchased from NSW. "Keyhole Bookshop" was the name of the purveyor, IIRC. And the magazine's depiction of German women was quite interesting.

Too sum up ....

[dbIII]

We'll all be rooned.

Re:Too sum up ....

[GaryPatterson]

said Hanrahan, before the year is out.

Unethical

[nightfire-unique]

Won't somebody please think of the children, who will be grown-ups one day -- grown-ups shackled with the consequences of implementing this unethical system?

Re:Unethical

[nmoog]

Except even the people who ask us to please think of the children don't want this one!

Re:Unethical

[Anonymous Coward]

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. 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." - Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Re:Unethical

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only have you Godwinned this discussion, you have done it with a made up quote. Hitler did not write that.

The first clause, "the state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people," appears in Mein Kampf, where Hitler is referring to the importance of eugenics.

Re:Unethical

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument is now over. Thanks for losing it for us.

Re:Unethical

[Samah]

From the article you linked:

The idea of doing whatever was possible in stopping the problem at the source, including education of parents, kids, teachers and politicians, and serious law enforcement efforts at detection and prosecution of perpetrators and distributors, was seen as probably as, or more, effective than a filter initially aimed at preventing inadvertent browsing of child porn on the web by young people.

So, we're only blocking child porn from being viewed by children? It's alright for adults? What a terrible notion and/or poor choice of words.

Re:Unethical

[SysDaemon]

It seems that I will have to believe you as I can't access Mein Kampf in this jurisdiction -all I get is "This material has been deemed to be inappropriate, your IP number has been logged".

Re:Unethical

[yttrstein]

Why is it always insightful to pull an ironic quote from Mein Kampf?

blacklist

[Haffner]

The government is okay with contracting out the restriction of information to a vendor? I hope I don't live to see the day when a company is deciding what I can see and what I can't.

Re:blacklist

[rdnetto]

Does this mean that people working for the company will be able to set up back doors? ;)

technical ramifications of network filtering

[liraz]

Putting aside the question of whether filtering is desirable in the first place ("think of the children!"), or issues regarding the potential for future abuse (e.g., censorship of unpopular speech, and who determines what needs to be filtered in the first place) at the technical level any halfway-reliable filtering technology that peeks into the transport layer is going to add a huge amount of overhead that will increase costs and degrade performance. Good for the equipment companies, but bad for everyone who would prefer their Internet connection as dumb and fast as possible.

OTOH, OpenDNS provides a free, opt-in filtering service available to anyone who wants it. It's very easy to deploy, why not just use that?

Re:technical ramifications of network filtering

[enoz]

The Government has already provided an opt-in downloadable filter, however the service became a joke as soon as it was deployed.

Re:technical ramifications of network filtering

[duckInferno]

Potential future abuse? What about actual present abuse; I submit TFA as evidence of such.

And then of course...

[yttrstein]

We patch apache (patch XXX obviously) to toss back hex or D-word IP addresses when hit with them. Actually I don't think a patch is necessary; I can think of a quick and dirty way to do it in Korn with forward and reverse proxying on..huh, pretty much any apache from 1.33 on.

Then all we need to do is wait until the Aussies load so many obfuscated hosts into their border boxen that they all fry themselves and the silly idea it is will be really quite clear to anyone with opposable thumbs.

Re:And then of course...

[KlausBreuer]

"...the silly idea it is will be really quite clear to anyone with opposable thumbs."

You're right, of course. However, may I add that this does not apply to politicians. They have a spectacularly strong loss of real-world contact, and usually very little brain in the first place. Thus, even wile they might have opposable thumbs, they are normally just used to deny things by turning them down.

"Unwanted Content"

[brainfsck]

ISP-level filtering is a viable way to stop 'unwanted content' from reaching users

Unwanted by whom?

Re:"Unwanted Content"

[Techman83]

Senator Steven "Liar" Conroy. He has claimed over and over, that the Mandatory system he wishes to implement is of the same variety as what's in Europe. NSW calls Conroy on Euro filter fudge'

Which after a little searching one finds completely untrue. He has been questioned by other members of parliament and skirted around the issue by feeding the "Unwanted Material" line.

While this is potentially bad

[Anonymous Coward]

What good could come from it?

There could be some new and interesting ways to get around such filtering?
Gains the attention of more people to find against such stupidity?

THE INTERNET SHOULD BE FREE, FOREVER.
Filtering should only ever be done on the client end!

