Slashdot Mirror


Wikileaks Pages Added To Australian Internet Blacklist

cpudney writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has added several Wikileaks pages to its controversial blacklist. The blacklisted pages contain Denmark's list of banned websites. Simply linking to addresses in ACMA's blacklist attracts an $11,000 per-day fine as the hosts of the popular Australian broadband forum, Whirlpool, discovered last week when they published a forum post that linked to an anti-abortion web-site recently added to ACMA's blacklist. The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian government's proposed mandatory ISP-level Internet censorship legislation. Wikileaks' response to notification of the blacklisting states: 'The first rule of censorship is that you cannot talk about censorship.'" So Australians aren't allowed to see what it is that the Danes aren't allowed to see?

437 comments

  1. Oh great, there goes slashdot by hedwards · · Score: 5, Funny

    Any Australians fined yet for coming here?

    1. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Daengbo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fine article also states that Thailand's blocklist has been leaked. I thought you'd want to read it for yourself in addition to the Denmark one.

    2. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Informative

      Aussie here, it has always been my contention that Conroy was in charge of the project to drag it out and make sure it DIDN'T happen, I think they are about to sign the death certificate...

      Relevent info in amoungst the links...


      "The Greens and Opposition also oppose the scheme, meaning any legislation to implement it will be blocked. The Opposition has obtained legal advice that "legislation of some sort will almost certainly be required", but others have said it may be possible to implement the scheme without legislation. Speaking at a telecommunications conference last week, Senator Conroy urged Australians to have faith in MPs to pass the right legislation."

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      FYI, you say : "in addition to the Danish one."
      instead of: "in addition to the Denmark one."

      Regards
      A Danish guy

    4. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe you can answer a couple of questions...

      1. Have they blocked SSH access out of the country? It's hard to block a tunneled connection...
      2. Have they blocked TOR access?

      Maybe I'm just being naive but firewalling off an entire country (noted exception: China) seems really impractical.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    5. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by kwandar · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Australia have a constitutional document guaranteeing freedom of speech?

      If this were happening in Canada, I'd start publishing every link I could on every website I could, and ask (no, beg) for trial date, and with a jury.

      I think we have some daft politicians in the Conservative Party here, but looking at Australia ... maybe we aren't as bad off as I though? Yet .....

    6. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      "The Greens and Opposition also oppose the scheme, meaning any legislation to implement it will be blocked."

      That's reassuring to hear - and on a related note, I presume that this is due to Australia using proportional representation?

      I'm in the UK, where the Government is also making moves of various kind of censorship of Internet and criminalising possession of private material - even if both other parties were to oppose a measure, the Government can just force whatever they like through, as their thirty-something per cent voting share gives them greater than 50% of seats in Parliament.

      (The usual argument against PR is that it makes it harder for Governments to do things - my response is that that's a good thing.)

    7. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The last political prisoner I saw in this country was David Hicks, maybe I'm not looking hard enough for total parinoia to set in?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by SJ2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They haven't actually blocked anything, big difference having a firewall setup actively filtering content and putting something on some list saying it's 'bad'.

    9. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by novakreo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Doesn't Australia have a constitutional document guaranteeing freedom of speech?

      No.

      --
      O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
    10. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not quite. Basically, who holds government is decided by the political party in control of the lower house of parliament, the House of Representatives. In the upper house, the Senate, the Opposition (the coalition of the Liberal and National parties, that's practically acted like they're one and the same party for so long most just call them the Liberals or the coalition now) and minor parties currently hold more seats than the government, allowing them to block legislation.

    11. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by SJ2000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Quoting myself here:
      "[...]many of Australia's rights are "implied" in the constitution and exist merely through the High Court's "creative" interpretations. Such as the implied right for Political speech in Australian Captial Television Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth (1992) which was also extended in 1994 in Theophanous v. The Herald And Weekly Times. Australia also took an active role in 1948 when drafting the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
      Unfortunately, many attempts to introduce entrenched Human Rights into the constitution such Lionel Murphy in 1973 and 1985 with the Federal attorney-general have failed before they even reached the stage of a referendum."

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=436328&cid=22244392

      Ironically it may turn out that my comment towards the end was a bit too quick to judge.

    12. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      If this were happening in Canada, I'd start publishing every link I could on every website I could, and ask (no, beg) for trial date, and with a jury.

      Sorry friend, I think your boat has already sailed.

    13. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have no constitutional rights to free speech. We do have implied protected political speech, but that's not in the constitution. In practice, however, we have free speech. In fact, I can say things like s^@$[CARRIER LOST]

    14. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      mmm...danishes...

    15. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by mrsurb · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Australian Senate (which is where such legislation would be blocked) is semi-proportional - and Senators sit for six years (twice the length as in the House of Representatives). Which means that a party has to win elections fairly comfortably two years in a row in order to be able to push through whatever they want. And as our last (Howard) government found out, being able to push through whatever (Workchoices) they want can end in a political backlash. Australian voters don't like either party having too much power, many actually vote for third parties in the Senate precisely as a control on the system. A previously successful third party (the Australian Democrats) had an unofficial slogan, "Keeping the bastards honest."

    16. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe you can answer a couple of questions...

      1. Have they blocked SSH access out of the country? It's hard to block a tunneled connection...
      2. Have they blocked TOR access?

      Maybe I'm just being naive but firewalling off an entire country (noted exception: China) seems really impractical.

      No they just banned the sites hosting the proxies and sites listing the location of proxies.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    17. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Informative
      That article is terrible.

      Additionally, Pike notes, another "absurd ruse" is that "hate criminals affect interstate commerce, by terrorizing their victims into traveling across state lines â" or not." "Considering the pervasive influence of interstate commerce upon our lives, how often can the government meddle in local hate crimes enforcement? Any time," Pike wrote. "In fact, this ridiculous argument could be used to justify federal intervention in a crime of any kind, since any crime victim might be scared into different spending or traveling choices."

      Really.

    18. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Doesn't Australia have a constitutional document guaranteeing freedom of speech?

      No.

      That's what happens when you let convicts & jailers found a country. /ducks

      Old joke: a man gets off the plane and walks up to the Australian customs desk.

      Name? John Smith
      Where are you from? New York
      Purpose of your trip? Vacation
      Do you have a criminal record? No. You don't still need one to get in, do you?

    19. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I presume that this is due to Australia using proportional representation?

      Yes

      I'm in the UK

      Good you will recognise the Humprey Appleby infuence on my pet theory?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    20. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The usual argument against PR is that it makes it harder for Governments to do things - my response is that that's a good thing

      Actually, the usual argument against PR is that it concentrates a disproportionate amount of power into the hands of minorities. It typically means that governments do unpopular things because one small party wants them and agrees to support a measure that other parties want in exchange for their bill passing. FPTP and PR both have disadvantages, although having one house elected by each seems like a reasonable idea.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    21. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      A previously successful third party (the Australian Democrats) had an unofficial slogan, "Keeping the bastards honest."

      ...and failed utterly at keeping the so-called Liberals honest. Which effectively spelt out their death-warrant.

    22. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Actually, the internet filter at work prevented me from checking out stories on the topic. I took a gamble with that link and lost. Sorry about that.

    23. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow if we didn't have a right to free speech here we'd have riots and rebellion...

      Oh wait we did and we got it...

    24. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      the Government can just force whatever they like through, as their thirty-something per cent voting share gives them greater than 50% of seats in Parliament.

      Not entirely true. They can force whatever they like through the lower house - House of Commons (assuming their own MPs don't rebel, which in fact they do sometimes). They have no majority in the House of Lords. If the Lords reject a bill it can ping pong back and forth between the Houses until eventually the Commons uses the Parliament act to force it through. However, this takes time (?about a year). As we are now nearly in the last year of this parliament, we are getting to the point where contentious measures cannot necessarily be forced through before the election, and so quite probably cannot be forced through at all (given the likely loss of the current government majority).
      Even at other times, when this particular circumstance does not apply, if the Lords feel strongly enough about a particular issue they can cause so much disruption to the government's other business that they can still in effect force the government to drop a contentious measure.

      This has saved us a few times from some of the more extreme clauses.

    25. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by nosfucious · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the salient (how do you spell that?) point is "you saw". Healthy paranioa says that there are plenty to people that dissapear even in the United States of Australia.

      As a roo and emu passport holder, currently based O/S, I'll happily mirror a list or seed a torrent on my PC of banned sites. The Australian Govt can fornicate off on this lump of fertilizer. Bittorrent ... is there anything you can't do?

      --
      Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
    26. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by tg123 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ....... In the upper house, the Senate, the Opposition (the coalition of the Liberal and National parties, that's practically acted like they're one and the same party for so long most just call them the Liberals or the coalition now) and minor parties currently hold more seats than the government, allowing them to block legislation.

      Just to add ... both the House of Representatives and the Senate have the same powers the one difference is the Senate can not introduce supply bills. The House of Representatives is elected using Preferential voting and the Senate is elected using proportional voting.

    27. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by mathx314 · · Score: 0

      I find it interesting that the Danish one appears to be mostly porn sites while the Thai one has sites like Newgrounds or a Youtube channel called "thaifreespeech".

    28. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by meist3r · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting how there are several dozen links to Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk on this Thai list. What's being blocked? The biography of the Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The future of internet is NOW. Citizens have no right knowing who makes for their government. That's the future right at your fingertips. Glad Germany will get this pretty soon, too. I love to be protected from things that aren't supposed to be secret.

    29. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If this were happening in Canada, I'd start publishing every link I could on every website I could, and ask (no, beg) for trial date, and with a jury.

      I think we have some daft politicians in the Conservative Party here, but looking at Australia ... maybe we aren't as bad off as I though? Yet ......

      In fact, it's the Conservative Party which is starting to rein in the excesses of the "human rights commision" Star Chambers which have been working hard at eliminating freedom of speech in Canada.

      Staff at the "human rights commissions" have been caught breaking into websites, spreading hate themselves, outright lying, and even worse. One of their "prosecutors" even admitted it

      Read the "human rights" stories on Ezra Levant's blog: http://ezralevant.com/

      I like the one where a "prosecutor" refuses to do his job because he wasn't in a "serene state of mind".

    30. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to add ... both the House of Representatives and the Senate have the same powers

      Not true. Treaties are confirmed by the Senate only, as are a few other things, like ambassadors.

    31. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by greenbird · · Score: 1

      If this were happening in Canada, I'd start publishing every link I could on every website I could, and ask (no, beg) for trial date, and with a jury.

      Couldn't they just bring you before the Canadian Human Rights Commission? No jury there.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    32. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The King's role in Thailand is largely ceremonial - the country is a functioning democracy, recent coup not withstanding. But, they've still got a real stick up their ass about any perceived criticism of the king. So while blocking his biography on amazon is rather petty, it isn't really a case of keeping citizens in the dark about their government.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    33. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by kwandar · · Score: 1

      Nice that you pick up "one" item and forget all the other areas that the Canadian Conservative Party has fallen on their collective asses.

      The Harper Conservatives haven't been quite as bad for Canada as Bush Republicans have been for the US ... but that is only because they've had less time to screw it up.

    34. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nice. How's blacksites, Guantanamo Bay and a tanked economy going for ya?

    35. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by kwandar · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Couldn't they just bring you before the Canadian Human Rights Commission? No jury there."

      There is no jury there because it isn't a criminal charge, and sure, and just like any Federal tribunal I'd make application for judicial review under Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act. Charter rights clearly take precedence to a tribunal.

      But you of course knew that, didn't you?

    36. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Blacksites: huh?

      Guantanamo Bay: never been there, heard the weather's nice.

      Tanked economy: Not nearly as bad as the rest of the world so I hear.

      Wanna try again, skippy?

    37. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree - I believe this to be a political ploy to keep Fam First happy, knowing that Liberals and Greens (and most independents) would vote it down.

      Just looking at the Denmark block list - Most of the sites are dead now - the implication is that everybody in Denmarks censorship department is good at making lists, but nobody can be bothered maintaining it. What happens if an important website sneaks onto there, or a political party site? Do we now have to change DNS details to avoid the filtering? Sheesh...

      It is all very silly.

    38. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If this were happening in Canada, I'd start publishing every link I could on every website I could, and ask (no, beg) for trial date, and with a jury.

      And once the prosecutor shows that your links link to websites which link to websites which link to websites which link to websites which contain child porn and terrorism, that jury will send you to the jail for life to the thundering applause of the crowd. After all, it's for the children.

      Your naivete is touching. It's also extremely foolish in the real world where a jury is made of concerned mothers and overprotective fathers. Don't try it; you'll accomplish nothing except destroying your own life.

      Remember, in a democracy the people have exactly the kind of government they deserve, and think what kind of scum must they be to deserve these.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    39. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In practice, however, we have free speech"

      I don't know about that. You can get arrested for wearing a shirt saying "Jesus is a cunt".

      I can understand people not liking it, but I can not understand being arrested.

      When I told this to my religious American friends they said "It's ridiculous that he was arrested for it, and he should be set free and given compensation. However, I could understand him getting his ass handed to him."

    40. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by hherb · · Score: 1

      1. Have they blocked SSH access out of the country? It's hard to block a tunneled connection...
      2. Have they blocked TOR access?

      Maybe I'm just being naive but firewalling off an entire country (noted exception: China) seems really impractical.

      This is a government of luddites. There are a few religious zealots in parliament who want to "reform" the country according to their narrowminded world views. Don't come them technical.

      Whether implementation is feasible or not means nothing to them - if they can hassle a majority of the population who is equally technically ignorant they'll be happy I suppose, while they can dream up punishing schemes for those able to circumvent their censorship.

    41. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll post as an anonymous coward here, due to our libel laws. But anyone with a reasonable IT background can see that the whole scheme would never work properly. In addition, neither would a top secret list of sites that you don't know you have violated until you violate it.

      Althoughy Senator Conroy has lots of experience working in industrial relations, I believe he does not have the IT experience required to be 'Minister for Broadband' (a title which sounds like 'Minister for Painting Lines Markings on Roads'). All bios that I could obtain on him lack any kind of formal IT training. With the policies and approaches that are coming out, I am also questioning of ability of his advisors to help him out.

      I have no faith in the MPs. In IT - faith is something that people who fail have.. everyone else tests, double checks and gets others to review their work!

    42. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by adona1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, Australia (or at least the Federation of, & the Constitution) was founded by lawyers & politicians, which kinda explains why there isn't a guarantee of freedom of speech. Might interfere with their livelihoods ;)
      Interesting aside, many people who are descended from convicts in Australia actually take pride in it - possibly a colonial equivalent of being descended from people who came across on the Mayflower?

      --
      Between the falling angel and the rising ape
    43. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by VoltageX · · Score: 1

      Don't know, but I was able to access the "blocked" page from a connection here in Australia. Maybe it only gets blocked if the filtering plan goes ahead?

      --
      "Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
    44. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Blacksites: "describing secret prisons operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, generally outside of US territory and legal jurisdiction."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site
      Guantanamo Bay: Press center for the above.

      Tanked economy: US homes may have slipped, your $ could be next.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    45. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by bakes · · Score: 1

      No they just banned the sites hosting the proxies and sites listing the location of proxies.

      Strangely, you can't post a link to a site that is banned. How many levels of indirection are required to get around it? If someone posts a banned link here, and I link to Slashdot, is that ok? What about a link to a blog that links to slashdot that links to the banned site?

      Stupid politicians. If you want to have a blacklist go ahead and try, but banning sites that link to blacklisted sites is just stupid - especially if you are trying to keep the list secret.

      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
    46. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      The Greens and Opposition also oppose the scheme, meaning any legislation to implement it will be blocked

      Except they possibly don't need any new legislation, in which case that will do us no good.

      I would be interested to see anything from Labor saying definitively that they intend to pass legislation to support this scheme.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    47. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by kzieli · · Score: 1
      Nothing has actually been blocked. And so far all the major ISP's havn't agreed to participate in trials of the mandatory filters.

      The issue is that the maintainers of the blacklist are issuing fines for people linking to blacklisted sites.

      At the moment though you can't know you are violating the blecklist until they notify you that you are. And the list of sites blocked is already expanding to include sites that talk about blacklisted sites .

      Firewalling an entire country is impractical. Everyone knows it won't work but with usual panache some politicians are chanting "ignore reality, full steam ahead" At least they will be seen to be doing something.

      --
      read my mind at http://the-willows.blogspot.com/
    48. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by LucidAU · · Score: 1

      I'm currently in Australia and can get to the list of banned sites on Wikileaks just fine. I'm at work and we use http://www.macquarietelecom.com/

    49. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dude, let me explain something to you. Home prices only matter if you are buying or selling. Otherwise, for somebody like me who is quite happy living here in Atlanta, the only effect of my home value going down is I get to pay less in property taxes. Sounds like a win to me.

      As far as the dollar going down, unfortunately, it has actually gone up of late. I'm sure you aren't aware of that as it doesn't enter into your anti-US world-view. But, wait, I said unfortunately, right? You see, when the dollar goes up, the price of our exports rise and people are less likely to buy them. The dollar dropping is great for us as it has been artificially inflated for so long propping up the world economy that our trade deficit has exploded. So, please, cheer the dropping of the dollar. I am too.

      BTW, you're an idiot.

    50. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Australia have a constitutional document guaranteeing freedom of speech?

      No.

      There is a consultation for a Human rights act in Australia going on right now. Several public forums are being conducted and you can register to attend at several locations around Australia.

      All the Sydney forums were full so, if you are in Sydney and are interested you can attend at Cronulla 12pm-2pm or tonight (also at Cronulla) at 6pm-8pm (sorry no direct link). I'll be at the Newcastle forum as I think it is an ideal opportunity to voice opinions on exactly the types of issues raised by censorship, freedom of speech in Australia and it's the type of act that Australia needs to complete it's democratic structure.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    51. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Healthy paranioa says that there are plenty to people that dissapear even in the United States of Australia."

      Parinoa is not healthy, you should try skepticisim instead. eg: I am skeptical of things that you and I have no evidence for.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    52. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by beav007 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Here's some even better questions:
      • how do we know we're linking to a banned site, as we can't see the list?
      • are forum and blog owners responsible for links posted in comments? If they are, how do they know when someone posted a banned link?

      I know I'd just love to go away for a week, and return to fines up the wazoo because an AC has posted the entire list of banned sites in my comments.

      What if someone posts these links to my FB page? Or someone that I follow on Twitter posts them?

      This whole plan just goes to show how little our legislators in this country know about technology and the internet.

      Dear Mr Conroy;

      You're a dumbass. No, I really mean it. You have no idea how the internet works, do you?

      As a moderately trained network admin, I can come up with a number of ways to defeat your precious firewall that would take between 2 minutes and 2 days to implement, and be completely untraceable. Anyone who is sufficiently motivated can work out how to do it in a similar time-frame.

      Given that your blocked site list now contains material that is not illegal in Australia (such as sites rated at R18+ - seriously, I can go into any video store and rent R18+ films, and they aren't even in a special closed-off section), you have given me the required motivation, even though I'd probably never want to look at the sites anyway.

      The effects your filter WILL have are:

      • People will stop buying personal webhosting in Australia to minimise the chance of fines
      • You'll slow down the internet even further, which is already slow here in Australia
      • People will get around your precious filter, and you'll never find out about it
      • People will start looking for the blocked sites in question, to see why they shouldn't be looking at them

      Your blocking solution, and the secrecy surrounding it, is entirely unacceptable in a democracy such as ours. If you want the filter to be an acceptable solution, the list of filtered sites and the reason for filtering must be open, and must have provisions allowing opt-out.

      Mr Conroy, you have made it absolutely clear that we cannot trust elected government officials to make sensible, well informed decisions regarding technology in Australia.

      Implement this filter and you won't see another term.

      -beav007

    53. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "The issue is that the maintainers of the blacklist are issuing fines for people linking to blacklisted sites."

