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

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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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: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: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: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.