Re:While this is potentially bad

[jork]

This could create a new line of work by accident. Perhaps along the lines of SEO. (Filter experts?)

Re:While this is potentially bad

[obeythefist]

Huh? No new and interesting way to get around such filtering is needed. Any VPN, proxy, anonymiser, tunnel etc will do it in moments. High school kids bypassed it in less than 2 minutes when it was demo'd at a local school.

Although you could have been sarcastic and I missed it.

"They have painted a yellow line around the doorway. We must now try to investigate new methods to bypass this yellow barrier. Perhaps we will step over it and see how that goes."

Sadly, the mandatory filtering is bypassed in moments, simply doesn't work, and adds a layer of overhead to our already woeful internet connectivity.

December 24?

[Anonymous Coward]

Merry Christmas!! Here's your broken internet!

more ISP choices

[deviceb]

Users should have more choice of ISPs, even from the upstream tier.
Provide the network infrastructure to move packets fast & reliably -ISP job description

URL based to start with

[teh moges]

The paper says that the filtering will be URL based (to start with, possibly moving to other methods later). With that in mind, I present my (patented..?) two step method to bypassing the filter:

Step 1: Get IP address of blocked site
Step 2: Enter that IP address

Re:URL based to start with

[Anonymous Coward]

That will most likely land you on the default 'It works' page in the docroot for the default VirtualHost.

Re:URL based to start with

[plasmacutter]

The paper says that the filtering will be URL based (to start with, possibly moving to other methods later). With that in mind, I present my (patented..?) two step method to bypassing the filter:

Step 1: Get IP address of blocked site

Step 2: Enter that IP address

easier, one time version:

go to internet settings under DNS
enter non-aussie or independent DNS

Re:URL based to start with

[Anonymous Coward]

You can use 4.2.2.1 through 4.2.2.5

If I recall correctly, they're provided by various tier-1 carriers and telecoms (Level 3, Verizon, etc.).

Re:URL based to start with

[Klootzak]

That'll work fine unless they're using Name Based Virtual Hosts.

Regardless, as (almost) all of us know there's a number of ways to bypass this bloody stupid filter.

Disclaimer: I don't think Child Pornography should be legal. However, I very strongly disagree that the Government has the right to put in access-Level filtering, regardless of their case.
The ends DO NOT justify the means.

Re:URL based to start with

[mdmkolbe]

Umm, that's how most web browsers already work.

Step 1: Use DNS to get address of site.
Step 2: Use IP address to send packets to site (usually over HTTP).

The DNS server only ever sees the site name (not the path after the site name). It is only later in the HTTP protocol that the actual URL gets sent. At that point the browser is already using the IP address (though the server name may optionally be buried in the HTTP headers).

This means that URL based filtering is a non-starter (and every network operator knows it). Not only is it expensive for to filter higher level protocols like HTTP, but it is trivially easy for a site to change URL path just enough to bypass the filters.

It is much more likely that the government will give a list of domain names (e.g. foo.bar.com) or IP addressed to be blocked. Blocking IP addresses is actually quite easy for an ISP (routers are already segregating packets based on IP address). But if the government wants to block domain names then the ISPs will have to constantly keep looking up the DNS record for that domain. This would be expensive and onerous. Even then, someone could setup a DNS server that gives false information when queried by the Government/ISP and true information otherwise. This could be determined either by source address or by some password or secure authentication (there are numerous possibilities here).

Summary, URL and Domain blocking is out, IP address blocking will be in. Unfortunately, the later isn't technologically all that hard.

(Question: Suppose you wanted to get around IP address blocking, but didn't need the overhead of anonymity that Tor provides. You just need an automated way to find peers on the other side of "The Wall" to act as proxies. Is there something out there to do this that might perform better than Tor?)

Re:URL based to start with

[martijnd]

If we are going to patent things, then I would like to patent "salted" domain names.

1) User enters URL
2) Browser obtains DNS for www.hardcore.com
3) Browser "salts" domain name (eg. "www.hardcore.com" becomes www.War3Nop3.com)
4) Browser sends request
5) Web server "desalts" (through plugin) and finds that its www.hardcore.com website matches
6) Web server sends www.hardcore.com data

Some extra overhead -- but not much. Needs a bit of tuning, but voila. Of course, we could also just use HTTPS instead.