      An official warning about the POSSIBLE consequences of a POSSIBLE law is not a fine.

      chanting "ignore reality, full steam ahead"

      Indeed, but where are you going and who stoked your boiler?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    54. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      ...oh and warning was in response to an enquiry. The govt did not seek him out, he was seeking "clarification".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    55. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by kzieli · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yes well. At the last election we had a choice between.

      John Howard; One of the few leaders of the developed world who refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement. Liked to setup off shore detention centers. And do anything the Bush Administration asked him to.

      And Kevin Rudd. A moderate politician. And also somewhat of a moralist and a prude (even if he has been to a strip club once).

      We chose Rudd. On balance it seemed the better option, after 13 years of the Liberal Party. The idea of mandatory internet filtering is an unfortunate consequence of that decision.

      --
      read my mind at http://the-willows.blogspot.com/
    56. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 0

      To summarise your post: Don't try anything because people get the government they deserve.

      Concerned mothers and overprotective fathers, have seen it all before.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    57. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the salient (how do you spell that?) point is "you saw". Healthy paranioa says that there are plenty to people that dissapear even in the United States of Australia.

      Salient, you got right, paranoia and disappear proved more of a challenge.

      Just a tick mate, there's someone knocking on my door ...

    58. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Have faith?

      He must think were all fucking idiots.....

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    59. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      No there is no right to free speech in Australia.

      In fact if you link to website that the censorship department doesn't like it's an $11,000 per day fine. Which is why no one hosts servers here.

      Anti-abortion is a prohibited topic here if you link to an anti-abortion website your provider will be fined heavily. That's why all my websites are located on U.S servers.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    60. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree you have summarised the politics well. However this doesn't mean Labor are immune to the back-handed machevalian bullshit that Liberals did so poorly (I say poorly because they got caught doing it time and again). Labor is playing the same "game" with Fielding as Howard did when he "wanted" to implement mandatory filters (that his party are now blocking in opposition). There were similar circumstances for Howard at the time (ie: a censorship nut holding a deciding vote on more important legislation). Here let me spell it out.

      Labour have a full majority in the house that the Lib's can't block, (that's what makes them the government of the day). However they need the support of the all the Green's and the two independents (ie a coalition) to pass legislation through the senate that the Lib's cannot block. The Lib's are in the same position but they only have to find one senator to join their coalition if they want to block the legislation.
      Xenophon[sic] and Fielding (the two independents) both wanted a mandatory filter, (Xenophon has an anti-gambling platform). Labor set up a "trial" to keep them onside for as long as possible. Xenophon to his credit has seen the glaring human rights error in his plan to ban offshore gambling sites, Fielding has nowhere to go his vote is no longer of much value since the major reform is out of the way ready for the next election, Fielding has shut the fuck up, the Lib's, Labor and Greens are happy because they have collectively screwed "Mr 2%" for winning on their preference fuckery, Rudd is happy because Conroy is showing loyalty instead of challenging him in the back rooms like Costello did with Howard,....get my theory.....it's a YES MINISTER episode if ever I saw one.

      Oh and check out the nude pictures of Hanson, unfortunately it's only funny because it's happening to someone I don't like.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    61. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "I would be interested to see anything from Labor saying definitively that they intend to pass legislation to support this scheme."

      So would I, I have looked and asked for it in several of these stories since about last June. Haven't seen any direct quotes supporting the policy only quotes supporting the trial itself. The anti-abortion theme in this story is directly aimed at Fielding and the "Family first" party who have an anti-abortion platform. - I know, I'm shocked too....shocked I tell you!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    62. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 1

      Actually, they are running a trial of it at the moment with a select group of ISPs. Some of the ISPs included in this trial are so small I'd never heard of them before.

      --
      ... wait, what?
    63. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by k1t10 · · Score: 1

      hear hear. This is so frustrating..

      --
      "Don't ask me, i'm just a girl"
    64. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by k1t10 · · Score: 1

      no, you're thinking of America.

      --
      "Don't ask me, i'm just a girl"
    65. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by stavros-59 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm currently in Australia and can get to the list of banned sites on Wikileaks just fine. I'm at work and we use http://www.macquarietelecom.com/

      The mandatory censorship scheme is not yet in place.

      The blacklist referred to is the current list that is sent to the maintainers of local PC based child filtering systems. Until December last year, the government provided these free to any interested parents. The uptake was so poor that this scheme was canceled and the current censorship proposal is supposed to work better "to protect the children". The blacklist doesn't do anything else at the moment.

      The current blacklist is entirely complaint based. By ACMA's own data, less than half the list is related to child depiction or child pornography. The rest of the list is material that would be legal (MA15+, R etc.) if it was in the broadcast media or it is material that has been refused classification. Refused classification material has not been reviewed by the Classification Board. ACMA assumes it would be prohibited if the Classification Board did actually see it. AFAIK none of the blacklisted material has been put in front of a court that would allow the word illegal to be applied.

      If, and when, the mandatory internet censorship scheme is implemented the blacklist will form the basis of the "censored" material. There have been rumours of also using the IWF list or incorporating the IWF list into ACMA's blacklist.

    66. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Although we're not the one that ask "do you intend to commit any felony or terrorist act while in the United States?"

      Damn question trips me up every time.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    67. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yes, but do you have any quote from Conroy or KRuddy saying they are personally in favor of a mandatory filter, 'cause if you do it will poke a nasty hole in my "yes minister" theory...

      Here's a simpler way to look at it...

      Two gorrilas are sharing a bannana when a spider monkey starts to irritate them by bouncing around the trees overhead jabbering about how they share the bannana. The monkey of course hopes to start trouble and maybe grab the bannana when they are busy fighting. Sure enough the gorillas start arguing and the bannana is getting bounced around as they bang their chests and roar at each other. The spider monkey sees his chance and positions himself between the two gorillas ready to catch the bannana. What happens to the monkey? - It varies but the gorillas normally end up continuing to share the bannana in relative harmony.

      In this particular case the gorillas have put the monkey in the position of voting on the legislation he wanted. His options are: Vote against the legislation that he bargained his senate chips for, or vote for blacklisting his own supporters. And just to twist the knife, his particular vote won't make any difference to the outcome.

      And yeah, the more outrage letters the better, this kind of bullshit is a total fucking waste of time and money.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    68. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by bh_doc · · Score: 1

      Paranoia is healthy when they really are out to get you.

    69. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very few people actually vote for minor parties, actually, but the arcane proportional representation system generally means the last available seat in any state will go to a minor party, despite their lack of electoral support.

      Even in a small state like Tasmania, for instance, it is rare that even the leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, is elected in his own right. Family First's Stephen Fielding never came close to being elected in his own right - he just had to have more of a "quota" than the other minor parties did when the two major party votes had more or less exhausted.

      Even at their height, it was rare that the Australian Democrats got a senator elected in their own right outside of South Australia.

    70. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      The fine article also states that Thailand's blocklist [wikileaks.org] has been leaked. I thought you'd want to read it for yourself in addition to the Denmark one.

      Please god... please god... please god let this Streisand Effect.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    71. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "why is it that foreigners seem to be so obsessed with the misfortune of the US?"

      Because the first reaction of the US to misfortune is to look around outside its borders for people to kill? Funnily enough, these people all seem to be foreigners.

    72. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ahhh, I never claimed people aren't out to get you, I'm claiming that paranoia won't help you find out.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    73. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by tg123 · · Score: 1

      Just to add ... both the House of Representatives and the Senate have the same powers

      Not true. Treaties are confirmed by the Senate only, as are a few other things, like ambassadors.

      actually in Australia the Executive council consisting of the Governor general and 2 Minsters confirms a treaty.
      http://www.dfat.gov.au/treaties/workshops/treaties_global/bliss.html

      and the appointment of ambassadors is made by the Governor General , who of course takes the advise of the government of the day.

      http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/category.php?id=2

    74. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please rephrase in the form of a car analogy.

      Thanks
      -Slashdot

    75. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with Primus (One of the ISP's supposedly in this trial) and I can still access Wikileaks, looks like they haven't actually done anything.

    76. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Feilding is John Candy driving between the two trucks in "Planes, Trains and Automobiles".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    77. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TSPhoenix · · Score: 1

      The Australian constitution is a mess of a document and really not very long. We have freedom of speech in regards to political speech to an extent, but no explicit freedom regarding anything else.

    78. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing how many people manage to type ^@$[CARRIER LOST] just before their Internet connection drops out. They must have it macroed or something

    79. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The lack of such a document is causing massive problems here in the UK too. Politicians like to talk about how we have "freedom of speech", but then pass laws against things like "incitement to racial hatred" or "incitement to violence". The Human Rights Act is another good example - in theory it guarantees certain basic, fundamental rights that no human being should be without, but if you read the fine print it's all "unless it affects national security, in which case we can do whatever we like".

      We need a constitution. A good one. The only way to get one is to have a revolution and overthrow the government. We are doomed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    80. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Duffy13 · · Score: 1

      You realize that the last war to boost our economy was WW2 right? Ya know, when the entire country geared itself for wartime production. That doesn't happen anymore ya shmuck. And maybe, if people would stop treating each other like asshats we wouldn't need to ever leave our nice comfy borders. Way to pretend everyone in the world outside of the US is full of amazingly nice people that just want to be left alone.

      --
      "Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!"
    81. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Thinboy00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [snip]
      Maybe I'm just being naive but firewalling off an entire country (noted exception: China) seems really impractical.

      What are you smoking?

      --
      $ make available
    82. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, I never claimed people aren't out to get you, I'm claiming that paranoia won't help you find out.

      No it won't help, but it is great fun if they are.

      --
      $ make available
    83. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by statusbar · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I am the author of the Internet Filter and have just blogged about all this.

      Since I have added the denmark list to the internetfilter.com list, and the internetfilter.com list is transparent and publicly available, I have posted the new items on internetfilter.com.

      --jeffk

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    84. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by F'Nok · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at the actual voting numbers?

      The greens were the second tallied on some lower house seats last election. (surprising isn't it?)
      In the lower house, they received higher than the nationals. That's not even their target, they aim for the senate.
      Try Melbourne for example, with 22.8% primary, and second in two party preferred.

      They frequently earn a senator in their own right, as the Senate Quota results clearly show, where in Tas they easily had a senator by direct right. Bob Brown was elected in his own right, very much so.
      In every state (except NT) they were by far the highest polled minority party.

      Say what you want about disliking the minority parties; but to state they lack electoral support is simply wrong.

    85. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by ps2os2 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm would you like some plum on your Danish? That would unstop you:)

    86. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      touche!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    87. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bittorrent ... is there anything you can't do?"

      Well, yes, at the moment there is. Nobody's put up any of the forbidden blacklists - except the link to an anti-abortion web site that was showing images no more gruesome than some Aussies still carry in their shirt pockets, ie, on cigarette packs.

      --- Flash:

      The Pirate Bay doesn't seem to be working (eg: our 3 recent searches for australia, australian or aussie yields "No hits," but then so did 2 later searches for USA and Pirate.

      'could be that TPB is in strife due to its criminal prosecution; how's it going? we've lost track & couldn't find any more recordings, etc. last time we looked.

      Is this just affecting us, or others, also?

    88. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "[...]many of Australia's rights are 'implied' in the constitution and exist merely through the High Court's "creative" interpretations."

      On the other hand, politician's rights are spelled-out in details, eg, after retiring they get a "Gold Card" allowing unlimited FREE travel.

      Ministers have the right to declare any document unavailable for release to the public (eg, in the context of an FoI request).

      Pollies have the right to delay completed reports, from taxpayer-funded studies, until they think the release will do their side politics least harm (eg, after a stuff-up or only after a contrary decision is taken... when it's too late to change, based on recommendations from more knowledgable folks, eg, scientists, etc.).

      Not at all impressive...

    89. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is wide spread talk in Australia of a internet shutdown day in protest to censorship the supposed date is 19th april 2008 ....

    90. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by fractoid · · Score: 1

      +1, Informative. The King of Thailand is more of, I dunno, a referee in the gaelic football scrum that is the government.

      He's also their primary symbol of national pride, though. Insulting him while you're in Thailand is similar to, say, pissing on a U.S. flag then setting fire to it while you're in Texas.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    91. Re:Oh great, there goes slashdot by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Verbing weirds language.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  2. This is terrible by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    We need to find a document showing who is responsible, then put it up on wikileaks where everyone can see ..... Oh.

  3. Happiness is Mandatory! by Leafheart · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFS:

    Simply linking to addresses in ACMA's blacklist attracts an $11,000 per-day fine (snip) The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian (snip)

    So you receive a letter on your mailbox saying that you were fined in AUD $11,000 , for linking to a site that you didn't know you could link, and if you knew that you couldn't link to it you would be even more penalized because that information is not for your security level?

    Has someone on the Aussie's Government been playing Paranoia recently?

    --
    --- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"
    1. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Funny

      Has someone on the Aussie's Government been playing Paranoia recently?

      What is your security clearance, citizen?

    2. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fantastic google and the search engines are stuffed then

    3. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      So you receive a letter on your mailbox saying that you were fined in AUD $11,000 , for linking to a site that you didn't know you could link, and if you knew that you couldn't link to it you would be even more penalized because that information is not for your security level?

      Doesn't the Australian court system offer its citizens some kind of protection against this?

    4. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by faloi · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm afraid if you're not ultraviolet, you can't ask that question. Can you tell me if the chainsaw looks like it's going fast enough, look closer.

      I loved that game.

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    5. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nope, they're immediately detained on some manner of prison island, no questions asked.

    6. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nope, they're immediately detained on some manner of prison island, no questions asked.

      Yeah, but it's also filled with lots of women with Australian accents. Please excuse me while I go find some felony to commit...

    7. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by mcvos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Simply linking to addresses in ACMA's blacklist attracts an $11,000 per-day fine (snip) The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian (snip)

      So you receive a letter on your mailbox saying that you were fined in AUD $11,000 , for linking to a site that you didn't know you could link, and if you knew that you couldn't link to it you would be even more penalized because that information is not for your security level?

      This is truly bizarre. Sounds like it's a law that's designed to be accidentally broken.

      I don't think it'll stand up in any court. It's just wrong on too many levels.

    8. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by psyron · · Score: 5, Informative

      The link in question was to an anti-abortion page containing some pictures of aborted babies. Apparently a member of the forum decided to test the filter by posting a link to the page and then submitting a complaint to the ACMA asking for such a link to be banned, for the purpose of seeing what would happen.

      Lo and behold someone at the ACMA must of looked at the page, seen the pictures (I'm sure you can find much worse in any medical journal mind you) and decided that linking to the page was now illegal. So they sent a notice to the forum's hosting provider (bypassing the forum all together) informing them to take the link down within 24 hours or risk being fined $11K per day. The host then contacted the forum admin who obviously didn't want to put this on his provider took down the link.

      I initially thought nothing would come of this ridiculous filter idea because it was just so plain stupid and so many people, including most ISPs, are against it. But I'm not so sure anymore.

    9. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by alexhs · · Score: 2

      They're preparing to replace Web2.0 by Web3.0, a.k.a TV2.0 .

      Big Corp. know what's good for you and won't be bothered.

      If you're not Big Corp. you had nothing to link here in the first place. You just deserve that fine, collateral damage or not.

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    10. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      report for termination.

    11. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      And what's with the FOI thing? Does Australia have a Freedom of Information Act, or did the submitter just forget that .au is not the same country as .us?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    12. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Shikaku · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dear god someone link them to 4chan. Or GNAA. Or Kids in the Sandbox. Or 2 girls 1 cup. Or Efuckt. Or Goatse.

    13. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by geordie_loz · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Nope, they're immediately detained on some manner of prison island, no questions asked.

      Isn't that what we brits used australia for in the first place?

    14. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      *whoosh*

      (Or is that just explaining the joke?)

    15. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The link in question was to an anti-abortion page

      For someone who hasn't been following this too closely - were they still pretending that this was about blocking child pr0n (in which case, this shows the claim up to be false), or did they drop that pretence?

      (Even if it was about blocking child images, laws about automatic fines for linking are very worrying - linking to such images can be dealt with specific laws, and it should be up to a court to decide if the image constituted an illegal image; it shouldn't be a case that linking to something on a (secret) list is automatically illegal, no matter what the content.)

    16. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick Google, put a link in the ACMA blacklist on every page!

    17. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by ReadErr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lots of countries have "freedom of information" laws. They might have different names, but the idea is the same.

    18. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    19. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't that what we brits used australia for in the first place?

      And you used America to get rid of your puritans ;) Seems pretty ironic that your convicted criminals were more loyal to the Empire than your religious zealots.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course the prisoner's were sent over with loyalist guards who became the power structure of australia. The Puritans were not sent with guards and the powerful folks opposed english rule.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    21. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by interiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I initially thought nothing would come of this ridiculous filter idea because it was just so plain stupid and so many people

      Just wait. In the end, it will certainly be scrapped *, but in the meantime, there will be many lulz.

      When people implement ridiculous ideas, the only thing they accomplish is to provide fodder that helps prevent the idea from being implemented again. And they get their 15 minutes of fame, even if they wish they could take it all back.

      • (* okay, there's a miniscule possibility that Australia will march firmly in the direction of fascism, with new layers of secrecy being created just to hide existing layers of secrecy, but the likelihood that this pulls down all of democracy in Australia, all by itself, still seems miniscule)
    22. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      He's not being fined or risking anything until the legislation is passed which it hasn't, if the ISP folded on a "friendly" warning, it did so for a reason that we don't really know. However, the reason the anti-abortion angle? - is because my pet theory says all this is aimed at this guy.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    23. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by conureman · · Score: 5, Funny

      The part I like to point out, in impolite company, is how the Puritans were so insufferable that the DUTCH actually threw them out as well.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    24. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Darn. My clearance is only 'Bouncy Bubble Beverage'. The good news is that roughly half the time it can double as a hand grenade.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    25. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by operagost · · Score: 1

      No, actually it seems only weakly ironic for anyone who is well versed in either history or theology.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    26. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by psyron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now that my net is back up I'll reply (oh how I loathe BigPond):

      I don't think this had anything to do with child porn, the ACMA merely ruled that the page contained prohibited content. Why pictures of aborted babies were ruled to be prohibited I'm not sure, the pictures certainly weren't something you'd want to see before you sit down to eat, but there was nothing whatsoever illegal about them.

      Here's a link to a thread on the forum about the topic and the reply the ACMA sent to the person who submitted the complaint: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1161107#r4

    27. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And you used America to get rid of your puritans ;) Seems pretty ironic that your convicted criminals were more loyal to the Empire than your religious zealots.

      Dead people don't pay protection money. While organized crime sometimes need to "set an example" or start gang wars, what they really want to do is business. For real willingness to kill including genocide, blowing yourself up and absurd dedication to the cause, always go with the religious zealots. Really, an absentee government half the world away should be almost ideal for organized crime, why revolt and make one right there that could really create problems?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    28. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really: as criminals they lost their right to representation fairly. Wasn't that what independence was all about?

    29. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, they're immediately detained on some manner of prison island, no questions asked.

      Yeah, but it's also filled with lots of women with Australian accents. Please excuse me while I go find some felony to commit...

      Correction: hot topless women with Australian accents. Have you seen the Sheilas on Australian beaches?

    30. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      This is truly bizarre. Sounds like it's a law that's designed to be accidentally broken.
      I don't think it'll stand up in any court. It's just wrong on too many levels.


      You might want to remove that reefer from your mouth. Laws are put in place so that people who transgress against them can be jailed or fined. It's the courts' job to do that, not judge whether or not the laws are wrong. There is rarely a shortage of unjust legislation in any system, but court systems still have to enforce it. "My mother, drunk or sober."

    31. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...okay, there's a miniscule[sic] possibility that Australia will march firmly in the direction of fascism...