Re:URL based to start with

[enoz]

Question: Suppose you wanted to get around IP address blocking, but didn't need the overhead of anonymity that Tor provides. You just need an automated way to find peers on the other side of "The Wall" to act as proxies. Is there something out there to do this that might perform better than Tor?)

This isn't automated, but it would probably work.

Re:URL based to start with

[Eil]

Step 1: Get IP address of blocked site
Step 2: Enter that IP address

That won't work on the vast majority of sites out there which either use name-based virtual hosting or complicated load balancers, both of which depend on the correct hostname being in the URL.

In the old days, a common trick to get around URL filters was to put a '.' at the end of the TLD as in:

http://www.example.com./

The '.' is the root of the DNS hierarchy. It's optional when specifying an Internet hostname but all software which handles domain names is required to handle it properly. Programmers of early web filters didn't know this so if they put the following URL into their block list:

http://www.example.com/*

Adding the dot meant the URL wouldn't match the entry in the blocklist. All the vendors patched this pretty quickly though and then the next workaround discovered was encoding the domain name as its hex equivalent. Took longer for the vendors to patch that, but they finally did. Most of the web filters out there have had plenty of time to come up to speed on all the workarounds by this point, though.

Re:URL based to start with

[Iamthecheese]

I do think Child Pornography should be legal. There is never a legetimate reason to stop information. For society to be free, information must only be stopped at the source (security) or destination (filtering)

Re:URL based to start with

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, what website is going to implement that just so us ozzies can get to their site?

There's about the same number of people in NYC than in all of Aus, we really aren't that big a part of the internet that people outside Aus will change the way they do things so we can get around a stupid law.

Re:URL based to start with

[gujo-odori]

Child pornography is not "information." Child pornography is a product made through the rape and other sexual abuse of children.

Since no one could possibly believe that CP is just "information" (and I have a very low opinion of the intelligence of most people), the most likely explanation for your position on this is that you are a consumer and/or producer of child pornography yourself.

Never a legitimate reason to stop information? That's so ridiculous it's beneath discussion.

Re:URL based to start with

[Anonymous Coward]

4.2.2.1 & 4.2.2.2 definitely belong to Verizon.

Re:URL based to start with

[teh moges]

The problem with child porn isn't the 'information', it is the obtaining of that information. If you claim that your right to free and uncensored information is worth so much, how about a child's right to not be exploited?

Re:URL based to start with

[Skapare]

The porn operators will soon fix that. Lots of them are technical experts or can afford to hire them.

Re:URL based to start with

[Iamthecheese]

The problem with child porn isn't the 'information', it is the obtaining of that information. If you claim that your right to free and uncensored information is worth so much, how about a child's right to not be exploited?

Here we have a definition problem. When you say "the problem with child porn" are you referring to the creation, holding, commissioning, possessing, distributing, or buying and selling of it? Only one of those acts involves exploiting a child.

Re:URL based to start with

[elrous0]

All modern commercial blocking software also blocks by IP address.

Re:URL based to start with

[teh moges]

Wow. Not only did I explain that, you chose to ignore the entire point of the comment. To answer, obtaining in my sense above meant creation. Can you justify your previous claims now, as opposed to dodging through arguing about semantics of language?

Re:URL based to start with

[Iamthecheese]

Yes: I think that the crimes perpetrated to generate that type of information should be highly illegal. I think the videos, or whatever other products themselves should be completely legal to buy, sell, have, and use. If the same information were generated without harming a child (good GC) then the only difference would be in the manner of production and under current laws both would still be illegal. Won't someone please think of the pixels!

Mod parent up

[ChienAndalu]

wanted to post this too. These are very handy addresses everybody should know by heart.

Blacklists

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were the ISP, I would add a few extra domains to the blacklist. Block some things that I as an ISP find objectionable, such as the web sites of candidates that support filtering. Media outlets that carry advertising for candidates that I don't like. Etc.

Godwin'd!

[Anonymous Coward]

In just over an hour. Unfortunately, the quote seems appropriate in this case.

Umm "The trial, which aims to prove..."

[riprjak]

Shouldn't trials test a hypothesis or design? If you set out to prove something with a trial, I'm fairly certain that you will carefully design it so that it does, indeed, prove it; as you have already decided you will do it and are now cynically producing evidence.

Trials should be neutral, investigating or testing or gathering data. The *RESULTS* of a trial will support or disprove a concept.

Ultimately, you cant really "prove" anything; just gain sufficient confidence that despite your best efforts, you cannot disprove it.

Perhaps the trial aims to check "the feasibility of" rather than "prove"... well, we can hope.
err!
jak.

Re:Umm "The trial, which aims to prove..."

[srjh]

They made the election promise without investigating whether or not it was possible. So the only result they will accept is one that confirms their beliefs.

Well actually, the election promise was to "provide" filtering, but not "mandate" it, but a censor-happy government with the need to satisfy fundamentalist third-parties wasn't going to stop there once the technology exists.

They did some preliminary testing back in June - the results showed an average speed reduction of 30% between filters (5/6 were over 20% - one was 87%), overblocking was between 2% and 8% of the internet, underblocking was usually around 10%, p2p wasn't addressed, and every filter was trivial to break.

These trials were hailed as an overwhelming success by the government because they were a slight improvement on even more woeful tests a few years ago... hence the live trials.

No matter what the results are, they will be a "success".

How do they know what content is unwanted?

[EWAdams]

I'll decide what content I do or don't want, thank you, and implement suitable filters on my own machine. My ISP can't read my mind.

Personally, i think...

[Anonymous Coward]

... people just need to be educated more on filtering programs they can use at home.

But knowing some people, they will end up twisting it so much, it snaps.

"Streaming is bad.
Streaming Child Porn is very bad.
You, are very bad."
Then some jail bars come across the screen and close at the center over a picture of a little black figure with a question mark.
Well Mr Marketer, you, are a racist, damn racists, always picking on the poor black anonymous guy.

This is easy to defeat

[spankyofoz]

Easiest way to defeat this: "accidentally" add the .gov.au domain to the blacklist.

Could you imagine the serenity?

Re:This is easy to defeat

[deniable]

Even better, the religious sites frequented by Family First supporters. For the real nuclear option, start blocking sports sites.

ISPs

[Anonymous Coward]

I still can't believe this is actually happening. I want to know what ISPs are going to be participating so I can change if it's mine. I don't want to be left on Christmas day without my hardcore porn and who knows what else. Fuck you Rudd. Fuck you Conroy. I hope you both die.

Re:ISPs

[srjh]

Don't quote me on this, but as far as I'm aware, only iiNet and Optus are participating.

I wouldn't be in a rush to leave if you're with them, though. The head of iiNet said that Conroy was the worst Comms. minister in the 15 years the internet industry has existed, and is only participating because it's the only way to show the government how stupid it is.

If we don't show them how stupid it is, showing them exactly what sites are blocked by mistake, how much it will slow the internet, how easy it is to break, how much porn will get through anyway, etc... we'll be stuck with it. Labor isn't backing down, so the only option left is making sure the filter goes down in flames so spectacularly that no-one will even dare touch the issue again in the near future.

Christmas Present

[moniker127]

Suprise! Fasism!

umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

httpS anyone....

Steve Fielding wants a monopoly on kiddie porn

[vandan]

As mentioned in my blog, I think if politicians are so keen to 'clean up the internet', they should start closer to home, in their own PCs. How many times have we seen Australian politicians in various compromising positions ... 'chair-sniffing', kiddie-porn scandals, and of course Prime Minister Rudd can't even remember his night out in Vagas where he had lap dances etc paid for by the Aussie taxpayer.

Of course this is less Labor's fault than fucking Family First, that bunch of ultra-conservative freaks who openly admit they want to turn Australia into a fundamentalist hell-hole, dissolving the separation between religion and state, and enforce their own sexually perverted vision on 'the right way' down everyone else's throats. Their backers include the Assembly of God nut-cases, who are outright hostile to democracy, prevent their own members from reading any non-God-related material, force their children into slave labour for the church, spread vicious lies about progressive political candidates, and support terrorist attacks on abortion clinics. They're a real piece of work! But on the other hand, it's enlightening to see Labor - the so-called 'alternative' party ( inside the 2-party system of course ) backing this lunacy.

Re:Steve Fielding wants a monopoly on kiddie porn

[sapphire wyvern]

A cargo handler for a major package delivery company came across an express envelope with shipping instructions that puzzled him, particularly the line describing the contents.

He finally realized the parcel contained some kind of manual and was addressed to a church. But at first he thought he was processing one of the company's most momentous pieces of freight.

The description read, "Instructions for the Assembly of God."

Saw that in a Reader's Digest a few years back...