      Australia is not merely marching down that path, it has been running headlong down it for over a decade. The fact that the major political parties swapped the reins of government in 2007 has made no difference, since the Labor party is still stirring up the same narrow-minded xenophobic nastiness that Howard fostered so insidiously. Historically, the Labor party's main agenda used to be centred on social justice, but it seems that has gone the way of last year's management theories.

    32. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 1

      So does this mean that if you linked to such a page on the political parties web site it would get fined $11k a day?

      Sounds like a fantastic oppertunity to drive home to the government how silly this is. Just link to banned non illegal websites in all correspondance whenever you can.

      --
      "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
    33. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is why they took all the guns away!

    34. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by russotto · · Score: 4, Funny

      The part I like to point out, in impolite company, is how the Puritans were so insufferable that the DUTCH actually threw them out as well.

      The Puritans were so insufferable that they couldn't even stand each other, which is how Connecticut got founded (by one of the same guys the Dutch threw out...)

    35. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by srjh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To be fair, the fine is for ignoring a request for deleting links to prohibited content. It would be stupid to significantly penalise someone for breaking a law they aren't allowed to know about... but if I had a dollar for every time I thought "That would be stupid, there's no way the ALP will possibly incorporate that into the net censorship plan", I'd be able to forget about this whole financial crisis and retire at 26.

      What's just as concerning is the apparent recursive nature of the blacklist. Link to prohibited content, and your website becomes prohibited content. Therefore, any links to your website become prohibited content. Given the nature of hyperlinking and the internet, the whole web is probably only a few steps away from being banned. At this stage, I'm not even sure that's not what Labor wants.

      It's actually worse than this - the blacklist doesn't just deal with "prohibited content", it deals with "potential prohibited content". In other words, material that has not been found to be prohibited, but which a single bureaucrat thinks has the potential to be prohibited if it was investigated. Given that even MA15+ (i.e. material that is legal for a 15-year-old to view) content can be prohibited, and a significant proportion of the blacklist is legal for 18-year-olds to view (i.e. R18+ and X18+), that's an extremely low threshold for something to be considered off-limits to Australian web users by our government.

      Ugh... the whole thing sickens me. I was hoping it would have been dropped like a hot potato for now, but it's obvious they aren't backing down. Our only hope is if it goes to a vote in the senate and fails.

    36. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by gijoel · · Score: 1

      The Internet is your friend.

    37. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by tg123 · · Score: 1

      This is truly bizarre. Sounds like it's a law that's designed to be accidentally broken.

      I don't think it'll stand up in any court. It's just wrong on too many levels.

      It is bizarre. The question is, if this went all the way to the High court of Australia would they rule for or against this being enforced ?

      Personally I don't know the High court is really vague when it comes to free speech.

      http://www.comslaw.org.au/LeftMenu/FreeSpeechDefamation/tabid/59/Default.aspx

    38. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Also: *WHOOOOSH*.

    39. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Does someone still have a 2 Girls 1 Cup link? I've wanted to spread that to a load of classmates who haven't seen it yet. I can't seem to find it anymore.

    40. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by UncleTogie · · Score: 2, Funny

      The part I like to point out, in impolite company, is how the Puritans were so insufferable that the DUTCH actually threw them out as well.

      Were I the Dutch, I would've too... Nothing harshes a good bud buzz like the smell of burning witch...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    41. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Celvin · · Score: 1

      You might want to remove that reefer from your mouth. Laws are put in place so that people who transgress against them can be jailed or fined. It's the courts' job to do that, not judge whether or not the laws are wrong.

      You're not quite right. It's the courts job to test laws against higher laws, typically a country's constitution or international treaties such as international law on human rights. If a law is found to break with these higher laws the court may as far as I know declare a law illegal or something like that. I don't know if this law breaks anything like this but The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights includes protection against "Arbitrary arrest" and being arrested based uppon a secret law sounds like arbitrary arrest to me at least.

      --
      -- If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?
    42. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: hot topless women with Australian accents. Have you seen the Sheilas on Australian beaches?

      If I had seen them, and it's as you say.....do you think I'd be hanging around posting on /.?

    43. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      The thing is....the government would need to prove in court that they linked to a site on the blacklist.

      If they refuse to divulge the blacklist, then there is no proof. Judges don't take kindly to statements like: "They broke the law. Trust us."
      Even when they come from the government.

      If they do divulge the blacklist, then it becomes public knowledge. Court records are all public knowledge, unless there is a significant reason to keep it private.
      I highly doubt this would qualify.

      Therefore, I think the whole $11,000 fine thing is a money grab, that they'd drop if it came to court.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    44. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you used America to get rid of your puritans ;)

      Which was a jolly fine idea indeed. I hear that they now have this outfit called the BATF that does a splendid job ...

    45. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Fairly?

      If you say so, then I guess I can accept that you believe it. Doesn't mean *I* do.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    46. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Alsee · · Score: 4, Informative

      Score +5 Informative, because there's no score -HolyFuck GougeMyEyesOutWithASpoon.

      4chan Random image boards. Daily flood of random crap.

      GNAA Internet Troll headquarters. Obnoxious text, but I'm not aware of any eye-gouging image content.

      kids-in-the-sandbox Some men might scream in pain at the thought of a dildo being shoved INTO their penis.

      2girls1cup.mpg The most famous video you really really don't want to see, unless you have a fetish for watching girls eat soft shit then vomit it into each other's mouths.

      efukt Tag line "Porn you wish you never saw". Assorted video collection: Anorexic sex, a donkey giving itself a blowjob, gay anal fisting nearly to the shoulder, etc etc etc.

      Goatse The original mammoth asshole you wish you never saw.

      And how can we not include TubGirl Another image you really wish you never saw, unless of course you think getting blasted in your face with your own fountain of enema spray is really really HOT.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    47. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by fnord_uk · · Score: 1

      Aargh. I thought I'd completely forgotten 'Prisoner - Cell Block H', but you've brought the memories of Bee Smith flooding back.

      --
      In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
    48. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Cruciform · · Score: 4, Funny

      They could save a few steps and just ban Kevin Bacon.

    49. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by T.E.D. · · Score: 2, Informative

      You might be onto something there, actually.

      The Southern colonies actually *were* used as prison dumping grounds. Interestingly enough, when the Revoultion happened, that's where the "Loyalists" were concentrated.

      The British landed an army in Georgia and marched north, turning over pacified areas to the Loyalists as they went. The problem was that the further north they went, the less Loyalists they found. It didn't work at all once they got to Virginia. The army finally got bottled up in Yorktown, Virginia and had to surrender.

      After that the Brits had to find a new prision dumping ground. That's where Austrailia comes in.

    50. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by taksraven · · Score: 1

      Our only hope is if it goes to a vote in the senate and fails.

      Are you kidding me, with that Family First bastard sitting there screaming "Think of the CHILDREN!!" We have no chance of the Senate saving us, never did.....

    51. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      informative!

    52. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by WeeBit · · Score: 1

      "This is truly bizarre. Sounds like it's a law that's designed to be accidentally broken."

      "The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian (snip)"

      Yes and before long, all of Australia (and the world) will have a list of the forbidden websites.

      They wont be secret then.

    53. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Quothz · · Score: 1

      Has someone on the Aussie's Government been playing Paranoia recently?

      ACMA is your friend.

      Trust ACMA.

      If you do not trust ACMA, your computer may be used as erosion control.

      ACMA is your friend.

    54. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by mibus · · Score: 1

      So you receive a letter on your mailbox saying that you were fined in AUD $11,000 , for linking to a site that you didn't know you could link

      You are given a day or so to remove it, after you have been notified, before the fine takes place.

      Hope you can find your source files quickly enough ;)

    55. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by techman2 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's how it is. The Coalition, Greens and Nick Xenophon do not support this. That only leaves the ALP and Fielding. They won't get it through with the way things are now.

    56. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by socceroos · · Score: 1

      For your information, that 'Family First bastard' you refer to is actually opposing the legislation. Please get your facts right.

    57. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by kzieli · · Score: 1

      Actually Britain sent the lowest dregs of their army to Australia. At one point the local guards sent the Queens representative packing. As He was interfering with them running the colony as their own personal empire. He Had to come back with new troups to reestablish crown law.

      --
      read my mind at http://the-willows.blogspot.com/
    58. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      If you want to understand the origins of 'interent closing', read
      http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s1358912.htm
      "Family First: A Federal Crusade"

      "Because basically we know we have to be as wise as a snake but gentle as a dove, because if we've got to get out there to the world and try and change values, we can't go out there being a Christian party cause most of the world will wipe us off."

      A lot religious moves in the background, hidden, whispers to mainstream left and right politics.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    59. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by ross.w · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was ideal for organised crime, and it started early, to the point where the army was involved and staged Australia's first and only military coup when the Governor tried to put a stop to it.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    60. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by srjh · · Score: 1

      I think you might have him confused with the independent Senator Xenephon - who initially supported the filter because it could block gambling sites, but who now realises how stupid the plan is.

      Not only does Fielding strongly support it, but his senate vote with a Labor minority is likely a factor in the proposed filter.

      They're going to need more than Fielding, though. Labor needs either the support of the Coalition (which they don't have), or the support of everyone else (Greens are against it, so they don't have this either).

    61. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by socceroos · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. You're right. Agh, and I said "please get your facts right".

      Anyone got some spare humble pie lying around? I have to eat plenty....

    62. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, the fine is for ignoring a request for deleting links to prohibited content

      You forgot the _potentially_ prohibited content.

    63. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      The whole point of the court is to punish people, the government is never going to back out of an easy $11k

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    64. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      No body looked at the anti abortion page, why would they. It is just easier to outlaw the internet.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    65. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I only check my whois email once a month.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    66. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Plus they might send email from a blacklisted server just to make sure you never receive it.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    67. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by DigitalWallaby · · Score: 1

      Nope, they're immediately detained on some manner of prison island, no questions asked.

      To call it an island is inaccurate. It's really more of a penisula.

    68. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      filled with lots of women with Australian accents

      You are saying that Pauline Hanson sounds sexy?

      *swallows bile*

      "Please explain!"

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    69. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by bh_doc · · Score: 1

      No matter how much Conroy and his cronies like to suggest that the filter will only block illegal content, with child porn usually specifically (emotively) mentioned, and no matter how much they try to paint supporters of free speech as supporters of child porn, these are all patent lies. The proposed filter implements the ACMA blacklist, which was originally intended to be safe for *children*, and which blocks not illegal material, but "prohibited" material (or "potentially prohibited" material, as in "I couldn't be bothered sending it for proper rating, here's my guess"), which can include perfectly legal adult material (stuff you can buy in newsagents, ferchristssake), and in some cases even MA15+-rated material.

      ACMA would've ruled prohibited content here because someone at ACMA figured the images would probably (probably!) been rated unsuitable for children (if they'd actually rated them through the classification board).

      But what shits me the most about this whole mess Conroy's seemingly unending list of lies.

    70. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. Not many Americans are aware that their country was used by the English for transportation of 'criminals'.
      After the American War of Independence, the English couldn't send any more convicts there and so New South Wales (ermmm Australia), became the new convict colony.
      I should point out that not all transportees were convicts. Less than 30 years later, there were more 'freemen' as immigrants than convicts.

    71. Re:Happiness is Mandatory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply linking to addresses in ACMA's blacklist attracts an $11,000 per-day fine (snip) The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian (snip)

      So you receive a letter on your mailbox saying that you were fined in AUD $11,000 , for linking to a site that you didn't know you could link, and if you knew that you couldn't link to it you would be even more penalized because that information is not for your security level?

      This is truly bizarre. Sounds like it's a law that's designed to be accidentally broken.

      I don't think it'll stand up in any court. It's just wrong on too many levels.

      Try the law they did about hand held laser pointers and such...

      14 year jail for possessing one...ROAFL
      this government is a joke here in Aus.

  4. That's Kafkaesque by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Eh, what?? A $11k fine for breaking a secret law? How are you supposed to stay clear of it if you can't read the list of things you can't do?

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:That's Kafkaesque by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry. No right thinking citizen would ever do anything that is on the list. What more do you need to know?

    2. Re:That's Kafkaesque by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know, it's like these people read Kafka for ideas on how to F things up.

      OT, but I once had a friend in the Marine Corps who had his clearance suspended due to an investigation into his supposed leaking of classified information (for which he was eventually cleared). The investigation contained Secret information, so they couldn't show him the charges that were pressed against him. We had some good laughs about Kafka, especially once it was all over.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:That's Kafkaesque by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Shh, its a secret what they are doing.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:That's Kafkaesque by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a completely unrelated note, the new ruler of Australia has changed his name to "Mao".

    5. Re:That's Kafkaesque by PMuse · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is turning into one of those plans, isn't it?

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    6. Re:That's Kafkaesque by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Eh, what?? A $11k fine for breaking a secret law? How are you supposed to stay clear of it if you can't read the list of things you can't do?"

      We have that here already in the US. That case about the guy who wanted TSA to tell him what law stated he had to show ID prior to boarding an airplane, and they said they couldn't show it to him, it was a secret (national security I think).

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:That's Kafkaesque by gzipped_tar · · Score: 0, Troll

      I don't know whether the mods who modded this insightful are expressing their "+1 funny" opinion in an alternative form or they just don't get it. I again don't know whether my reply constitutes an overly elaborate "*whoosh*" to the mods or I'm just meta-whooshing myself.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    8. Re:That's Kafkaesque by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not the mods, of course, so I can't say; but I'm sincerely hoping that the "insightful" mods are a mixture of "funny; but I think you deserve karma" and "Insightful; because you have correctly caricatured precisely the response that a creepy statist would actually exhibit".

      I urge anybody who actually agrees with my original post to explore a fulfilling career in being on fire.

    9. Re:That's Kafkaesque by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      OK, what moderator decided that was funny? Insightful, Informative, Underrated, sad... but not funny.

    10. Re:That's Kafkaesque by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few years ago, the parliament voted FOR a law they were told was meant to protect national security. The people weren't allowed to read it and the voters weren't allowed to read it, they were only told that it was "for the good of the country" (will somebody think of the children in this country?) So they all voted for it and it passed and now we're supposed to follow a law we don't have the right to know about. I ask myself, how could anyone prove you broke it, if they're not allowed to know about it? How can you defend yourself in court if you're just told "you broke law XYZ, but we can't tell you what you did, so you go to jail"

      (and I thought I lived in a more sane country - note, this country is in the EU)

    11. Re:That's Kafkaesque by russotto · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know, it's like these people read Kafka for ideas on how to F things up.

      Hopefully it's actually Heller (Catch-22). Because if it's Kafka, we're in for some REALLY big trouble once they get past "The Trial" and into "Metamorphosis"

    12. Re:That's Kafkaesque by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your friend should realize that it's never "all over", since the the investigation is classified. Most likely they've reinstated his clearance so that he will further implicate himself. Not so funny when the guys with a knife show up and give you a choice between cutting your own throat and having them do it.

    13. Re:That's Kafkaesque by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's both. I've worked for some people that were probably best described as cockroaches, so...

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    14. Re:That's Kafkaesque by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Uh, who said they didn't want us to break the law?

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    15. Re:That's Kafkaesque by JustOK · · Score: 1

      It's funny because it made me laugh.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    16. Re:That's Kafkaesque by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't mod your post either, but when I give a "Funny" post an "Insightful" mod, it's either because it's adding to the humour of the joke or because I find the post to be insightful if correctly interpreted to be sarcasm. I'd say yours qualifies as the latter.

    17. Re:That's Kafkaesque by julesh · · Score: 1

      A $11k fine for breaking a secret law? How are you supposed to stay clear of it if you can't read the list of things you can't do?

      "No reason," wailed the old woman. "No reason."
      "What right did they have?"
      "Catch-22. [...] Catch-22 says they have a right to do
      anything we can't stop them from doing. [...] What does it
      mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?"
      "Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping
      about in anger and distress. "Didn't you even make them read
      it?"
      "They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman
      answered. "The law says they don't have to."
      "What law says they don't have to?"
      "Catch-22.

  5. And it sucks more for Australians by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At least in Denmark, you can drive a little ways and get your Internet uncensored.

    For those unlucky souls in Australia who can't access their favorite aberrent websites don't really have any good recourse.

    1. Re:And it sucks more for Australians by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least in Denmark, you can drive a little ways and get your Internet uncensored.

      For those unlucky souls in Australia who can't access their favorite aberrent websites don't really have any good recourse.

      Wifi outside the US embasy?

    2. Re:And it sucks more for Australians by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      At least in Denmark, you can drive a little ways and get your Internet uncensored.

      For those unlucky souls in Australia who can't access their favorite aberrent websites don't really have any good recourse.

      Tunnel with SSH, OpenVPN, or IPsec to a proxy outside the country. They may be able to break direct connectivity but there is no way to break indirect connectivity.

    3. Re:And it sucks more for Australians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer the Swedish embassy myself...

    4. Re:And it sucks more for Australians by definate · · Score: 1

      A lot of us have already said, we'll split the costs of hiring a decent server with VPN/SSH so we can completely bypass it. It would just take a little bit more money.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  6. Well done! by the_germ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you can't see what pages are on the list, but if you happen to link to one you pay $11,000 per day...

    Welcome to BDA - Banana Dictatorship of Australia!

  7. Australia going fascist?! by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Looks like Australia is going fascist *instead* of the USA.

    Dick Cheney must be drooling at this.
    This is probably one of the things he always wanted.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    1. Re:Australia going fascist?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Don't worry. USA will get there in their own time.

    2. Re:Australia going fascist?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the Anglosphere where English is still the primary language, seems to be. Great Britain, check by CCTV. United States, check. Australia, check. Fortunately Canada and NZ have yet to succumb.

    3. Re:Australia going fascist?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Australia going fascist?! by operagost · · Score: 1

      In a list of the world's top censors, Cheney wouldn't even make the first nineteen single-spaced, hardcover volumes. The man is out of office: get over it. "Move on", right?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Australia going fascist?! by maxume · · Score: 1

      I imagine Dick Cheney is far scarier than the cartoon you are imagining. He likely believes that he is a good man doing necessary things.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Australia going fascist?! by HiThere · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You've got one point. He wasn't especially given to censorship.

      OTOH, I won't be "over it" until after he's been convicted of his crimes and is in jail serving several consecutive life sentences.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Australia going fascist?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Zealand already have their great firewall in place.

    8. Re:Australia going fascist?! by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      totally agree, i'm not sure its even an improvement on the Howard regime anymore...

  8. No Internet For You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why don't we just block Australia from the internet altogether until they learn to use it properly?

    1. Re:No Internet For You by phyrz · · Score: 4, Funny

      but but but.. urrgh... fair enough.

      --
      Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern!
    2. Re:No Internet For You by GenePoolFairy · · Score: 1

      Because their government would be too happy about it.

    3. Re:No Internet For You by cenc · · Score: 1

      yea, lets censor Australia for censoring Australia.

      I am inclined however to not host anything in Australia ever. Wait, I have no reason to host anything in Australia ever.

    4. Re:No Internet For You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May as well do. Soon there'll be nothing to visit on the 'net except Sen Conroy's website.

      So we may as well go outside, enjoy the fresh air, get a 'tan', and get mugged by those coked up AFL druggies, just the way the Government likes it...

    5. Re:No Internet For You by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Australian, please do it!

      We are such a backwards country, it's about time we were dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

      Our federal government seems determined to suicide at the moment, over this and a fake carbon trading scheme when real environmental action was a major election promise.

  9. Good luck with that... by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The blacklist is secret

    These guys just don't "get" it still, do they?

    Step 1) Run a simple web spider that checks availability but never actually pulls content, from within Australia.
    Step 2) Run the same spider in any non-censoring country.
    Step 3) Compare the two lists.

    Simple as that. Nothing more than a few hundred megs of shotgun-requests, and you can map the portions of the web that look dark but shouldn't.