How to Stop .torrents

[WallyDrinkBeer]

I'm fairly sure one of the first things added to the list will be torrent indexes. No more TPB or ISOHunt for Australians. This is exactly what Australian media companies want: they used to have it good, they would hold over US shows and movies for rating windows and screw over viewers that just wanted to watch stuff current.

The big problem is, Australian media holds a lot of sway with the scum that is an Australian politician.

Of course you'll be able to access them in a round-about fashion. Maybe it will eventually become illegal to bypass the filter, call it hacking. Aussie freedom will go, china style.

Re:How to Stop .torrents

[rdnetto]

How difficult would it be to download a torrent file via a proxy? Proxies are typically too slow for full downloads, but a .torrent file is only a few KB. And of course, the actual BT protocol won't be filtered...

Re:How to Stop .torrents

[elrous0]

the scum that is an Australian politician.

Wow, I think scum might actually object to that metaphor. Pond scum, for example, has WAY more human compassion than any politician.

Sorry to go off topic

[Iamthecheese]

Child pornography is not "information." Child pornography is a product made through the rape and other sexual abuse of children.

A picture is information. A video is information. Sound is information. QED

Since no one could possibly believe that CP is just "information" (and I have a very low opinion of the intelligence of most people), the most likely explanation for your position on this is that you are a consumer and/or producer of child pornography yourself.

Just to be sure I'm understanding you, you claim that classification of "product" as not different from "information" proves me to be a consumer or producer of child porn?

Never a legitimate reason to stop information? That's so ridiculous it's beneath discussion.No, no it's not. And while we're throwing around ad hominems you, sir or madam, are an idiot.

Re:Sorry to go off topic

[Johnno74]

While I'm not pro-censorship or anything like that, I find your argument and sig.... disagreeable. You seem to be seeing the world in black and white, without the shades of grey.

You say a picture or a video is just information. Ok, fair enough.

But just because information can be freely duplicted doesn't mean it isn't affected by the laws of supply and demand.

Some people will pay for this "information" (kiddie porn).
Therefore other people will create child porn, for money.

Unfortunately those people do unspeakable awful things to innocent children in order to create the information, in order to satisfy that demand.

By your logic I have done nothing wrong if I say I will provide $10,000,000 for a video of someone shooting you in the head, and someone follows through and I pay them. Or your children. Heck, your whole family. If all of you died horribly, simply because I paid for some "information" have I done anything wrong? By your logic, no.

Re:Sorry to go off topic

[Iamthecheese]

While I'm not pro-censorship or anything like that, I find your argument and sig.... disagreeable. You seem to be seeing the world in black and white, without the shades of grey.

You say a picture or a video is just information. Ok, fair enough.

But just because information can be freely duplicted doesn't mean it isn't affected by the laws of supply and demand.

Some people will pay for this "information" (kiddie porn). Therefore other people will create child porn, for money.

The creation of child porn (your definition may vary)should be punished, in my opinion, by death. Commissioning of child porn is accessory to the crime and should also be punished. On the other hand those who have not commissioned the deed should not be punished even if they buy child porn because they did not have a hand in the act. Would you make it a crime to sell the 9/11 videos? Surely billions of dollars have been made from those crimes. Where is the divide between the newscaster hawking scenes of death (if it bleeds it leads) and the exploitive pornographer hawking his wares? Surely either both should be illegal or neither.

Unfortunately those people do unspeakable awful things to innocent children in order to create the information, in order to satisfy that demand.

Punish them! punish them harshly! You will have all the evidence you need.

By your logic I have done nothing wrong if I say I will provide $10,000,000 for a video of someone shooting you in the head, and someone follows through and I pay them. Or your children. Heck, your whole family. If all of you died horribly, simply because I paid for some "information" have I done anything wrong? By your logic, no.

By my logic you have done something horrible, in commissioning the crime. The newscaster who puts it on for the 8:00 news hour in return for commercial profits has not. If you had specified a computer-generated video of such then nothing wrong would have been done at all.

Re:Sorry to go off topic

[gujo-odori]

Saying it's ridiculous is not an ad hominem. It's an attack on the idea. And the idea that there is never a legitimate reason to stop information is ridiculous. There are tons of legitimate reasons to stop certain kinds of information, starting with confidentiality. Preventing crime would certainly be on that list, as well.

An example of an ad hominem: "I_am_the_cheese supports this thing, therefore it must be crap."

Stating that you are probably into child porn is not an ad hominem, either. It wasn't even a personal attack. It was, and is, a reasonable conclusion based on your statement that child pornography should be legal. Let's be very clear that to produce it, someone, somewhere has to rape or otherwise sexually assault a child. Since you advocate the legality of CP, you are taking a stand in favor of the sexual assault of children. You are, therefore, most likely a user and/or producer of it, or at least in sympathy with those who do so.

On the off chance that you are merely so libertarian that you believe that nothing should be illegal, no matter how heinous, simply because making anything illegal somehow suppresses someone's "freedom" (and without discussing basic principles like children should have freedom from being sexually assaulted, and anyone else's rights end where another person's begin, so there is no such thing as absolute freedom), then you are not only morally bankrupt beyond comprehension, but also stupid beyond comprehension. That being the case, you worthless piece of subhuman garbage who ought to stop taking up valuable air that someone else could use, you're hardly in a position to call anyone else stupid.

Finally, to make my own position on child porn completely clear, producers and distributors of CP should be executed. In public, and in a way so as to make an example. Hanging, beheading, and the firing squad are the least brutal means that should be considered. For those who couldn't attend the execution in person, put it on youtube.

Re:Sorry to go off topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, to make my own position on child porn completely clear, producers and distributors of CP should be executed.

So on your way to the airport, someone slips a thumbdrive into your overcoat or sneak it onto one of your suitcases. Now you are amongst the "distributors of CP" and everyone gets to watch your "Hanging, beheading, and the firing squad... put it on youtube". BTW, a picture of a baby qualifies as CP if that is what a jury says. Calvin Klein and similar adds have been pulled as CP. It is whatever a jury of 12 says and their particular judgement is hard to appeal (as a 'finding of fact' per se - other elements like the chain of custody and jury instructions or whatnot are more easily disputed). To sum, get fucked and hard, you are too stupid to waste time upon.

Item 2 on the list in technical specs

[tqft]

Link in summary - go to article & see the technical spec (pdf)

Item 2
The ACMA blacklist plus additional filtering e.g. more extensive index filtering through to dynamic filtering of other unwanted internet content and non web based applications.

Only http for you

Sneaky Timing to (try to) avoid bad publicity

[CuteSteveJobs]

> The trial ... will go live on 24 December.

You never ever make a major change like this before holidays, least of all Christmas Hoidays. It ensures that if something does go wrong, there's no one on hand to fix it. When lots of "working families" will be communicating by VOIP or webcam over the Internet, the time of this is sheer stupidity. I'd say Rudd and Conroy have timed it just before Christmas to make sure the story lost by the media, is buried amongst all the Yuletide Queen's Christmas Message, etc.

And a news flash for Rudd: Two of my conservative Christian Friends just admitted to me, one very sheepishly, that they look at boobies on the Internet and they're very annoyed with Rudd's filter. A lot of people are angry about this.

I predict Kevin Rudd will get a bad bukkake by the voters' at the next election.

Re:Sneaky Timing to (try to) avoid bad publicity

[nedlohs]

"Conservative Christians" didn't vote for the current government in the first place, so no loss there from Rudd's perspective.

Re:Sneaky Timing to (try to) avoid bad publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if Conservative Christians don't want this censoring, who is Rudd doing it for? Surely not the Children. A teenage boy wrote into the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday with instructions for bypassing the porn filters on Rudd school laptops. Seems the children don't want it either.

What I don't get...

[smegged]

I never understood the extension that the government is making for hardcore pornography. Now I'm a Christian and am morally against the use of pornography, but I never understood why at the age of 18 I can go and pay for sex in a brothel with as many girls (and I suppose guys) as I want, but then I cannot pay to watch two other people have sex on tv.

Re:What I don't get...

[Whiteox]

Are there legal brothels in Australia?
I knew that there was a movement a few years ago to legalise some, but I'm unaware if there are any.
As far as I know, all forms of prostitution is still illegal.

Re:What I don't get...

[srjh]

Yeah, it might vary between states, but it's definitely legal.

In fact there was even a brothel on the stock exchange a few years ago, but I don't think it's still listed.

Re:What I don't get...

[smegged]

I live in QLD and it is certainly legal. There are ads for them in the local paper. Beattie introduced the legislation a few years back. It is also legal in NSW (where do you think Kings Cross got its reputation from?).

Re:What I don't get...

[Whiteox]

I thought they were 'massage parlours'
Maybe I should get out more......