    1. Re:Good luck with that... by BESTouff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Step 1) Run a simple web spider that checks availability but never actually pulls content, from within Australia.
      Step 2) Run the same spider in any non-censoring country.
      Step 3) Compare the two lists.

      You'd better be quick. The amount of non-censoring countries is drying very fast.

    2. Re:Good luck with that... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, that's a great idea. All you have to do to get a copy of the blacklist is check every URL on the entire internet twice. I'll get my iPhone started on that!

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    3. Re:Good luck with that... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. ISTR people doing this for China, but I'd be curious to see this sort of thing for western democracies, e.g., to see what the UK's firewall is really blocking (we all heard about Wikipedia, which they backed down on, but we only found out about that because the proxying caused a problem with accessing, and it affected a major website - how many less popular sites are having legal text inadvertently blocked, with no one knowing because all they get is a fake 404?)

    4. Re:Good luck with that... by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All you have to do to get a copy of the blacklist is check every URL on the entire internet twice.

      Given the choice between dealing with government bureaucracy or using a technical end-run around the same, I'll take the technical approach every time. At least it will deterministically give the desired results.

      And as I mentioned, you don't need to get the whole page, just check the headers. This task would also parallelize perfectly... A few dozen people splitting the task between them could probably do it in under an hour. You could further optimize it by only checking the list of possible positives in the noncensoring-country phase.

      But by all means, feel free to complain to the politicians, and see which of us gets an answer first... And which of us trusts the answer we get (if any).


      Personally, I think this would make an interesting exercise for a potential link aggregation site... Run the same experiment daily from various known-censoring countries, and post them to the FP so everyone can instantly see the day's new "Big Brother disapproves of this" content. Sort of an automated Streisand effect.

    5. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The blacklist is secret
      Step 1) Run a simple web spider that checks availability but never actually pulls content, from within Australia.
      Step 2) Run the same spider in any non-censoring country.
      Step 3) Compare the two lists.

      Step 4) Profit!?!

    6. Re:Good luck with that... by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Not that hard. A typical spidering server only runs at about 600kB/s or so. A distributed effort in real time would not be infeasible.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    7. Re:Good luck with that... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      How are you going to check the availability of content in Australia without requesting it?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    8. Re:Good luck with that... by EddyPearson · · Score: 1

      "Run a simple web spider"
      A spider that is somehow able to crawl the entire internet, primarily the bits that people have tried very hard hide from spiders, all with only a "few hundred megs" to play with.

      "checks availability but never actually pulls content"
      And how pray does one do that? Guess work? Intuition? Magic?

      "Run the same spider in any non-censoring country."
      Of course taking into account the myriad of factors that would generate false positives, like differences in latency and the fact by the time you've got to scan number two, the first set of results are now weeks out of date (conservative estmiate, you're crawling THE INTERNET)

      No. Just, no.

      --
      You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
    9. Re:Good luck with that... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      A spider that is somehow able to crawl the entire internet, primarily the bits that people have tried very hard hide from spiders

      I presume the intent was primarily not to uncover the list of naughty sites, but more to see what sites have been incorrectly classified, in which case, there's no need to worry about focusing on hard to find sites.

      Even if spidering the entire web is unfeasible, it would be interesting to go over a large number of non-hidden sites and test them. Anyone have estimates on the feasibility? E.g., how many sites could be tested in what sort of time?

      the fact by the time you've got to scan number two, the first set of results are now weeks out of date

      I presume that any possible hits would be rechecked. So as long as your lists aren't completely different, this isn't a problem.

    10. Re:Good luck with that... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      You'd better be quick. The amount of non-censoring countries is drying very fast.

      If the website is in the country, they usually take it down in which case it's nowhere to be reached. The blacklist is usually foreign sites by countries that have different laws or don't enforce them. Thus, if I can proxy to that country it's rarely a problem. Plus without a lot of international cooperation, blocks rarely cross the English/non-English boundary so if you proxy to say a spanish/arab/whatever-speaking country and vist english-speaking sites.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:Good luck with that... by skeeto · · Score: 1

      It really just needs to be reversed now, to "Australian Internet Blacklist Pages Added To Wikileaks".

    12. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      e.g., to see what the UK's firewall is really blocking

      This term is misleading. *At present* there is no 'UK firewall'. There is a voluntary body - the IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) which supplies a block list to ISPs who want it to use as they see fit. Currently it *is* voluntary and ISPs covering about 5% of customers do not use it.

      That's not to say it will stay that way for long, since the government has recently talked about making it compulsory.

    13. Re:Good luck with that... by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Yeah... too bad the blacklist is enforced administratively rather than by filtering, so your spider would see everything as "available".

      And, I really don't think you grasp the scope of "every URL on the internet".

    14. Re:Good luck with that... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. That's an implementation detail, we're talking about high-level architecture here.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    15. Re:Good luck with that... by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Step 1) Run a simple web spider that checks availability but never actually pulls content, from within Australia.

      Step 2) Run the same spider in any non-censoring country.

      Step 3) Compare the two lists.

      That would be a fascinating project.

      One spider in each country would give us some nice comparative lists. Once implemented it would draw attention to whatever the governments are trying to hide and hopefully remove their desire to filter at all.

      The thing is some of this stuff, maybe most of it really will be child porn and deserves to be filtered.

    16. Re:Good luck with that... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Your botnet would be faster.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    17. Re:Good luck with that... by schmiddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And as I mentioned, you don't need to get the whole page, just check the headers. This task would also parallelize perfectly... A few dozen people splitting the task between them could probably do it in under an hour

      LOL. I take it you've never actually tried to write or run a web crawler before? It's a fun exercise.. try it sometime.

      --
      http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
    18. Re:Good luck with that... by Zerth · · Score: 1

      primarily the bits that people have tried very hard hide from spiders

      .

      They aren't looking for kiddy porn, they're looking for wrongly block sites. They aren't trying to hide.

      "checks availability but never actually pulls content"

      And how pray does one do that? Guess work? Intuition? Magic?

      .
      Do a HTTP GET to a host for an url. If it starts to return data in a normal fashion, drop the connection and thus not download the rest of the page. If it fails in the method indicative of the blacklist, ask the uncensored computer to try it. If the uncensored computer gets data returned, put that url on the "possibly banned list". You probably just need the GET response or at most the header, a few mere hundreds of bytes.

      and the fact by the time you've got to scan number two, the first set of results are now weeks out of date

      .
      Why would you think they'd wait until after going all the way through? Check it from the uncensored computer immediately and only check those that seem to be blocked. No point in checking the pages that succeed on the censored computer. Hell, with DNS blacklists you wouldn't even need to check it from another site, just see if you can ping the IP. If you can ping it, but get a "no route to host" when trying to make a HTTP connection, that's a big neon sign right there. Or if a deliberately non-existent page gets one kind of 404 page, but a suspected blocked page gets a different kind of 404 page, another big neon sign.

      (conservative estmiate, you're crawling THE INTERNET)

      Google seems to manage. And they actually download the content, we're just checking for availability.

    19. Re:Good luck with that... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      In primus:
      There's probably no legal way to deal with this, unless you want to fight it out in court. Good luck with that. They won't prosecute unless they figure they'll win.

      Given that:
      If you're operating a botnet, why not just edit the official government pages to include forbidden links. Then you don't even need to know very many of them.

      Actually, it doesn't even need to be government pages. Any large company would work as well. And in either case you'd need to be using a botnet for this, because:
      a) you don't want it traced back to you, and
      b) you need to do it repeatedly (every time they fix the page).

      I'm not at all sure how practical it is to try to get a complete list in the manner described. It's probably continually being altered. The only practical way would seem to be to read their server and copy off the secret file at least once a week. And for that you'd better not be traceable, because eventually they'll notice what you are doing. (Another interesting trick would be to include, say, clothing links into the list. [When I was in my early teens I used to trace the Sears catalog women's underwear pictures, and then edit them.])

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    20. Re:Good luck with that... by rastilin · · Score: 1

      That does make it somewhat feasible, but how much will it download overall? For example, assuming that I'd have to actually pay by the GB for bandwith, could I afford to do this?

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    21. Re:Good luck with that... by complete+loony · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you spider the internet, if you are only checking headers. The whole point of a spider is that you recursively follow all the links returned from each page.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    22. Re:Good luck with that... by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Approximately speaking, by the time you get to the end of the internet, it would be time to start over. So you would never stop. 600kB/s is something like 1500GB/month, so you are talking probably a step up from a home connection. However, web spidering should parallelise pretty effectively, so I would imagine distribution is the way to go here (particularly since home connections are the ones we're interested in).

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    23. Re:Good luck with that... by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      There is a voluntary body

      This term is misleading. The Government have made no secret of the fact that they want all ISPs to be using it, and they will do something about it if they do not do it "voluntary". See the article linked from this more recent story - http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/17/2321252 : "Despite being clueless about how the IWF rates content, the Home Office admitted it was forcing ISPs to sign up to the organisation's blacklist in order to meet targets it set itself."

      Also see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7904607.stm : "The government had asked all internet service providers (ISPs) to block illegal websites by the end of 2007."; "The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%."

      That's not to say it will stay that way for long, since the government has recently talked about making it compulsory.

      Well yes, exactly. It's not voluntary in any meaninful sense, as the Government has long been telling them to do so, with the threat of making it compulsory if they don't.

      Furthermore, the fact that it's a private independent body means that it's the worst of both worlds. If this was the Government doing it directly, they would be at least in principle accountable, and perhaps subject to laws such as Freedom of Information. With the IWF, they are accountable to no one, and can say "Well we're a private organisation, we do what we like", and people say, as you do "It's voluntary", yet at the same time, it is compulsory for 95% of users, and will soon be compulsory for the remaining 5%.

      If you mean that it's not a real firewall because 5% aren't affected, well, a firewall is still a firewall even if it isn't 100% secure. I'm sure there are ways round the Chinese one, too.

  10. I'm sorry, I must be new here... by wandazulu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but when did Australia become the poster boy for blatant censorship and policies akin to fascism? I lived there for awhile back in the early 90s and it seemed like such a laid-back, friendly place where pretty much anything goes so long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

    The irony of all this is I remember getting a "talking to" by a fellow in a bar who held up McCarthyism as one of America's saddest moments because it directly attacked free speech and free thought of individuals in the name of the "commie boogyman". With news like this coming out of Australia, I'm wondering if I'm going to see him again on TV in some show trial, being accused of thoughtcrime.

    Actually, no, I won't, because unlike the McCarthy hearings, the ones in Australia would probably be censored.

    1. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's as if countries in the "western" world these days are in a race to see who can remove citizen rights the fastest.

      I really don't understand it. Have we really fallen so far so fast?

      As always, it's just a matter of following the money and/or who has the most to gain from these measures. Find that, then you can combat it.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    2. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I really don't understand it. Have we really fallen so far so fast?

      This isn't a popular opinion but I think it's a natural consequence of people turning to Government for all manner of problems that Government wasn't originally intended to deal with. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      I don't know a great deal about Australia or its political system, but isn't the prevailing view that the Australian people *are* laid back and pretty decent people, but their politicians are a bunch of scumbag fucknuts? (I know ... that last part could apply anywhere.)

      I saw a documentary about small scale (I think, local) Australian politics several years ago - fly-on-the-wall style - and the stuff they got up to was remarkable: lying, back-stabbing little bastards - you wouldn't dream of buying a second-hand car from any of them.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    4. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      You know that guy who owns Fox News? Australian.

      Media is the most powerful branch of government.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    5. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by rpresser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is a direct correlate to the financial meltdown: it is a political meltdown. The political class has become too powerful, too insular, too overconfident, and too stupid. And just like the financial crisis, this is a worldwide phenonmenon, ranging from the Taliban to the Australians to the Danes. There is no escape.

      But if there is hope, it lies in the proles.

    6. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Media is the most powerful branch of government.

      Only because a bunch of "progressives" got the bright idea that we needed more "democracy". The Founding Fathers rightly feared the power of the mob and took steps to mitigate how much damage it could do. If you want to limit the influence of the media let's start by repealing the 17th amendment and flogging those that want to get rid of the electoral college.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >It's as if countries in the "western" world these days are in a race to see who can remove citizen rights the fastest.

      >I really don't understand it. Have we really fallen so far so fast?

      *All* governments have *always* wanted the ability to spy on everyone, including their own citizens. It's not even paranoia or a matter of the government somehow having a mind of its own: it's just individuals doing their jobs and wanting to make sure that they never get in trouble for not having done enough to keep their jobs and country safe.

      The primary difference between what we're seeing now and the Stasi or the Star Chamber is that now, every government *can* easily record 100% of the information that they have access to.

      So they are. All of them, all the time, because they feel like they have to.

      Governments are *always* the most dangerous entities to humanity, and it's not even like the governments can help it. They just become that way because that's how power works: people functioning in their own self-interest and self-preservation, will always make larger and more intrusive governments.

      Let's hear it for strong crypto.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    8. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Maclir · · Score: 1

      Because you were in Australia in the final days of that laid back Australia.

      1994 - the conservative ("Liberal") political party took over as the federal government. The Prime Minister - John (G.W. Bush's "Deputy Sheriff" in the region) was as reactionary and divisive as any political leader in living memory.

    9. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by operagost · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      ...but when did Australia become the poster boy for blatant censorship and policies akin to fascism?

      Shortly after the government banned all useful weapons so that they didn't need to fear the people anymore.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by operagost · · Score: 1

      You know that conclusion that Lord Ender just made? A bit fallacious.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    11. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by dschuetz · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"

      I like that quote, but have never heard it before. It didn't quite ring right for Jefferson, so I dug. According to WikiQuote, it's actually from Gerald Ford's address to Congress in August, 1974.

    12. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by swb · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mod parent up. Note how Orwellian Orwell's home country has also gotten after the effective banning of all firearms and how they're on the verge of banning knives, now, too, in a desperate attempt to legislate civility.

    13. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Kuukai · · Score: 1

      In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"

      Actually, that was Gerald Ford. Not saying whether that's meaningful or not, that's up to you, but I figured it was worth mentioning.

      --
      Sendou Wave Kick!!
    14. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 3, Funny

      Tragedy today as former President Gerald Ford was eaten by wolves. He was delicious.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    15. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Darby · · Score: 2, Informative

      I really don't understand it. Have we really fallen so far so fast?

      No, it's been slow and steady ever since WW2. That was the great war against fascism. Most people forget that the
      American industrialists were huge Hitler supporters and one of the reasons they hate FDR so much is that he manipulated us into war against Hitler, instead of adopting his policies.

      So after WW2, we immediately started a national policy of rabid anti-leftism, which was exactly Hitler's starting point in creating his philosophy.

      Never let yourself forget for one second that Henry Ford, Charles Lindburgh, and the grandfather of our former president, Prescott Bush, as well as much of the rest of the wealthy and powerful in America were rabid Nazis before WW2 and they, and their descendants intellectual and literal are still rabid Nazis to this day.

      So there is nothing fast about it. This plan has taken over half a century to come to fruition.

    16. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, but it's FOR THE CHILDREN!!! Remember that and all will be well.... hmmmmmm

    17. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate the desire of people to control the lives of others.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    18. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by taksraven · · Score: 1

      Most Australians are a bigger bunch of puritanical bastards than a lot of people in the rest of the world probably realise. Many Australians pride themselves on being easy going Crocodile Dundee types but the reality is that most have never ventured outside of the city they live in and far too many have never even left the suburb they were born in. Scratch just beneath the surface of the easy going, laid back facade however and you will find that most Aussies are very paranoid AND pro-censorship. A lot of dinkum Aussies won't care about this internet censorship as long as it has no effect on the holy trinity (football, cricket and beer that is)

    19. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...but when did Australia become the poster boy for blatant censorship and policies akin to fascism?

      Shortly after the government banned all useful weapons so that they didn't need to fear the people anymore.

      Followed by;

      Mod parent up. Note how Orwellian Orwell's home country has also gotten after the effective banning of all firearms and how they're on the verge of banning knives, now, too, in a desperate attempt to legislate civility.

      Both posts make valid points.

      Why are objections or alternative viewpoints to the idea of governments taking away citizens' means to defend themselves "Flamebait"?

      Is it now crimethink to object to being at anyone with a weapons' mercy? Have the media and the progressives really done such a thorough job of convincing everyone they can't trust themselves with sharp, pointy things or things that go "bang!"?

      I mean, c'mon! If *you* were to be handed a gun or knife, would you turn into a blood-thirsty, murderous criminal (barring being a criminal for the weapon possession alone)? If you're of the opinion that if you had a gun you wouldn't start knocking over convenience stores or shooting people in the street, why do you think it's different for your neighbor?

      Banning weapons won't keep them out of the hands of criminals and won't stop violent crimes from being committed. The only thing that banning law-abiding citizens from owning weapons *will* accomplish is rendering them helpless against the government.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    20. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by neonsignal · · Score: 1

      > it seemed like such a laid-back, friendly place perhaps laid-back is the same as mostly apathetic?

    21. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by neonsignal · · Score: 1

      > it seemed like such a laid-back, friendly place

      perhaps "laid-back" is the same as "mostly apathetic"

    22. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This isn't a popular opinion but I think it's a natural consequence of people turning to Government for all manner of problems that Government wasn't originally intended to deal with.

      The original "limited" design of the U.S. government was rather unique in its day. Most (all?) European governments have always dealt with a lot of things, so it's not really people "turning to them" now.

      No, I just think that the rise of surveillance society simply coincides with availability of cheap technical measures to do that thing. It's not new either, even in the U.S. - remember COINTELPRO? - but now it's so cheap that no nation can resist the temptation to "think of the children" or "protect everyone from terrorists" etc. It's not the problem just with the governments, but with people at large.

    23. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The original "limited" design of the U.S. government was rather unique in its day

      Designed by a people who had a fairly recent experience with an oppressive government. Hmm, perhaps they knew something that we've allowed ourselves to forget?

      It's not the problem just with the governments, but with people at large.

      I agree. Which is why we need to limit the amount of damage the mob can do to our country. I would start by repealing the 17th amendment and the Reynolds v. Sims ruling. Get back to our Republican roots and make Government more accountable to the principles of our Constitution and less accountable to the mob mentality and mass media.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    24. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Designed by a people who had a fairly recent experience with an oppressive government. Hmm, perhaps they knew something that we've allowed ourselves to forget?

      Perhaps they were just idealists. If you recall, it didn't take long for things such as Alien and Sedition Acts to appear.

      I agree. Which is why we need to limit the amount of damage the mob can do to our country. I would start by repealing the 17th amendment and the Reynolds v. Sims ruling. Get back to our Republican roots and make Government more accountable to the principles of our Constitution and less accountable to the mob mentality and mass media.

      Be careful what you wish for. Getting back to your roots means scaling down the Federal government, yes, but it also means shifting the balance of powers strongly to the States - and they then could introduce whatever measures they would see fit. The "roots" are really more about decentralization, and less about republicanism - if I remember correctly, the original U.S. constitution had very few limitations on the power of the States on their own territory.

      As for mob mentality, that's something that will be there for as long as you wish to maintain a democratic form of government (note that I use "democracy" here in its modern meaning, and not in the original Platonic meaning that opposes democracy to republicanism). So long as the general population has any say in politics of the country, even if it's indirect through their representatives, you will have some form of mob rule. There's nothing good about it, it's just that all the alternatives we know are worse.

      Me, I've always thought that one thing that right to vote should be conditional on is understanding of how the political system in the country works, at least on the level sufficient to understand the exact meaning and consequences of one's vote. It's ironic that U.S. citizenship tests include a lot of questions along those lines, so naturalized citizens have to study that stuff; but those borned in the U.S. can (and most often do) remain ignorant about their own political system, and yet go and vote regardless. This isn't unique to the U.S. of course - plenty other countries have the same issues.

      Of course, in the U.S. at least, any such proposal would be shot down on sight as "disenfranchising uneducated poor and minorities"...