Re:What I don't get...

[smegged]

Nope, bone fide brothels. They advertise themselves as such too - well they're "adult services" or something equally as politically correct.

Speak up

[Farau]

For all Australian's against this governments internet filtering please sign the petetion below or contact your local member.

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442

List please!

[B5_geek]

Can somebody please supply me with a list of all blocked sites. My 4chan status could really use a boost.

Re:List please!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you set up a site where Aussies can post any URLs they find to be blocked?

That would generate a good part of the list for you ... and everyone else.

Someone could then even post it to Conroy to make a point.

Re:List please!

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP!

I don't know if anyone is willing to take up the cause, but we will definitely need a site like this in the next few weeks.

Obviously hosted offshore... but we have a right to know what is banned, and when we find the banned sites, we can show that the blacklist can be used to find, rather than block illegal content.

Re:List please!

[fremean]

Until the site ends up on the blacklist...

URL vs. IP

[Skapare]

Might as well just block by IP address. If you block by URL, web site operators wanting to be sure their content is available down under will just make it available on other ports (if only port 80 is routed through the filter device), or via HTTPS. Then what IPs are blocked, the porn operators will partner with the spam operators to create a dynamic DNS layer over the spam botnets so the number of IPs to filter becomes way too large.

Protestors

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

For those planning to protest this can I suggest doing it naked... a bunch of big throbbing cocks in front of parliament house is bound to get the message accross that you can't filter what people see.

Re:Protestors

[smegged]

Remember those protesting are porn *users* not porn producers. I doubt that the penises on display will be too huge, especially without any porn around. :P

For those who can't be bothered clicking the link:

[rdnetto]

30 minutes

Two possible outcomes

[PontifexPrimus]

Call me a cynic, but I can see two possible outcomes of that trial:

• Case 1: Fewer than, say, 5% of all queries hit the blacklist filter and are blocked.
  This of course means that the blacklist will only impede a small, acceptable percentage of people and therefore should be implemented.
• Case 2: Many more than 5% of all queries hit the blacklist filter and are blocked.
  This of course means that there is a raging epidemic of accessing undesirable material is going on and the blacklist is therefore urgently required.

Why does no one ever demand scientific accountability? Let the government state its case, make testable claims and see if reality bears them out - and and scrap it if it does not even work out on paper!

we can have fun here

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading the article, yes I did read it, says the system is complaints based.
how about we get together and have family first & scientology added to the list :)

protect the children

[rumcho]

Oh, boy. there it comes again: the same old "protect the children" trick. if they pass this law it'll be downhill for the Ausies from there. scary.

Re:Considering heritage, is it a bad idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

Around 3% of Australians are descendants of convicts. Try again.

Unwanted?

[Anonymous Coward]

a viable way to stop 'unwanted content' from reaching users

Unwanted? Sounds great. About time somebody is doing something to stop all those annoying Microsoft ads, so I can get back to downloading pr0n.

Unwanted content my ass

[justinlee37]

a viable way to stop 'unwanted content' from reaching users

I have a viable way for users to stop unwanted content. Don't open it!

Sheesh, that was easy.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's not you wanted? Did you mean that you wanted censorship?

Then we're talking about stopping wanted content from reaching users.

Man, fuck the man.

A third possible outcome ... expose the blacklist

[Anonymous Coward]

Case 3: Someone (anywhere in the world) sets up a simple forum with the following name:

Hey Aussies! Oi! Yes, you lot. Is a bookmark of yours blocked by the censorship trials? POST THE URL HERE!!!

This would appeal to the "rebellious" Aussie anti-authority sentiment very nicely indeed.

It won't take long at all for the forum to reveal the blacklisted URLs.

I'll Be the Judge

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be the Judge of what I look at.

I don't know who is paying for this rubbish or if 80% slowdowns have been fixed. The cost benefit is not rational nor justified.

Secondly if it was really sick stuff, the police would be involved - ISPs already cooperate.

At 1500 odd, I think socially not nice may be blocked. However I bet they become real popular after the list gets published

Protect the children... nat.sec... MAFIAA rights..

[tjonnyc999]

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
- Martin Niemoeller
-------
First, they came for the warez, but I was using legal/free software so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the torrents, but I wasn't using torrents so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the "objectionable material", but I wasn't downloading any extreme porn, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the "politically dangerous" material, and still I did not speak out, since I'm not an extremist.
...