    25. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The "roots" are really more about decentralization, and less about republicanism - if I remember correctly, the original U.S. constitution had very few limitations on the power of the States on their own territory.

      So what's the problem? As far as I'm concerned the States can do whatever they want as long as they follow the US Constitution. I didn't advocate repealing the 14th amendment, so it's not like they'll be bringing back slavery or restricting on your right to free speech. If you want a social safety net then do it on the state level where it can be more responsible to the citizenry and tailored to solve local problems. This would seem to be better all around then trying to impose one-size-fits-all solutions from Washington that are invariably tied up with a grand political agenda that has little to do with solving local problems and everything to do with expanding Federal power.

      So long as the general population has any say in politics of the country, even if it's indirect through their representatives, you will have some form of mob rule

      Right, so you temper the power of the mob by removing some of the organs of Government from direct influence by the mob. The Senate should go back to being appointed by the State Legislatures. This would insulate part of Congress from the mob and make the Senate less apt to support the centralization of power. Both of those are good things, IMHO.

      Of course, in the U.S. at least, any such proposal would be shot down on sight as "disenfranchising uneducated poor and minorities"...

      So would my proposals. *sigh*

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    26. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are objections or alternative viewpoints to the idea of governments taking away citizens' means to defend themselves "Flamebait"?

      Shortly after the government banned all useful weapons so that they didn't need to fear the people anymore.

      I have highlighted the relevant parts so you may see why that post was moderated "Flamebait".

      Firstly, the Government didn't ban all useful weapons, they banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and provided tighter licensing controls for people purchasing rifles or pistols.

      Banning weapons won't keep them out of the hands of criminals and won't stop violent crimes from being committed.

      On the contrary, Police have reported that gun crime has reduced over the past 10 years since the gun buy-back scheme.

      Pro-Gun lobyists and Gun Dealers continue to say that the source of illegal guns are imports but they fail to provide any verifiable information.

      Police and Scholars alike say that the majority of guns used in crimes today are either stolen or bought from Dealers or Licensed gun owners.

      http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1970051.htm

    27. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Firstly, the Government didn't ban all useful weapons, they banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and provided tighter licensing controls for people purchasing rifles or pistols.

      Apparently, we have differing opinions on what constitutes "useful" and for what purpose.

      On the contrary, Police have reported that gun crime has reduced over the past 10 years since the gun buy-back scheme.

      Well, i suppose if you have, for example, 100 murders committed by gun in one time period, ban guns, then 200 murders are committed the next time period, only not by gun, you can say that *gun* crime has been reduced.

      Pro-Gun lobyists and Gun Dealers continue to say that the source of illegal guns are imports but they fail to provide any verifiable information.

      Police and Scholars alike say that the majority of guns used in crimes today are either stolen or bought from Dealers or Licensed gun owners.

      Neither have the pro-ban people provided anything but theories and speculation, no verifiable information other than "we say so".

      There still is no explanation of why my post was marked "Flamebait" other than "I don't like what you said, but don't have any valid arguments to present, so I'll mod you down".

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    28. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      There still is no explanation of why my post was marked "Flamebait"...

      Oops. Should have been "...why that post...".

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    29. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, i suppose if you have, for example, 100 murders committed by gun in one time period, ban guns, then 200 murders are committed the next time period, only not by gun, you can say that *gun* crime has been reduced.

      That would mark a glowing success for banning of guns in the eyes of government.

      Not only could you say that *gun* murders had been reduced, but the *gun* murders would have reduced at a time when the overall rate of murder had increased. What else can you say but the banning of *guns* has reduced *gun* murders????

    30. Re:I'm sorry, I must be new here... by indiechild · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm Australian and I think Australia is much more conservative and puritanical than most people believe. In this respect, we are a bit like the USA, except without the emphasis on individual freedoms that the US is famous for.

  11. The progressive criminalisation of conservatism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny how many views that used to be considered within the realm of "opinions that humans were legitimately entitled to have" have progressively been moved to the category of "illegitimate opinions which must be repressed and punished". Typically by progressive governments and pressure groups.

    1. Re:The progressive criminalisation of conservatism by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you'll find that people with the most problems with freedom of expression are the right-wing (and extremely conservative) Catholics like Stephen Conroy and Nicola Roxon. The people doing the oppressing here are the conservatives and their enablers, not the small-l liberals.

    2. Re:The progressive criminalisation of conservatism by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's called progress. Don't like it? Move to Afghanistan where it's still legal to beat your woman and stone apostates.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:The progressive criminalisation of conservatism by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that people with the most problems with freedom of expression are the right-wing (and extremely conservative) Catholics like Stephen Conroy and Nicola Roxon. The people doing the oppressing here are the conservatives and their enablers, not the small-l liberals.

      Fairness Doctrine.

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  12. It's all child pornography. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The vast majority of the list looks like kiddie porn sites or links to kiddie porn sights. You know, teenagers and younger being exploited.

    Frankly, the Danes and the Australians are doing the "liberal" thing in trying to block these sites. If they block everyone, they reason, the sites will go out of business and the exploitation will stop. That's admirable.

    But... since I'm an American.... I would rather let the people go to these sites, determine who is getting their jollies off looking at this stuff, and then let's round up all these sick f--- people and kill them.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:It's all child pornography. by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they block everyone, they reason, the sites will go out of business and the exploitation will stop. That's admirable.

      And if we outlaw drugs, people still stop using them and drug abuse will stop. That's admirable.

      But... since I'm an American.... I would rather let the people go to these sites, determine who is getting their jollies off looking at this stuff, and then let's round up all these sick f--- people and kill them.

      That thought has occurred to me as well. Why block these sites when you could presumably get warrants to see who is going to them and actually investigate the people breaking the law instead of trying to impose a censorship scheme that will never work anyway?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:It's all child pornography. by denis-The-menace · · Score: 2

      With laws like this the pedos will realize that they need to move on to something more secure than open HTTP.

      This way the kids and politicians alike will not be able to see the stuff; just like it was before the Internet took off. Politicians will then be able to back to the way they used to handle this problem: http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2009-03-15/ (focus on the last pane)

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    3. Re:It's all child pornography. by davegravy · · Score: 1

      If they block everyone, they reason, the sites will go out of business and the exploitation will stop. That's admirable.

      Admirable? If they nuke the entire country the exploitation will also stop. Such policies often have unintended consequences that must be considered.

    4. Re:It's all child pornography. by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > The vast majority of the list looks like kiddie porn sites
      Please post ACMA's blacklist so we can verify.

    5. Re:It's all child pornography. by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Frankly, the Danes and the Australians are doing the "liberal" thing in trying to block these sites.

      This must be the American "liberalism is just another word for communism" version of the word "liberal".

    6. Re:It's all child pornography. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. If they block everyone
      2. the sites will go out of business
      3. and the exploitation will stop.

      Comments:

      1. Blocking would reduce the number of people who can very easily access material. One would however assume that kiddy porn sharers are marginally more sophisticated in their surfing than the average user and is hence less affected. Actually, scratch that, any conceivable channel that is already used to provide obfuscation/security would obviously be completely unaffected.

      I am however sure that the vast number of people who randomly get a desire for kiddy porn and Google 'Kiddy porn pictures videos' from their home computer would be crushingly discouraged by the message that the material has been blocked.

      2. Sites don't charge money and hence cannot "go out of business". Actually, the fewer users, the lower the costs of running will be.

      3. People have been abusing kids since the dawn of time. It's highly unlikely that the act of making it slightly harder to visit a collection of websites will change this in any way.

    7. Re:It's all child pornography. by ketilwaa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Y'know, even if people are serving prison sentences, or in serious therapy, there is still the matter of the kids in those pictures and movies. The idea that users are investigated for using the sites, doesn't even begin to solve the problem of those kids being violated.

      I'm an American too, but I say: come up with some better ideas. Starting with doing away with the taboos about sex in general might be a step in the right decision. The American idea that violence is pretty much OK, but sex is not to be talked about, and naked bodies should be considered racy or disturbing is such a perversion. A natural relationship towards sex could start with breaking down the structural homophobia that is still widely accepted.

    8. Re:It's all child pornography. by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By "all", you mean "all cases except where it's something else instead, such as an anti-abortion site".

      This is a usage of "all" I was not previously aware of.

      (But yes, I agree with your last paragraph; it's unclear what the intent of censorship is, and the problem is when the scope widens beyond that of abusive non-consensual material.)

    9. Re:It's all child pornography. by __int64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because it's not actually about stopping childporn, it's about imposing censorship. Whether childporn is weeded out is irrelevant, and these filters don't actually have be effective at stopping childporn to be effective at making people complacent.

    10. Re:It's all child pornography. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> But... since I'm an American.... I would rather let the people go to these sites, determine who is getting their jollies off looking at this stuff, and then let's round up all these sick f--- people and kill them.

      What the FUCK man? Since when did child porn become an offense worthy of the death sentence? That's akin to throwing someone in prison for twenty years for smoking a joint. The punishment is far too harsh for the crime.

      A wait, that's what usually happened when you're caught smoking a joint.

    11. Re:It's all child pornography. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well I would say that just leaving them up would be bordering on entrapment.
      It wouldn't be hard for somebody to spam people with HTML Email with links back to those sites. Most people don't turn off the images in email like I do.
      If a site is illegal in a certain country for some reason and that country decided to block it then that list should be made public.
      Keeping the list secret is just wrong.
      Every site that is blocked should have a reason that it is blocked and they type of content that is on it. If you are going to block it the let people know why.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    12. Re:It's all child pornography. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      By "all", you mean "all cases except where it's something else instead, such as an anti-abortion site".

      In the article I wrote "The Vast Majority"

      --
      This is my sig.
    13. Re:It's all child pornography. by RPoet · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the filters are not completely effective. There is always a way around them. Therefore, if the lists were public, they would function as advertisement. It cannot be any other way, of course, given how the internet was built to withstand censorship. Having the list public and giving reason for each block is of course the "democratic" thing to do, but for people who want censorship, democracy is not a consideration.

      --
      "Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
    14. Re:It's all child pornography. by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      In the article I wrote "The Vast Majority"

      But not in the more prominent title.

      Do you have a citation for your claim btw? The list is secret, after all. Also, beware of misleading statistics. Perhaps 99% of the list is valid, which would reasonably be the "vast majority", but that 1% could still be a large number of websites.

      And if someone is criminalised for linking to that 1%, do you think they'll be let off? No, the problem is that linking to anything on the list is, apparently, illegal. Similarly, is there any possibility for appealing a decision for the websites that are incorrectly classified?

    15. Re:It's all child pornography. by rzei · · Score: 1

      But... since I'm an American.... I would rather let the people go to these sites, determine who is getting their jollies off looking at this stuff, and then let's round up all these sick f--- people and kill them.

      That thought has occurred to me as well. Why block these sites when you could presumably get warrants to see who is going to them and actually investigate the people breaking the law instead of trying to impose a censorship scheme that will never work anyway?

      Two greatest ideas of the century.

      I wonder why not instead blocking these sites officials would attempt to co-operate internationally to hunt down the child abusers?

      Sounds like there could be higher chance of random "normal" (as in not-interested-in-children-in-that-way) person seeing some child porn while hunting for his/her kind of free porn from the Internet compared to the chance of someone "just happening to produce child porn and putting it up on the Internet."

      In your model the "random normal person" would be thrown to the jail, child abusers getting thanked by the police for giving them yet another sick person stumbling on their site.

      What all this boils down to is the politicians thinking that closing their eyes makes the problem go away. The Police officials must know that is not the right way; but they do not have a choice.

    16. Re:It's all child pornography. by cortesoft · · Score: 1

      You didn't click on any of those links did you? Because if you had, you would be the one being rounded up and killed.

      Or think about this.. I set up a tiny url that links to one of those sites.... you click on it not knowing where it leads...... you get arrested for child porn...

    17. Re:It's all child pornography. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have been watching too much Fox News and obviously have no concept of what the word 'liberal' means.

    18. Re:It's all child pornography. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they arrest them all they will be out of a job.

      They have to keep up the farce of trying to stop them to keep the money coming.

    19. Re:It's all child pornography. by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be hard for somebody to spam people with HTML Email with links back to those sites.

      Interesting concept. I wonder if we'll see a wave of just such messages sent to prominent Australian politicians, businessmen, journalists, clergy, and the like, if the filtering is actually implemented.

    20. Re:It's all child pornography. by flaming+error · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who modded this funny? I wasn't trying to be funny - I was trying to point out that the list is secret, so GP doesn't know what's in it. Until this assertion is backed, I call bullshit.

    21. Re:It's all child pornography. by Narpak · · Score: 1

      In Norway, so far, they only DNS block sites connected to child abuse. I have yet to hear any report of sites beyond that being blocked. While it can be said to be a measure that is easy to bypass; at least it means that, in theory, those that they find in connection to these sites will have actively circumvented the mild barrier in place to get at such material.

      While I am a strong advocate for free speech; I do not feel any particular resentment against my government for trying to reduce access to pornographic material that violates Norwegian law. However, if they take a step beyond that I will be among the first to argue for protest, civil disobedience, and further action should that prove to be insufficient. Though I reckon in any Democracy not voting for people that support further censorship is step One.

    22. Re:It's all child pornography. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      You didn't click on any of those links did you? Because if you had, you would be the one being rounded up and killed.

      Well I think you look for extremes, you know. An accidental click or set of clicks is not indicative of deviant behavior. If you go to slashdot once, that's ok. If you post there ten times a day, you are probably deranged! :-)

      --
      This is my sig.
    23. Re:It's all child pornography. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Your incorrect. I would love to have a world without kiddie porn sites. At best the censorship will prevent a few people that want to go to those sites getting there. Do you have any idea how many people have almost no technical knowledge at all? It could prevent some people from going there my mistake. Most rules like this make honest people honest.
      Honestly most people that want censorship fall into two categories. One the people that really want to protect kids or people that want too look like they are doing something good with little effort. None of them really are out to create 1984.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    24. Re:It's all child pornography. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do know you are allowed to say fuck on slashdot. This isn't the radio.

    25. Re:It's all child pornography. by twostix · · Score: 1

      Are you a bit dim mate?

      Read the bloody summary, it's a link to a site that links to a site that links to an anti-abortion site that got them on the blacklist.

      http://www.erowid.org/

      There. Now Slashdot *must* be put on the list as well, pro-illicit drug sites are censored, as are pro-euthenasia sites and I assume anti-censorship sites (such as wikileaks). And inevitably anti-government and anti-globalisation (anti G8, etc) sites.

      Slashdot is all of those things at some time or another...to bad bye bye Slashdot.

      At least productivity will go up in Australias IT sector without it.

      This is NOT about childporn it's not even been sold as such.

    26. Re:It's all child pornography. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! Please don't post the blacklist - I couldn't bear the thought of Slashdot being blacklisted here in Australia! You better not even mention posting what might be suspected as a possible example of the list either. There is no way of knowing if you are right or not - well - until all of us Aussies disappear from the 'ole /.

    27. Re:It's all child pornography. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Why block these sites when you could presumably get warrants to see who is going to them and actually investigate the people breaking the law instead of trying to impose a censorship scheme that will never work anyway?

      Because that's even more invasive then blocking the sites in the first place. Advocates of this idea don't often think of the logistics of it. 1. the site is not in jurisdiction. 2. all your law enforcement activities must take place within your jurisdiction. If the site is not within your jurisdiction how can you effectively monitor who visits this site? There is only two real answers to this question, 1. don't or 2. monitor everyone for everything they do. Advocating this course of action will do more to speed the arrival of fascism (and thoughtcrime) then outright censorship.

      Further more, by punishing the end user you are doing little to stop the source of the illicit material. In effect all you are doing is making the purveyor of these things take more paranoid measures to avoid being caught. It's like filling up the jails with pot users, yes it takes the users off the street but the dealers and growers are still free and selling.

      I dont like censorship either but if I have to chose between non-discriminatory blanket censorship or Orwellian-style monitoring then I'll chose blanket censorship although neither would be my preferred outcome.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    28. Re:It's all child pornography. by julesh · · Score: 1

      Who modded this funny? I wasn't trying to be funny - I was trying to point out that the list is secret, so GP doesn't know what's in it. Until this assertion is backed, I call bullshit.

      I think he was talking about the Danish list, which is linked in the summary.

    29. Re:It's all child pornography. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Nice idea. Maybe they will include you, your parents, grandparents, or less technical friends as well?
      Really that is just so nice.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    30. Re:It's all child pornography. by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      I didn't propose this idea nor endorse it. My observation was more about how the Internet works. Someone with a modicum of technical expertise and an ax to grind could easily implement the OP's suggestion.

      For the record, I'm not in favor of spamming anyone with anything, particularly child pornography.

    31. Re:It's all child pornography. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes they could. Filtering would actually help prevent it since the images would be blocked. Not blocking but prosecuting those that look at it would make the spamming attack work.
      I really don't think that the people that want to block some media are actually evil. I think they really do want to help.
      They be mistaken but I think that most of them actually think that they are helping.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    32. Re:It's all child pornography. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't post it (Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.).

      I looked at two of the links to see what was being stopped. One, appeared, to be child porn (closed before anything loaded... name of URL didn't indicate it).

      The other was far more worrying. It was at parent website www.carpoint.co.jp Being a japanese website I couldn't read it, however it appeared to be a car selling, discussion etc site. The link was a person's blog and appeared to have public comment book, where someone had posted a link with the usual "hot teens" type spam.

      My point is, if what I saw was true, than any board with anonymous posting (such as this) that has some clown post garbage links on it (EG: Kiddy porn link 12yr.fbi.org.us) can than make the blacklist.

      We've already seen this in action. A dentist, who's website years ago was hacked and plastered with porn advertising, was on the initial blacklist. He had since changed ISP / website provider, and his website had nothing on it of any 'blacklist' nature, but he still made the list.

      This illustrates the problem. With a secret list, who's to say what's on there, and why? It's one thing to directly block child porn sites, it's another to block sites that link to it. It's the same excuse the MIAA use against torrent services.

      What next? We block GOOGLE for linking to sites that link to child porn?

  13. Actually... by acehole · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The anti-abortion website was purposely reported to ACMA (the gov dept looking after the censorship) to test the waters in reporting websites.

    All it took was one email.

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    1. Re:Actually... by sandbenders · · Score: 1

      So why don't we submit the austrailian government's web sites? And Amazon.com? And everything else that's useful? Once the internet starts to get too blocked, some MP's kid will throw a shit fit and daddy (or mommy) will sponsor a bill to make things a bit more sane.

      Or just submit so many sites that they can't keep up.

      The best part is that they really shouldn't be accepting submissions at all. I mean, any submission of sites with illegal content (depicting abuse of minors, etc.) implies that the user visited the site, which is illegal.

      --
      Eagles may fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
    2. Re:Actually... by Sparx139 · · Score: 1

      All it took was one email.

      Which is really kind of scary when you consider some of the people jumping up and down and going to extremes.

      On top of that, if they were to create a protocol to act only after receiving X amount of complaints, if someone really wanted a site down they would just create a bunch of hotmail accounts, and end off emails from a bunch of different public hotspots to spread out the i.p. address.

      Let's have a look at Anonymous as well. We all know about the habbo hotel raids. If the filter were to come into effect, by claiming that predators tried to lure children on Habbo Hotel, Anonymous could cut out a large chunk of their user base with a few well worded emails. Any site that is targeted by the group could be hit.

      I seriously fear for the future of the internet when the government could hand Anonymous a weapon that could kill communities and cripple websites.

      --
      Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
  14. How dare you link to things we won't tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're not allowed to know what's on the banned list, but if you link to anything on the banned list they fine you?

  15. They should blacklist Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That way we won't have those idiots posting their stupidity anymore.

  16. Western Countries: Pot calling the kettle black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your no better than china, your no better than iran. Stop invading other countries and start having fixing your own problems.

  17. dear all australians: by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    welcome to what it feels like being an american during the bush administration. pariah, object of scorn and derision. you do realize what a joke this makes your country look like right?

    1. sites blocked not for pornography, but ideological reasons
    2. harsh punitive financial punishments just for linking
    3. secret lists you, as a common citizen, don't have the right to see

    i now think of australia the way i do iran and china in terms of freedom of expression. you better clean this disgrace up, you blokes can't let this continue, it is an embarassment

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:dear all australians: by Mystery00 · · Score: 1

      You do realise this is a trial right?

      If this comes to actually pass, then you can think of us as the second China.

      If it doesn't, which is more likely, then all that we've shown is that unlike America, we actually don't want this shit in the first place, rather than picking up the bones after the fact.

      --
      "we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
    2. Re:dear all australians: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me how Bush blocked websites and punished people for linking to websites.

      Quite frankly, the only people more obnoxious than anti-American foreigners are anti-American Americans.

    3. Re:dear all australians: by Narpak · · Score: 1

      I'd say not having a 18+ rating on Video Games make them looking even sillier than that. Though I reckon one could argue that it is part of the same ideological perspective; as opposed to a pragmatic perspective. Being seen to be "Doing Something" has always been many politicians prime concern. However Doing Something Wrong (for whatever reason) is worse than Doing Nothing; it's just politicians think Doing Nothing makes them look weak so they become desperate for things to try even to the point where they close their ears to rational arguments until the entire thing explodes in their face (which unfortunately in most situations translations into "citizens suffer for stupid ideas implemented by their elected officials".)

    4. Re:dear all australians: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. sites blocked not for pornography, but ideological reasons

      blocking pornography *is* done for ideological reasons.

    5. Re:dear all australians: by spankyofoz · · Score: 1

      1. It doesn't get any more ideological than censoring the most basic (and essential) of all human activities. Any censorship at all is solely done for ideological reasons.

      2. The Pirate Bay are lucky that weren't in Asutralia

      3. Heller and Kafka were right. THe perfect law is one in which trying to defend yourself results in you breaking yet more laws.

      --

      - There is no point, it's like a sphere -
    6. Re:dear all australians: by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      i now think of australia the way i do iran and china in terms of freedom of expression.

      Well now you know how Australian's, who are somewhat informed about this matter, feel. Our constitution implies/allows political free speech, but that is the limit.

      you better clean this disgrace up, you blokes can't let this continue, it is an embarrassment

      There already *is* an effort to assemble a human rights act in Australia that would address issues such as these. If you understood the politics of other western democracies you would understand that Australian federal censorship efforts were constructed in response to the Bush administration's stance on terrorism. In all likely hood a proportion of the censored sites are a administrative response to the Terrorism Act of Australia cutting off terrorist funding and activities in Australia. Not just 'think of the children' but 'stop the crazies that want to blow up a stadium full of people'. I bet your position would be a lot different if the article was about people protesting the government stopping them from accessing a terrorist training site. It's still censorship though, isn't it, but you feel differently about it now - don't you.

      What's even more embarrassing is is *your* government co-operates with *our* government to spy on domestic citizens and considering the CIA's involvement in undermining foreign democracies, including Australia, and has promoted actual human rights abuses have you ever heard the saying 'People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    7. Re:dear all australians: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shuddup Bruce and hand me another tube...

    8. Re:dear all australians: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      welcome to what it feels like being an american during the bush administration. pariah, object of scorn and derision. you do realize what a joke this makes your country look like right?

      1. sites blocked not for pornography, but ideological reasons
      2. harsh punitive financial punishments just for linking
      3. secret lists you, as a common citizen, don't have the right to see

      i now think of australia the way i do iran and china in terms of freedom of expression. you better clean this disgrace up, you blokes can't let this continue, it is an embarassment

      Only clear method of cleaning this mess up is the ultimate way some have left american polotics in an instant while in a motocade or such...

      Is this where Aus wants us to go, so far removed from where we were only a decade ago.

      Apparently they changed the freedom of information laws only in 2003 to deny any info seeking on this blacklist creation mob. U cannot get at it in any legal way now in Aus. B4 2003 u could get at it.

      I think the main reason all the weastern countries r going down this path is because of the massive failure with immigration we have. Bringing in all those new citizens from those countries has compromised our own internal security and safety. ie the governments at the time and big business in their greed for growth etc have caused this on us, and the only way around is to limit our now freedom...

      shocks, makes me want to go to one of the countries where these immigrants came from...maybe they have better freedom of speech now???....political assylum, boat people out from Australia....any destinations in mind...where were those pirates around somalia n the carribean??

    9. Re:dear all australians: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woah it's not THAT bad, but it's a slippery slide that's close. I mean, it's not like we have 100% vote for our dictator or we get 'black bagged' if we go against the government.

      On the whole, most of the websites appear to be websites we'd want banned... BUT (and it's a big but)

      Anytime we have any censorship, I want to know
      * who's making the choices
      * why (are they banned)
      * can they be appealed

      Blocking kiddy porn is one thing. Blocking 2 girls one cup (which is revolting, but FAR from illegal) is another.

      Blocking things like wikileaks denmark blocklist is simply going over the top. That's not a threat (especially if OUR blocklist was hypothetically up and running, because we couldn't access it).

      What they've done is taken a somewhat good idea... in theory, and destroyed it. Guess that makes them communists! :D

      I personally am more pissed off about our lack of an R18+ rating for computer games, and find THAT censorship far more depressing and 'right' suppresing.

  18. Streisand effect by Mystery00 · · Score: 1

    Streisand effect strikes again!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

    --
    "we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
  19. Catholics by benjfowler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    By far the nastiest and most insidious threat to democracy in Australia is the Catholic far Right. Their home has traditionally been the "right" of the ALP, although some Catholic militants, like Tony Abbott have gone joined the opposition conservative parties.

    In years past, they've played mostly a spoiling role in Australia politics. As fascists, they know only how to destroy, not build, so they formed a right-wing fringe political party (the Democratic Labour Party, which in Whitlam's immortal words, was neither democratic, nor liberal, nor a party) kept the ALP out of government for 25 years and the country stagnated for decades under a conservative government. After B. A. Santamaria died and after the fall of Communism, they went back to infiltrating mainstream political parties.

    These days, their strongholds are right-wing unions (the SDA , of which I was a member -- if I had known my union dues were being siphoned off by Phalangists and militant anti-abortionists, I would've quit instantly...), and the right wings of the ALP and Liberal parties.

    Democracy and rational debate has always been anathema for these fascists. Their malign and destructive influence has been out there for all to see, although there has been very few political forces organised enough to challenge them head on.

    If there's a vicious anti-democratic force in Australian politics, chances are, militant right-wing Catholics are behind it.

    1. Re:Catholics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. and as true progressives, we must use every means we have at our disposal to destroy and remove from the public sphere and discourse these destructive anti-democrats permanently. We must organise ourselves into action groups and get ready for combat to ensure that such fascism can never arise or be a threat to the good and true cause again.

      I'm not sure it qualifies for +5 Funny.

    2. Re:Catholics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      By far the nastiest and most insidious threat to democracy is religion.

      Remember Iran is a democracy.

    3. Re:Catholics by techman2 · · Score: 1

      The push for this is very strong from the Australian Christian Lobby. Their director, Jim Wallace has been on the radio in debates about this and his words used when referring to the Government's policy is "what WE'RE trying to do.."

      It seems the ACL has direct input in the formation and implementation of this policy. It's completely rigged and a total crock of shit.

    4. Re:Catholics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think its cute how people say that, and forget that the USA was BUILT on its Christian religion.

      Do any of you notice how everything has been heading downhill parallel to your society?

  20. Slope by olddotter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hopefully this will not come to be in Australia or not be up held upon legal review. Two things I find are disturbing:

    1) You will be held accounting for violating the law, but you can't see the law to know how to avoid violating it.

    2) All of western democracies have shown a sharp turn towards the police state in the last decade. Something they all used to stand up against and accuse non-democracies of being evil for the same polocies.
       

    1. Re:Slope by conureman · · Score: 1

      Television has proven that only non-democracies are evil.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    2. Re:Slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) All of western democracies have shown a sharp turn towards the police state in the last decade. Something they all used to stand up against and accuse non-democracies of being evil for the same policies.

       

      I agree. And it's all come down to 1 of 2 excuses:

      1) "Think of the children!"
      2) "anti-terrorism"

      Now, I've got no problem with wanting to shut down or prevent access to some sites. There are some things that obviously fly in the face of "right and wrong". But there's just no good single way to do it! And who gets to choose what site is good and what is bad? What if the site offers an opinion that differs from the government's? And frankly, I just don't like that the whole thing gets to be all secretive and you won't ever know you're supposedly in violation until the cops show up.

    3. Re:Slope by Narpak · · Score: 1

      2) All of western democracies have shown a sharp turn towards the police state in the last decade. Something they all used to stand up against and accuse non-democracies of being evil for the same polocies.

      Oh this is nothing new. Western Democracies have a long tradition for demonizing nations that have a different ideology (or just plainly is a competitor for power and influence).

      Desperately hoping to avoid invoking Godwin's Law I would argue that Churchill and Roosevelt (and their government's) presented WW2 as a war against Evil, Oppression and Tyranny (something most of us would agree with I am sure). However they also nicely danced around the fact that one of their major allies were responsible for actions and policies not that different from the Dictatorship they fought against. Or for that matter ignoring certain actions undertaken by themselves (like medical experiments on prisoners to develop a vaccine against malaria in case of a land invasion of Japan).

      Point is through the internet it has (happily) become far easier to spot discrepancies between fact and presentation or claims by politicians. But that does not mean that propaganda, lies and hypocrisy is new (or wars for power, influence and resources for that matter).

      It remains as important as ever that citizens try to gain information, news and input in general, from many different sources and use their reason to consider the material. To stay informed, to stay sceptical and to call their representatives on their lies and oppose legislation that would corrupt the ideals of many democracies; Freedom and Justice.

  21. This makes me angry and sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am watching my country turn into a fascist police state before my eyes.

    Government Knows What's Best For You. Shutup, do your shitty little job, pay your taxes, and be thankful we haven't shipped you off to gitmo yet. Sit back and enjoy the pre-approved content and advertising.

    I honestly don't know what to do anymore. These fuckwits are ruining the planet and there's nobody to stop them.

    If you stand up against them, you're a child pornographer or a terrorist. Not that that even matters anyway, since they have billions and billions of dollars with which you can never compete, and an army that makes the idea of uprising or revolt laughable, especially given the fact that most of the population is not armed.

    200 years ago, some american dudes got pissed at the way the Brits were doing things. Good for them, they just moved to another country and started over.

    What the fuck can we do? That option is off the table. We can move to a different country, but all countries are heading in the same direction pretty much. We are stuck here under an oppressive government with no hope for improvement, no possibility of living somewhere that truly values freedom.

    If the bill gets voted down this time, it's only a matter of horse trading or another election cycle until some other knows-whats-best-for-you little bitch comes in and puts it up for another vote. Eventually, it will get through.

    I'm looking for options. I want to know what we can do to crush these corrupt fucking assholes before they destroy us all.

    1. Re:This makes me angry and sad by tg123 · · Score: 1

      I am watching my country turn into a fascist police state before my eyes. .......

      no our country has always been a fascist police state the internet is just allowing you to see what the government does behind the scenes....

      Denying polictical figures a visa is a really good example apologies about the David Irving link. http://www.fpp.co.uk/Australia/Legal/ACLU130398.html

    2. Re:This makes me angry and sad by kwandar · · Score: 1

      Maybe try implementing a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" like we have in Canada? http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/ I think Canada as a similar Commonwealth country might be a good precedent, and this would certainly stop the politicians from abdicating basic freedoms ... which this seems to entail? I mean, what politician is going to say "no, we want lessor rights than Canadians", or "no, we don't want Australians to have basic freedoms"? Just a thought that this precedent might help.

  22. No problem... by expat.iain · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's simple enough to proxy through SSH and have access once again and (short of blocking SSH traffic) the Though Police can do very little.

    Iain.

    1. Re:No problem... by rpresser · · Score: 1

      It's equally simple enough to block ssh and remove access again. Like spandex, the Internet is a privilege, not a right.

    2. Re:No problem... by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Great. That works for the 1% of people with the necessary knowledge and skills, or people with the motives and money to pay someone to do it (criminals). What about the other 21,510,000 non-criminal, non-/. reading Australians?

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    3. Re:No problem... by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only if you have a willing HTTP proxy to actually connect to. Far too often the technical solution of "Lets just setup a VPN!" or "We'll just encrypt it and use a proxy!" gets thrown up without realizing that you have to have a working endpoint in a lax country to work with. If you're relying on the "free" ones that pop up here and there - good luck. While you MIGHT get the HTTP proxy setup with them (VPN ain't happening), they tend to flitter in and out of existence so quickly that you're playing a game of cat and mouse more than actually using the net. You're certainly not going to perform a few keystrokes and make the problem go away.

      And without using them or finding some pay equivalent (that you can trust), you have to work in a data connection, server space, and power in some nonrestrictive country. When you start factoring in collocating a server in Mexico then we're beyond the "Just encrypt it!" stage.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    4. Re:No problem... by spacefight · · Score: 1

      If you pay for it, it should be a right, not a privilege. Uncensored.

    5. Re:No problem... by expat.iain · · Score: 1

      I would be happy to setup a proxy for just this purpose and charge a nominal subscription charge on a monthly basis along with a step-by-step guide on how to use such a service.

      Information tends to spread quickly enough via email where people do have something to share and if this does concern users then there appears to be a viable business model here.

      Agreed, using free proxy services does mean playing catch-up, but pay-for-services that are profitable will more often be around for the long term.

      Far from being a 'lax country', I would suggest that perhaps a 'free' country would be a more appropriate description. Certainly the majority of democratic nations do not (yet) subscribe to the Chinese standard. And as much as blocking methods can be put in place, it is still easier to provide a method to bypass these, whilst the bureaucracy takes time (and money) to implement their next attempt.

      As for the

      1% of people with the necessary knowledge and skills

      ...let's not forget that it was not long ago that Internet use was by that same 1% and considered to be 'too technical' for most people.

      Iain.

    6. Re:No problem... by transfixed · · Score: 1

      What about a closed, invite only VPN community existing on top of the regular internet? And using some kind of stenography to hide the existence of encryption? I'm sure all the internet bogeymen are doing this anyway, making this censorship much more about trying to exert general control over a population than anything else...

      --
      lost. away. phased out. non-existing.
    7. Re:No problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they tend to flitter in and out of existence so
      quickly that you're playing a game of cat and
      mouse more than actually using the net

      Then what we need is a proxy network that discovers peers in a decentralized fashion, circumventing censorship and anonymizing access at the same time.

      We could call it "Tor" or something. :)

  23. Fud, Fud, Fud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you look in the original Whirlpool thread where someone posted their submitted complaint about Wikileaks site (As a test to see if they would block it) the response they posted is an automated reply to all online ACMA complaints. http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1158941&p=44#r873
    This whole thing is fud.

    1. Re:Fud, Fud, Fud by the_germ · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe you should read the whole post you linked to...

      It's not FUD, sadly...

    2. Re:Fud, Fud, Fud by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      If you look in the original Whirlpool thread where someone posted their submitted complaint about Wikileaks site (As a test to see if they would block it) the response they posted is an automated reply to all online ACMA complaints.

      If you go on to read the second reply you will see that that is not automated -- or at least I sure hope that every submission doesn't automatically get this response:

      Following investigation of your complaint, ACMA is satisfied that the internet content specified in your complaint is hosted outside Australia, and that the content is prohibited content or potential prohibited content ... On this occasion ACMA has also referred the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency ...

      Not even slightly FUD. This is to my mind sufficient cause for rebellion.

  24. CP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CP CP CP CP CP CP CP!

  25. The F word is not helpful by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This has nothing to do with fascism. The problem with fascism wasn't censorship. Censorship is bad, fascism included censorship as a matter of course, but it's not what was particularly bad about fascism. Soviet Russia wasn't fascist. It was bad too, just not in the same way.
    Today the United States are much closer to fascism than Australia, yet they enjoy incomparable freedom of speech.
    Militarization of the economy, dubious appeals to patriotism, booming prison population, the collusion between corporate interests and government, that's fascist-ish.
    Censorship, that's what you find in China, which is not nearly as bad as the US in the areas I just listed (but by no means any better overall, don't get me wrong.)

    1. Re:The F word is not helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...dubious appeals to patriotism, booming prison population, the collusion between corporate interests and government,...

      #1 applies very much to China, but nobody listens, and since the government can do whatever it wants, nobody has to listen.

      #2 isn't applicable because there's a good amount of turnover in Chinese prisons.

      #3 since the government owns or has a stake in all of the major corporations, it's not really applicable.

      That having been said, I think what makes a country facist is when the government works more for corporations and corporate interests than for the people. And that is certainly the trend here over the past 40 years.

    2. Re:The F word is not helpful by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the word "fascism" applies if the government owns the corporations. I don't know what word, beyond totalitarian, does apply, however.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:The F word is not helpful by godless+dave · · Score: 1

      Censorship was one of several things that were particularly bad about fascism.

      --
      "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
    4. Re:The F word is not helpful by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      To be fair China and its corps are tied even closer than the US. For instance look at their telecoms vs. ours. The Chinese govmnt is notorious for undermining foreign corps with laws such as requiring them to work with established chinese companies. And how do you think they have managed to maintain such a sedate population? "dubious appeals to patriotism". You got the rest right though.

    5. Re:The F word is not helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fascism = The benefit of the state comes first without any moral considerations. The rampant nationalism (imperialism, even) and significant direct presense of the red army in the economy (In the USA it would be indirect and focused) would indicate fascism. A booming prison population, however, is not a very convincing indicator of fascism, rather than that of a "puritan" culture.
      The corporate benefit - goverment foreing policy link can be seen in most goverment interactions across the world and the WTO is a one way to reduce the international anarchy (strongest wins) in these interactions. However, a truely free trade is also free from the goverment influences, and since one important requisite for a nation to conduct a total war is the power to control the economy, it is unlikely that a nation state, fascist or not, with its inbuild suicidal-homicidal tendencies, would give up this control.

    6. Re:The F word is not helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China has LESS of a militaristic command economy than the U.S.? Um, no. China expects LESS mindless patriotism from its citizens than the U.S.? Um, no. China's prison population hasn't been booming along with America's? Um, yes it has. The collusion between corporate interests and government, yep, check. China and America are different but not in any of those four ways.

  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've love know exactly who it is that's surprised by this. Most likely it's the Chris Hanson Dateline NBC To Catch a Predator watching, soccer mom crowd.

  28. We are stuck here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We are stuck here"
    I hear the Moon and Mars are currently unoccupied (by humans).
    Then there is the 'build your own floating country' idea that goes around ever few years.
    Freedom is yours, choice is not an option.

  29. Where is the by barncha · · Score: 1

    Link?

  30. netnuterality by drknowster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    do we realy need these people around claiming to represent a consensus ? we have the technology,but we gotta do it "before" they have thier way with it .The best bumper sticker seen yet"politicians and diapers should be changed often ,and for the same reasons."

  31. Finland is way ahead of you by mjrauhal · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Finnish police have already censored the Wikileaks page on Finnish internet censorship; see my comment at the appropriate talk page.

    1. Re:Finland is way ahead of you by spacefight · · Score: 1

      And a lot of other "civilised" countries will follow, 100% sure. In some countries, it's election year this year (Germany), obviously they have to do something to get some of the already scared voters to vote...

    2. Re:Finland is way ahead of you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Firefox can't find the server at www.wikileaks.com."

      When did WikiLeaks.ORG move to .com?

    3. Re:Finland is way ahead of you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG!!! I can't access it in Canada, either!

      "Firefox can't find the server at www.wikileaks.com."