And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

Christmas Eve?

[jassa]

It's going live on Christmas Eve? Seriously? What a stupid launch date for something that has potential to inconvenience so many people. I bet nobody in a position to remove sites from the blacklist will even be in their offices between Dec 25th and Jan 2nd.

Re:Christmas Eve?

[ledow]

And if you're an Australian ISP, this is a God-send.

Dec 24th: Implement blacklist as ordered.
Dec 25th: Nobody in, skeleton crew while people jam the phones line to complain that their sites don't work.
Dec 26th: Still on skeleton crew, who field the calls with "not our fault, we were ordered to" while people can't get their Christmas presents online properly. As all ISP's have the same problem, changing to ANY competing ISP won't do nowt.
Dec 27-Jan 1st: Field all calls with "Blame the government's stupid filtering policy, all the ISP's are in teh same boat, we can't get through to anyone but we were required to implement it and there's nobody around to say we have to stop".
Jan 2nd: Uproar ensues, public pressure demands the whole scheme is scrapped and people sacked, and it never comes up in any reasonable country ever again because people just point to "That Australia Fiasco".

VPN service offered

[swilver]

Well, I'm in europe... I don't use my connection a whole lot at night. I offer a 1 MBit/sec VPN service for a modest fee. Any takers?

Fight fire with fire!

[Andy Kitchen]

It's all about misinformation and misdirection, We need to find some 14 year old to bypass the filter on TV. To most people it will just seem like some nerdy kid is using his "computer magic". It would be a PR disaster for the govenment. It's IMHO what killed the NetNanny.

Absolves of what though?

[CarpetShark]

Rest assured there will be a law that absolves them.

Probably, but perhaps not in the way you think. Law enforcement related to security within companies generally expects the company staff to do due diligence. THEN they are absolved. If ISPs are expected to do due diligence by monitoring, filtering, punishing, etc., then the whole thing will become very nasty, very quickly, when it comes to the minority view, or even the unsanctioned majority view, gaining acceptance.

Re:Absolves of what though?

[Opportunist]

Could you please explain the last sentence?

Re:Absolves of what though?

[CarpetShark]

Basically I'm saying this:

We're talking about ISPs being *forced* to monitor traffic and remove or punish those that overstep the bounds, right? Yet those bounds are vague (for technical, legal, and societal reasons) and cannot be easily monitored. By definition, they wouldn't be allowed to relax their boundaries and give people the benefit of the doubt (which, it seems to me, is the current, very fair and sane system). So, instead, they'll be forced to reduce the boundaries to something that's known to be OK. They'll become dinosaur utility companies, encouraging the lowest common denominator: browsing youtube and amazon, picking up webmail, and so on. Anyone who wants to do more will likely need to pay for the "privilege" of having that too: either because someone needs to monitor that more manually or expensively, or because they want insurance contributions due to the higher chance of legal proceedings. God help you if you've actually read something about copyright that the powers-that-be in the ISP haven't, and believe that you have a right to watch "TikiBar TV"++ over bittorrent.

++ A free video podcast; one of many that will probably make standard TV obsolete, if not reigned in by stupid laws before they really get started.

Arbitrary filters != removing "unwanted" content

[wisenboi]

So, who defines what content is considered "unwanted": based on network volume consumption/transmission activity, or actual content, or both? Will it be a panel of various ISP customers in Australia defining what the filters should be? If so, how do you define said demographic of panel participants. In the end, it's still arbitrary and easily defaulted to subjective censorship that best fits the moral or financial wallets of those implementing the technology and/or its service, not entirely, if at all, for the benefit of the units and their well-being. If you're going to filter "unwanted" content, define the reasons why and how and see whether or not that actually is the best way to go, not the expectedly cheapest and best way. If it's because of network load, then upgrade your lines and invest in scalable technology geared towards increased usage and content on the interet and web as a whole. If it's because of "questionable" or "unwanted" content, then leave that to the general consensus of the users of that ISP or ISPs to define it, otherwise you're hypocritical and using one reason to cover up the other.

Success!

[fremean]

There's a huge hole in their logic here.

The initial blacklist will be 10000 entries, a patheticly small amount in consideration of what may well be ont here in the long run.

All I see coming from this is no-one complaining about it = SUCCESS!

As you add more rules, it'll slow down, it'll become less predictable, and it'll hit more false positives...

Then people complain but it's too late.