      ---

      Here's the .org link.

  32. Answers, anybody? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    This is genuinely frightening. Information like this needs to be disseminated so widely and so quickly that would-be info-Nazis don't have the time or resources to censor it or prosecute the thousands upon thousands of people who are helping to get it out there.

    Anybody with sufficient technical expertise to suggest how this might be accomplished would enjoy my undivided attention.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  33. Re:Conroy urged Australians to have faith in MPs by conureman · · Score: 1

    Amen.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  34. Perverts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    World messed up perverts just found themselve a good list of websites to watch their shit. WikiLeak should not have published the list with hyperlink to each banned site. I know that one can copy paste the url from a plain text file, but you can't say that you got on the site by accident after.

  35. The Second Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The second rule of censorship is you do not talk about fight club.

  36. I blame The Gay Alien Flying Pigs Coalition! by CountBrass · · Score: 2, Funny

    The "Catholic far Right"? Damn I'd heard it was the gay alien flying pigs that were behind it all!!!!!!!1111one!!!!eleven!!!111!

    That was probably the most paranoid posting I've ever read and I read a lot of Slashdot!

    Seriously, did you forget to take your lithium this morning?

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:I blame The Gay Alien Flying Pigs Coalition! by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      I was going to post a rebuttal, but then, going through your posting history, it looks like ad hominem attacks and right-wing politics is basically your raison d'etre.

      I've seen worse myself. But then I really do read Slashdot on a regular basis.

    2. Re:I blame The Gay Alien Flying Pigs Coalition! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I was going to post a rebuttal, but then, going through your posting history, it looks like ad hominem attacks and right-wing politics is basically your raison d'etre.

      You were going to post a rebuttal, but then you did anyway. Again, intellectual dishonesty is your mark in trade. At least it's the only thing you've shown here.

  37. So if I want to severly damage a company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if I want to severly damage a company all I have to do is hack it's website and put links on it that point to every thing on the black list. After they pay the fines and clean up the site, go back and do it over. Continue until they are off the web.

    Best off is if the finable links are only visible if the visitor is on a .gov ISP. That way you are protecting the innocent, and only the govenment see the secret stuff they don't won't others to see.

    What happens if the text is the URL of a fineable site, but the link itself takes you to a safe site? Is that finable?

  38. I have no problem with censorship.. by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    Kiddy porn sites should be blocked (the ludicrous comparison someone made to the war on drugs is just sickened me)

    So should sites on making bombs etc. But should racist sites? Should sites the promote nationalism? Sites that promote racial integration? Pro and anti- abortion sites. I have personal opinions on all of those cases but it is a matter of personal opinion.

    The real problem is who exactly decides that site X is kiddy porn or not because I certainly don't trust my government not to abuse that power (nor any quango they might create to avoid FIA requests).

    I'm an adult I should be able to chose. I should also be accountable for my choices.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:I have no problem with censorship.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So should sites on making bombs

      Science is dangerous!

    2. Re:I have no problem with censorship.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you say: "Kiddy porn sites should be blocked" But I don't think you can have properly thought this through.

      1/ If some authority has the ability to block kiddyporn sites, they can then block any site and if challenged on it, say that it was kiddyporn. Since nobody else can visit the site there is no check on their activities.

      2/ The assumption of the authorities seems to be that kiddyporn distibutors are stupid enough to put stuff up in public where anyone can find it. I find it hard to beleive that they could be so stupid as to commit a crime in public where they can be caught, and they would indeed be able to be caught in most civilised countries.

      3/ The blocking idea seems to me to be a bit flawed. Suppose a user tries to go to one of the pages and is blocked. Ok, the censor feels virtuous because they have stopped someone doing something evil. maybe they have...or maybe it was just someone ignorantly clicking on a dubious link. Wouldn't it be more effective to log the people visiting dubious sites, check for a pattern of behaviour, then get search warrants for anyone who makes a habit of looking for dubious stuff? I mean, do some actual police work...observe, investigate, gather evidence, then prosecute. That way you could get them behind bars where they belong.

      Of course, perhaps my feelings about this are coloured by seeing the results of a blocking scheme in terms of poor customer service...the damn thing keeps blocking legitimate traffic, including entire protocols at times.

  39. The reason sex is taboo... by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is because it is self indulgence and traditionally our culture is against self indulgence. When people are focused on their bodies, they aren't doing anything productive, and more importantly, are fixated firmly on themselves and not the world around them. That's a good value and to some extent gay activism will always bump into the charge that identifying oneself so strongly with one's sexuality is to accept a narcissistic lifestyle that is sorely at odds with the values that actually worked to make the country prosper.

    Violence, on the other hand, can actually be useful. Violence is about a life not centered around self. Indeed, depersonalization is required to a degree to accept violence, and depersonalization is often useful. There is a bad guy, go get them. There is an animal attacking, go get them. The earth is doing something, so we engage in some act to right it. IT cements the idea that we can alter the world around us, whereas, sexuality only seeks to see that we are pleasured within whatever world we are in.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:The reason sex is taboo... by ketilwaa · · Score: 1

      Sex is traditionally connected with the biological urge to procreate, and it is mostly modern civilization that has laid such restraints and taboos on sex. So, I plainly think you're wrong.

    2. Re:The reason sex is taboo... by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sex is traditionally connected with the biological urge to procreate....So, I plainly think you're wrong

      Well, I'm not. The taboos against sexuality are driven by those who have some serious misgivings about the animal nature of man. A lot of people say that sexual taboos stem from procreation so that they can say that those taboos should be removed, rather than try and attack the idea that humans should not be so body focused head on.

      Other people do say that though, and have said it. The whole "if it feels good, it must be right" mentality of the sixties generation comes from that line of thinking. It's body-centricity, placing one's body ahead of the world around you.

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:The reason sex is taboo... by ketilwaa · · Score: 1

      Of course you don't think you're wrong.

      I can't really make out if you think I'm one of the "lots of people" who say that sexual taboos stem from procreation. In any event, I'm not.
      I don't think that sexual taboos appeared because of any one event that can be summed up in 3 lines on /., my point is that it is there, and I'm more than fairly certain that upholding such strong taboos regarding a natural human urge drastically increases sex offences and general misogyny as well.
      I'm not generally a fan of circumstancial evidence, but I have a feeling that the crimes done by paedohiles in the Catholic church is a result of the Catholic stand on sex.

      I think that if people and societies are allowed to openly learn about, discuss and be open about their sexuality, there would be a lot less victims of sex crimes. (And less personal tragedies that stem from people being forced to keep their sexuality a secret.) This does not mean that I think all people walk around naked and have sex with anything that moves. I say that because in Western society (that's my area of experience but I'm sure it's more of the same most places), it is hard to have a progressive view on sexuality (i.e. interested in professional sexology) without being viewed as someone unnaturally interested in sex, someone who wants first and foremost to use and defend the use of porn, etc. Sadly, that is also a result of the sexual taboos.

      The whole "sex is not good for productivity" is just meaningless. The idea that we can (or should) limit the amount of sex people have is just laughable. Furthermore, anyone claiming that if people could have all the sex they want, they wouldn't do anything else, must either have a screwed up personal life or never been in a sexual relationship themselves.

      The sixties mentality you're talking about is not something I'm a part of, and I can't make out if you place me in that category either. However, I do feel strongly that what goes on between consenting adults are their own business.

    4. Re:The reason sex is taboo... by tjstork · · Score: 1

      However, I do feel strongly that what goes on between consenting adults are their own business.

      That's fine, but I don't need to hear about it! You've only reinforced my point that overall sex is useless, and that, what goes on between two consenting adults is their business. I agree with that. But I don't think you have the right to force acceptance of your own sexual beliefs. If you want to keep your business between two people, that's fine, but if you want that business to become public, and force me to respond to it, then, its my business too, and I'd rather not be the case. I'd be like, keep your mouth shut, and everyone's happy.

      --
      This is my sig.
    5. Re:The reason sex is taboo... by ketilwaa · · Score: 1

      "overall sex is useless"

      I'm not sure how it's possible to discuss this topic when your view on the basis for life is such an extreme.
      My point is that we live in a society that keeps its mouth closed with regards to sex, where questions about sex is answered by pointing towards porn (usually not very educational), by covering ears, or by marginalizing the line of questioning, or worse, marginalizing the person. That society is, like it or not, cultivating sexual predators. Thus, your belief that "everyone's happy", is a really distorted view on reality.

      It is, believe it or not, possible to have discussions about gender, sex and relationships without making most people feel uncomfortable. For people so indoctrinated by the current discourse that they are repulsed by sex or natural nudity, it might take some getting used to, but all positive development has that effect.

    6. Re:The reason sex is taboo... by tjstork · · Score: 1

      My point is that we live in a society that keeps its mouth closed with regards to sex,

      That's ridiculous. There's sex -everywhere-.

      Thus, your belief that "everyone's happy", is a really distorted view on reality.

      For the most part, everyone is happy, at least sexually, and if they aren't, then its not my problem. If they want to make it my problem, then they have to accept my decisions. If they don't want to do that, then to hell with them.

      All we really need to do is just cull a few freaks out of the herd and we'll be good to go. It would minimize the need to have a dialog and make us all much more productive. You want to talk about child molesters or rapists? Ok.. let's talk. Which do you prefer, hanging them, shooting them, or electrocuting them... or maybe we could make some really big microwave and hot dog them to death?

      --
      This is my sig.
    7. Re:The reason sex is taboo... by tjstork · · Score: 1

      That society is, like it or not, cultivating sexual predators

      Evolution cultivates sexual predators. Darwin doesn't care how women get pregnant, only that they do. So therefor it stands to reason that some men might be wired to just rape a chick and move on. It's a breeding strategy. Some subset of those are not wired to properly discern age. They will keep coming back, because evolution and mutation dictates that they will, so you have to kill them otherwise they infest all of humanity, just like you would a weed in a lawn.

      It's brutal, but simple, and most importantly, true. Until people are willing to admit that some subset of the population needs an ongoing pattern of extermination, humanity will never improve.

      --
      This is my sig.
    8. Re:The reason sex is taboo... by ketilwaa · · Score: 1

      "There's sex everywhere"

      I was writing something about this in my last post, but removed it again. The sex that's "everywhere" is innuendos and porn. There's not much middle ground. Now, if we had a natural, healthy relationship to sexuality, there wouldn't be so much hoopla.
      If you check out some stats on sexual predators in large numbers, ask yourself why the UK and the US is so high up on the list.

      If "For the most part, everyone is happy, at least sexually, and if they aren't, then its not my problem." is true, then would you mind taking a look at: this and tell me 1: How does this fit with what you're saying, and 2: what should be done for the ~10% of kids (UK) that are victims and with the vast numbers of offenders, except your overly simplistic solution: mass killings of perps.

      The mere suggestion that people need to fit within your reality or taste to be "accepted" is downright insulting to the human race. Your in suggestion that rape and sexual child abuse is evolutionary would probably make most biologists fall over laughing. Your views on biology and evolution makes it hard to imagine that you have actually understood either topics. You would also be advised to check out some updated data on therapy for sexual offenders, but I'm guessing that you think it's so difficult to approach the topic of sexuality, that you won't be able to do that.

    9. Re:The reason sex is taboo... by ketilwaa · · Score: 1

      The first link disappeared: Here it is

    10. Re:The reason sex is taboo... by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 1

      It's brutal, but simple, and most importantly, true. Until people are willing to admit that some subset of the population needs an ongoing pattern of extermination, humanity will never improve.

      Your stupidity and ignorance astounds me. So some part of our population doesn't fit the evolutionary model that you'd like to assume. You'd like to simply perform mass genocide. There's a group of people that society likes to bring to a pig circus trial and hang. They are the very same who propose and perform mass genocide. They went after Hitler and they went after Saddam. They've chased everyone in between. Perhaps we should send you to the gallows?

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
  40. Newspeak! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Has someone on the Aussie's Government been playing Paranoia recently?

    What is your security clearance, citizen?

    Citizen, plus good you unpraise crimethinker. Plus ungood you post in oldspeak. You go plus speedwise ACMA center for transport to joycamp.

  41. Six Degrees to Australian Blacklist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you're blocked if you link to a banned site.
    Are you blocked if you link to a site which links to a banned site?
    Are you blocked if you link to a site which links to a site which links to a banned site?
    Are you blocked if you link to a site which links to a site which links to a site which links to a banned site?
    Are you blocked if you link to a site which links to a site which links to a site which links to a site which links to a banned site?

    I wonder how many links from the Commonwealth's site it takes to reach a banned site?

    1. Re:Six Degrees to Australian Blacklist by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      DNS servers constantly link to banned websites.

      The internet is banned.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Six Degrees to Australian Blacklist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, no. You can, however, be fined.

      Up to Au$ 11,000 per day (I'm told).

      Now, let me ask you if politicians who ride rough-shot over Aussie rights would ever be threatened with such a fine... (Unlikely)

      Remembering the story - from long ago - of
      the early Aussie CBers' who tired of being
      forced to pay for a license for EVERY set
      they owned...

      I am told that they just stopped paying...
      en masse... at which point, the Aussie
      gov't setup a (cost-free) "class license"

      (So, if your gear was up to standards,
      you no longer needed to pay for a license).

      I sometimes think it's time Aussies used this
      kind of -safe- "civil disobedience" oftener,
      eg, today.

      (BTW, US Hams won "cost-free" licenses -
      as a "spin-off" from US CBers' court case,
      which ended with a decision that asking
      people to pay for a hobbyist radio license
      (CB or Ham) was infringing on their
      Freedom of Speech. That's clearly the better
      way to go, but - in Australia - its too costly
      to sue for justice.)

    3. Re:Six Degrees to Australian Blacklist by ElDaffo · · Score: 1

      The filter is only in trial at the moment, and you cop an $11,000/day fine for linking to a blacklisted site, link to a site that links a blacklisted site or further recursion is probably ok. Perhaps not if you're linking purely for saying "Click here to visit a site which links to some blocked sites". Apparently 4chan is one of the latest to hit the list.

  42. Before you get carried away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just before you get carried away, here's a few tidbits of information you might find curbs your overreactions to this censorship.

    -I'm in Australia
    -I'm currently viewing said blacklisted WikiLeak page
    -I'm not using any VPN or other bypass

    The blacklist they're talking about is not the one currently being blocked (some *chans and other pedophile related sites), but the blacklist that they want to have with the new filtering system that won't get passed into law.

  43. child porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if anyone actually bothered to read the wikileaks page and checkout some of the Danish links on the wikileaks page but they are indeed direct links to child pornography. I didn't believe it until I checked and I wish I hadn't seen such images. There was no ambiguity, they were not 16 or 17 or 18 year olds who look young, they were images of children being very seriously sexually abused. I'm not sure that there is any legitimate reason to do this, and to invite people to click the links. I appreciate that governments use child protection issues as a pretext for introducing broader repressive legislation but I also can appreciate that there are others ways to demonstrate this than becoming a links portal for paedophiles. The Danish list differs from the Thai list also mentioned and available, in that the Thai list includes a lot of sites which are political in nature. The Thai list also includes regular dating sites, normal adult porn and reflects a very conservative morality enforced by unaccountable government. The Danish list is exactly what it claims to be, a list of sites hosting images of child abuse which are blocked by a democratic country with an accountable government in a legal manner.

    I'm doubtful of the motivations of whoever made this decision at wikileaks. Inevitably they will be censored in many countries because of the direct links to illegal child pornography. But as we can see from this thread they get a lot of support due to a perception that the censorship is political. Facilitating access to child pornography to make a point looks to me like self-aggrandizement and awful journalism of the very lowest standard, even more disreputable than is practiced by the worst tabloid newspapers.

    I think everyone knows that governments disallow printed publication of child pornography and that they do this using legitimate legal authority. We, the people, demand that they do this. They are surely entitled, in fact democratically authorized and required, to disallow publication or distribution of those same images in digital form. If there was any evidence that the Danish government was using child protection laws to censor other aspects of life then wikileaks would probably be beyond criticism but what they actually did was simply show that the Danish government is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing.

    I would have preferred to post under my usual name but in viewing the links those pages I have committed a crime in my country so I am posting as an anonymous coward and using tor.

    1. Re:child porn by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I wondered whether to test and see if the IWF had added the Danish sites to their own blacklist but frankly the implications if they hadn't would be a tad unfortunate. So I don't know.

      Sadly it's impossible to test whether all the entries on the Danish site are child pornography or not without going to look at them. Even then, there's a chance that the some entries had such material on them when added to the list, but have had it since removed.

      Nonetheless unless someone checks, there is no assurance that the list is not being used for political purposes. Clearly the Thai list is.

      So although Wikileaks has simply shown that the Danish government is doing exactly what it claims, that is in itself a valuable and reassuring action.

      I want to know which web pages the IWF is banning in the UK. I want that list published. I want someone to go through it and check that everything on it should be there. I don't want to be that person.

    2. Re:child porn by ozphx · · Score: 1

      Heres a thought. If those sites weren't blocked and the "party van" was going after the sick fucks who were going to those sites and clicking thru a bunch of images on a regular basis, then that would solve the problem fairly quickly.

      Or is sweeping a bunch of pedos browsing cp under the rug and then claiming that "nobody is looking at cp" (presumably because they are now sitting outside primary schools fapping in a van) the better solution to the problem?

      Christ, its not hard to find out who is visiting these sites, and its not hard to tell the difference between me seeing something on 4chan I regret seeing, and someone who has a long history of browsing this material...

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
  44. wtf? by oftenwrongsoong · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me get this straight. So you're not allowed to see which sites are on the blacklist but if you link to one you get fined $11,000 a day? How the hell are you supposed to avoid linking to something that you don't know you're not supposed to link to? All Australians are stupid and I'll justify that statement. Those Australians who work in government are stupid for putting together such a stupid thing. And the rest of the Australians are stupid for allowing such a government to exist at all.

  45. This is interesting... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
    The very fact that Wikileaks published the list not in form of a text file, but as a web page with links clearly shows that the intent is to snare-in web spiders and have them snarf not only the list, but the purported pedosites.

    Now what the search engines will **do** with it is left as an exercise to the reader...

    But in the meanwhile, it's interesting to see how will each search engine will react (and how fast) to them having snarfed the list (and the pedosites)...

    1. Re:This is interesting... by swilver · · Score: 1

      So, google, yahoo, msn, etc.. blocked in australia yet? I hear they all link to child porn.

  46. History by kenp2002 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is why history education in schools is an abomination. They school books have been censored so bad and tailored to political agendas that people with a proper education find none of this suprising.

    Go to a rural public library and find some history books published pre-1960s. Look at the fall of Rome, the French Revolution, War of American Independance, the Civil War, and for those that were around the fall of the Russian Empire, Rise of the Soviets, and the fall of the Soviet Union.

    Every government, from my recollection, as it falls goings through several key phases.

    --------------- Begin

    A monetary collapse brought about by both goverment beuacracy exceeding its income. CHECK (US 1960s New Deal borrowing endlessly from the generation yet to come spending more then it made.)

    Government cultivates dependency on the government over time (CHECK, a constant in governments)

    Government increasingly taxes those that have to continue to subsidize those that don't (CHECK, primary foundation of the New Deal. No incentive to work if your expectations are low.)

    Initial temor of panic and small exodus of population from one location to another (CHECK, 1980s the Great White Exodus of middle class america (mostly white) from inner city and urban environments to the suburbs.)

    Economic fundamentals discarded as socialist policies attempt to "Float the Boat" (CHECK, 1930s, 2000s, mass cost cutting attempts via outsourcing, additional social services indicate failures in the private sector to provide those services)

    Fraud increases in all aspects of society as people make personal power grabs to secure resources for self and others in close circles (CHECK, not only on the personal level but within social circles, e.g. society begins to function like the Mafia, The Bakers, The Butchers, the Candlestick Makers)

    Goverment attempts to regulate further to slow the corruption, only increasing the pressure and accelerating the fraud (CHECK, 1990s, medical bribes up, growing disparity of healthcare options)

    After successfully securing resources exodus of wealthy to better locations (CHECK, the modern aristocracy mostly lives abroad.)

    With the loss of large amounts of tax revenue and the betrayal of the aristocracy the government begins to fold, services are cut. (PENDING, many 25+ million a year are increasingly living outside the US. Many corporations are rebasing outside the US to avoid taxes.)

    Those dependant on the government services suffer first demanding what they have been educated they are entitled to. Middle class and few remaining wealthy start becoming protectionist with resources (money). Acellrating the decline. Corruption worsens still with tax fraud and evasion growing. Bartering returns (PENDING, Craigslist number of SWAP versus BUY listing drastically increasing in certain areas. Donations down. Growing disconnect between haves and have nots.)

    Education slips and population becomes nieve as a whole. Critial thinking, personal responsibility, and sense of cultural unity vanishes(CHECK, no longer the melting pot we have become the salad bar. As Obama blundered: "We are a nation of immigrants, jews, whites, blacks, muslims, etc.." where ideally we would be a "nation of immigrants brought together as Americans with common goals and interests" Segragation and catagorizing people e.g. the Diversity Movement has done more harm then good, separating people rather then bringing them together.)

    Violent Outbreaks between factions begin as societies become tribalized (gangs, city states) along social, political, and ethnic lines. If the government can't take care of us they we'l take care of "our own" (whom ever that may be; e.g. Families, Neighborhood, etc. Rival gangs, and even rival towns. More and more Mafia like behavior then before. Loyalty becomes a commidity.)

    Government can no longer contain or control the various factions. A power vaccume develops. Tribes band together. (PENDING)

    Some political or social flash goes off. Vi

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing from history that I have been noticing is one pulled from Ancient Rome. The military started out as citizens who served willingly, but over time, the government began hiring non-Romans for their military ranks to the point that the vast majority of soldiers had only a financial reason to feel loyalty to their army. Sounds kind of familiar.

  47. Don't worry about draconus... by BlackBloq · · Score: 0

    People tend to forget, that everywhere semi-democratic, laws themselves are NOT the matter or substance of social order. A law, until challenged in court, or re-challenged in superior or supreme court is just a piece of paper. New laws are drafted by people with agendas (for and against your interests). Court is the fire tests the metal of a law. The only problem for us is that the whole process costs a lot of cash and time, which most individuals have little of, and companies have a lot.

  48. Department of Redundancy Department by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    So Australians aren't allowed to see what it is that the Danes aren't allowed to see?

    Not only that, it appears that they aren't allowed to see what it is they aren't allowed to see what it is that the Danes aren't allowed to see.

  49. the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    come on no one has put up the list yet ?

    slashdot can spare the cash surely ....

    here goes

    https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Denmark:_3863_sites_on_censorship_list%2C_Feb_2008

  50. Re:politicians and diapers by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    "politicians and diapers should be changed often ,and for the same reasons."

    The attribution for this quote appears to be Mark Twain (Samual Clemens)

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
  51. 20 Minutes Into the Future by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    Max Headroom: Have you any idea how successful censorship is on TV? Don't know the answer? Hmm... successful, isn't it?

    Cheviot: Override Censor? Good God, Murray, I'm the Chairman, not the Creator!

    Max Headroom: Now, I'm no librarian, in fact, I don't know what star sign I am. But, as a famous person once said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." And as I -- another more famous person -- once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like!"

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  52. Re:the banned page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    come on no one has put up the list yet ?

    slashdot can spare the cash surely ....

    here goes

    https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Denmark:_3863_sites_on_censorship_list%2C_Feb_2008

    sorry do not know what i was thinking I should pasted the banned page link.

    http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures6.htm

  53. Wikileaks page crashing X by Zashi · · Score: 1

    Both my coworker and I run RHEL5.2 on our workstations. Both of our X servers crashed when we tried to view the wikileaks page on Denmark's ban list.

    I smell a conspiracy!!

    Or a bug.

    --
    Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
  54. Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's only fair that just as we use the term pro-choice instead of pro-abortion, we should use the term pro-life instead of anti-abortion.

  55. yo dawg by harry666t · · Score: 4, Funny

    i herd you liek blacklists so we put a blacklist on our blacklist so you couldnt browse things while you couldnt browsing things.

  56. Somehow I'm reminded of Dilbert by Bysmuth · · Score: 0
  57. Solution: blacklist everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you live in Australia, can provide a web address, and can provide reasons you think the website is prohibited under Australian law, then you can report the website to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

    If everyone reports a bogus site, they'll have to blacklist the whole internet. You probably don't even have to live in Australia to submit a blacklist request.

    Let's start with scientology websites, but everything is fair game imo. Did you find an article about breast cancer? What are you waiting for? Report that shiz to ACMA!

  58. "we actually don't want this shit in the first pl" by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    someone in australia obviously does want this shit

    someone with power and support

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  59. Dubious abuse by justwally · · Score: 1

    I am wondering (aloud) how this will apply to bookmarks stored on servers, bookmarking services and ultimately bookmarks on computers in Australia. Not too much a stretch in all this.

  60. this is like saying by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    a murderer isn't as bad as an adulterer, because the murderer would never cheat on his wife

    the guy invaded a country on false pretenses for crying out loud

    and i especially like how you label me as an anti-american american, simply because i detest bush

    as if bush represents true america, as if rejecting bush means i am rejecting america

    how exatly does that work in your mind? that because i reject what bush did, this means i am against my country?

    why in your mind does what bush did=the only valid representation of the usa?

    in truth, bush is a defiling of the america i know, and the only truly unamerican people are people who expect blind obedience to some ashole who wasn't even elected with the popular vote in the first place, and just because i quesiton the legitimacy of that asshole, that means i am... unamerican? really?

    blind unquestioning obedience is the american way? is that your argument

    do you know how many REAL americans died fighting exactly this kind of douchebag thinking?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  61. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you people trying to compare the Great Firewall of Australia to the Great Firewall of China?

    If you think that the Aussie govt are getting ideas from their totalitarian neighbors to the north OR that such ideas might not be in the best interests of all people everywhere...then you sir are a thoughtcriminal!

    Stay where you are! Agents of miniluv will be there shortly to re-educate you so that you may achieve complete trust, love and reliance upon the government that knows what is best for you.

  62. Video Game Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One part of the article mentions that Senator Conroy had previously talked about expanding his scheme to include any content that's been "refused classification". This would disproportionately affect video games which are refused classification if they otherwise would have received an R18+ or X18+ rating (the strongest possible movie ratings; must be 18 or older with X18+ denoting sexual content). The strongest rating allowed for games is MA15+.

  63. Well, that's just full of fashion by Mr_Congeniality · · Score: 1

    No wonder our world is going to hell. This amount of control and censorship is unacceptable.

  64. Can You Say Satellite? by Dodder · · Score: 1

    Who wants to start a satellite internet company? Even with it's horrible upload speeds, looks like they (and all of these other countries thinking of imposing mandatory censorship) could give satellite a chance to make a comeback. Good thing Australia doesn't have a strong space program...yet.

    "That's right I said it. The Moon! And we ain't stoppin there! Read my lips. M A R S. Mars Bitches!"

  65. there is nothing wrong with censoring by age by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    but there is something wrong with censoring everything

    this is why "please think of the children!" as an excuse to limit all media consumption everywhere is bullshit

    but that doesn't mean, at all, that videogames, or movies, or anything else that might have content that is very violent or sexual, shouldn't be limited when used with children

    you can say the kids will get it anyway, you can say that what someone else might find objectionable for their kids you don't find objectionable for yours, you can say this job is entirely the job of only the parents

    all of this is true

    but the problem is that there are some people out there who think censorship of material when it comes to children is just as bad as censorship, period. no, totally wrong. when it comes to children, censorship of material is ENTIRELY coherent, valid, appropriate

    if you don't understand why this is true, why society and/ or the parent must protect children from material they are not mature enouugh to understand in its proper context, then it is possible you are a child yourself

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:there is nothing wrong with censoring by age by shentino · · Score: 1

      I would propose that if it's nasty enough to protect our children from, then what makes it ok for adults to indulge in it?

      The mind is fairly plastic even past childhood.

  66. ls-studio.org is an appartment rental site by slashbart · · Score: 1

    I had a look at the list and the first one I clicked on is ls-studio.org/. Seems to be a site that intermediates for appartment rentals
    Bart

    1. Re:ls-studio.org is an appartment rental site by slashbart · · Score: 1
      Apparently ls-studio was an agency that sold 'suggestive' photographs of Russian and Ukranian minors up to 2004. See this explanation. The current site has absolutely nothing to do with photographs, and just intermediates for apartment rentals in France.

      This kind of nonsense is exactly why there should be no censorship, but unfortunately the sheople will eat anything as long as it is flavored with the terrorism or childporn spice.

  67. Run for office by WiiVault · · Score: 1

    Seriously this may sound like an extreme and difficult reaction, but the problem is so immense I can't see it any other way. Find a niche, talk about things the people care about but the parties ignore. Find like-minded friends who will also run. You may only get a seat or two, but if people see you as authentic "change", you could see a nice boost the next election.

  68. In fact... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Once we get better at it though, we ought to be able to detect bad genes before child birth or even have some sort of birth control that even prevents the egg from implanting if it has undesirable characteristics. Why even have genetic disease, criminal behavior, and other problems when you can simply prevent those people from being born? You could just vaccinate women against carrying defective children to term, with some sort of an executioner nanobot.

    --
    This is my sig.
  69. Revenue is Mandatory! by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    Simply linking to addresses in ACMA's blacklist attracts an $11,000 per-day fine (snip) The blacklist is secret, immune to FOI requests and forms the basis of the Australian (snip)

    So you receive a letter on your mailbox saying that you were fined in AUD $11,000 , for linking to a site that you didn't know you could link, and if you knew that you couldn't link to it you would be even more penalized because that information is not for your security level?

    Hmm, since the blacklist is secret, they might reasonably claim that they can't tell you which of your links is on the blacklist. So, $11,000 per day until every link on your entire site has vanished. Profit!

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  70. Norway's Internet Filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many of those sites are also on Norway's internet filter (through trial and error based off of Denmark list), though I can't find an official list anywhere. It's probably secret, too. https://tips.kripos.no/ is the website for the Norway authority on this, though the site is largely useless unless you have something to report.

  71. there are 12 year olds by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    who are more mature than some 40 year olds

    but all we can do is apply general rules

    and, generally speaking, a child understands nothing of social contexts. its the lack of an ability to place what they see and hear in the proper reference of the world they live in that makes the material unacceptable. their mind can't process the material in a way an adult can, because they don't understand what an adult understands about the conditions that makes the material acceptable or tolerable. their experience of the world is too green and unexperienced to process certain violence or sexuality they might find in the proper way

    meanwhile, your average adult understands (hopefully) enough about their world to understand the various contexts in which the creation and consumption of some ultraviolent and ultrasexual content is acceptable. in fact, its a pretty good definition of maturity itself: the ability to process sex and violence properly, responsibly, and appropriately. meanwhile, your position seems to assert that cognitive and social maturity is unattainable. therefore you fail to make a valid point, because it is attainable

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  72. 2 points: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    1. the idea is that the government crackdown is officially on pornography, but then they also crackdown on sites not related to pornography

    2. you can make a clearly logical delineation between simple social concepts that have been around for ages, like drugs and prostitution, and broader ideological trends and ideas where the word "ideology" is more appropriate

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  73. Communism is the word by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    Communist Soviet Union opposed fascism (Molotov-Riebentropp notwithstanding, they supported republican Spain).
    Not all authoritarian regime are fascists, just like not all diseases are lupus.

    1. Re:Communism is the word by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No. The facets of the situation that are being discussed are either irrelevant or opposed to communism. (I'd assert that communism scales so poorly that there's never been a communist society on larger than the village level. Doesn't mean there weren't groups that *called* themselves communists. But they had less to do with communism than the Democrats have to do with democracy.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  74. China is less militaristic by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    China spends MUCH less of its GDP on its military (1.4% vs 4% for the US.)

  75. Maybe you should post a screenshot. by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    That site is not accesible in the Communist Monarchy of Sweden. :(

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  76. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, they can fine you for posting a link that appears on their list, and they can fine you for posting their list, and they won't tell you what is on their list...
    Seriously, that's f^cked. I cannot see how they can possibly get this put in place.

  77. Re:Solution: /b/lacklist everything by ozphx · · Score: 1

    I agree. Every ausfag should report in, and head over to your image board of choice (guro?). Then submit links to individual images. Keep those bastards working. Theres no way the censors can keep up with /b :D

    --
    3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
  78. Re:"we actually don't want this shit in the first by Mystery00 · · Score: 1

    What support? So far there's next to no support for this at all. Just some maniac's pipe dream.

    --
    "we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
  79. Solution by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

    Simple low-profile solution: Get a couple friends together. Pool some money. Rent a cheap server in a foreign colocation. Run squid there. VPN in. Voila, freedom. More drastic solution: Write a worm. Unleash it. Let it set up a proxying botnet for you.

  80. Oh dear, this is just gold! by srjh · · Score: 1

    And to further my point about six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon blacklisting, here is a link that eventually leads to the banned Danish list.

    I think I should be pretty safe, though... the last step before getting to the list? The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. Oops.

    (Props to the Whirlpool poster for discovering this hilarity).

  81. Complaint to the ACMA about Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have just made a complaint to the ACMA about this Slashdot article:

    Complaint Reference Number: ACMA1276083564

    Date: 18/03/2009 18:33:00 PM
    Content Type: WorldWideWeb
    Internet Address: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/17/1228224
    Content Description: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Denmark:_3863_sites_on_censorship_list%2C_Feb_2008
    Access Instruction: Hyperlink: Denmark's list of banned websites
    Reason for Complaint: The list contains the details of 3863 sites mostly related to child pornography.

  82. Wtf are you talking about by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    I don't know (nor care) what you call "communism," but Soviet Russia has been called "communist" by billions (literally) of people, and there and then the state owned the corporations.

    1. Re:Wtf are you talking about by HiThere · · Score: 1

      People accepted their self-applied label. But it was a lie. Russian under Lenin was a wierd mixture of Fascism and Communism, but under Stalin it became much more fascist...and much less communist. The various reforms since then did not increase the communist influence.

      If you want to see an example of communism, look at the history of the Oneida community. This will give you a clearer idea of what communism actually is, and will show you why it doesn't scale. Even Oneida wasn't actually communist, but they came as close as was practical. Soviet Russia wasn't even close. Neither was Red China. Both were attempts at totalitarian, but that's not at all the same thing.

      Communism can only work when the social controls are such that nobody can profit at the expense of another, and selfish behavior is unacceptable by ANYONE, including the leadership. There are some other requirements, but those are sufficient to prevent it from scaling. (Even then I'm not sure it's a good system, but on a really small scale, and with dedication to a common goal [usually religious] it's approximately workable.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  83. How draconian Now wikileaks is on the AU Blacklist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly,

    Shame Shame Shame.

  84. "Past is Prologue" in ColonyAU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Doesn't Australia have a constitutional document guaranteeing freedom of speech?"

    Nope. And no Bills of Rights.

    We're treated like colonists, or children of colonists.

    And it really sux.

    It sux good & bright people away to less dogmatic lands.

    Compare KQED's Forum (available as MP3s, if not via non-iPod podcast fetchers, like Juice)

    -or-

    CBC's National Service's [2 hour] "Cross Country Checkup"

    to, say:

    Australia's Radio National's dim "Australia Talks" with its droning, interrupting "we don't have much time left" (but then he goes on to fill way too much time, with his own dribble) moderator.

    ABC RN's Perspective program provided [only] 5 minutes of air-time to "anyone" each day... but it's been cut, from start of 2009.

    ABC's Beta "Pool" (web site) is where you're sent if you're looking for a place to air your ideas.

    If they find and like your idea(s) in their Beta (read: broken) web site, you might get a chance to get a bit of it to air.

    But "Pool" seems to be more for web content producers than for individuals with ideas to share with fellow Aussies.

    ABC has forgotten who's paying their costs & salaries.

    Weekdays' "Bush Telegraph" no longer puts people to air; now, they have their own staff telling you what's being talked about in the Bush:

    Here's what Country Viewpoint has become
    (remember, as you read the excerpt, that many folks living in the Bush still use dial-up Internet connections):

    "Country Viewpoint

    Do you live outside our capital cities, or perhaps have a connection to rural or regional Australia? Do you want to share an experience, a place or idea that is close to your heart?

    The Bush Telegraph team wants you to join its new interactive Country Viewpoint project on Pool.

    Pool is a -website- run by the ABC that encourages our listeners to upload their own content and share their ideas with each other and with us.

    If you'd like to express your view about anything that's happening in your backyard-whether it's funny, serious, topical, something you love or something that irritates you- then this is your chance to get on your soapbox.

    On Pool, you can not only write a Viewpoint but also upload a photograph of yourself, your home, your surroundings-anything really. You can even record your own voice or take your own videos to post on the site.

    Our aim is to make Country Viewpoint a truly interactive experience and create a community for Bush Telegraph listeners where debate, conversation and creativity are encouraged.

    To have a look at what it is all about go to pool and come and join our regional community."

    Pool was still in Beta, last time I checked
    (a few weeks ago).

    ---

    Australia's too much like an Extreme Tug-Of-War,
    with elections burdened by the only "preference" voting system (ie, you can't vote for the ONE person or party you really want to support; you must RANK ALL of the listed parties or (if you want to vote for an individual) all individuals (it could be over 40!)

    If you reuse even 1 of the numbers from 1 to 40,
    your vote gets tossed out, as INVALID!

    And, if your party doesn't get "enough" votes, your vote ends up counting towards another party, ie, one you don't really want to vote for.

    The effect is to stiffle "new blood" in the parliament; only big, old parties seem to be getting in.

    Recent entry of Greens (about the time of the demise of the Democrats) is an exception, whose time has come at last.

    I wish them well, at least under their current, calm, clear-headed leader.

    Our MP's don't have to think; they only vote the Party-line. Forget representing your electorate's interests, except in the very few "conscience votes" permitted by the government.

    So, most of the energy - eg, in parliament's question-time - goes into screaming insults or trying to make dim points against the other major party.

    As a result, the country moves Left or Right (a bit like a pendulum),

    1. Re:"Past is Prologue" in ColonyAU by kwandar · · Score: 1

      Ouch!! I tend to think of Australia as a forward and progressive country like Canada. My original post has certainly opened my eyes to Australia's shocking drive to the bottom. Too bad ... really .... I hope some Australian press read and comment on this someday.

  85. With all this time, we could do better things! by ivi · · Score: 1

    For me, the worst of this (yet another) Aussie gov't act of idiocy (no less than a previous gov't's "Children Overboard!" scandal; I'm not trying to take sides here) is:

    IT WASTES BLOODY TIME THAT COULD BE BETTER USED!

    Not only will Conroy's dabbling with imaginary
    taps on the WWW-feed pipes leading to Australia
    slow the Internet for all (if filtering happens),
    but it take time from the National Broadband Network.

    ---

    Call me cynical, but - just maybe - that is the whole idea of such a dim bureaucrat being placed into such a ministry's seat.

    It probably helps Telstra to have such a dim-wit
    in the minister's chair.

  86. Slashdot dobbed in by jannewmarch · · Score: 1

    The wikileak pages have been blacklisted by the Australian ACMA as they contain links to blacklisted sites. This article contains links to the blacklisted wikileak pages. As a good, moral Australian citizen I have reported the Slashdot article to the ACMA with the request that it also be blacklisted. I accessed the Slashdot article via an RSS feed from Google Reader, so I have requested that it be blacklisted too. I did this two days ago and haven't yet received a ruling from the ACMA. I wonder what they will say... if ever...