Oz Pirate Party Tells the Elderly How To Bypass the Net Filter

mask.of.sanity writes "When Exit International discovered it was earmarked for Australia's Internet filter blacklist, it wanted to ensure its members could access its pro-euthanasia material, but its members share an average age of 70 — not exactly from the tech generation. So Exit International turned to the filter-hating Pirate Party of Australia, which supplied a 'hacker' who taught a crowded room of grandmas and grandpas how to use proxies and advanced VPN tunnels to access Exit International's material — which the Australian government thinks breaches the moral compass of society. Computerworld has the presentation."

Comments

It sure feels odd

[Arancaytar]

It'd feel odd to teach a group of old people how to access information about killing themselves.

But that's the point of the freedom of information - anyone should have the right to seek it out and access it.

Re:It sure feels odd

[anarche]

Yep, crazy world we live in.

Mind you, these people all want to have their life's options explored. They are not all for killing themselves now, just may not want to be vegetable burdens in the future, much like many of us.

How long until Capt. Kevin makes it a crime to either
a) bypass the filter
b) assist others to bypass the filter
c) both of the above.

bloody stupid steve!

Re:It sure feels odd

[x2A]

You're obviously missing the point of what Australia's doing here. Their internet firewall is for blocking child pornography, this is what they said and this is what it was sold as. Obviously then blocking this website reduces child porn... I mean, with sufficient amounts of people taking up this option, it does mean that children will become a larger % of the population, which means they're even more of a target!!!

If you think people should be allowed access to information about getting "youth in asia" to old people in Australia, then you're a pedophile.

Re:It sure feels odd

[ScrewMaster]

breaches the moral compass of society.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't ... and besides, the end of a life is not a situation where you can apply too many absolutes.

More to the point, however, I'd say Australia's government has been breaching their society's moral compass for some time now. So has mine, for that matter, and I'm American.

Re:It sure feels odd

[Trepidity]

In fact, it's such a heinous crime against the moral compass of society, it should probably carry the death penalty.

Re:It sure feels odd

[athe!st]

Comrade Kevin is only doing what is best for peace and harmony in the People's Republic of Australia

Re:It sure feels odd

[mdarksbane]

Personally I'm worried about the following dilemma.

As long as enough of my brain and body is functioning to be capable of taking action, I'd probably prefer to be alive. As long as I can talk or type and listen or read there are plenty of useful things I could set myself to.

Once I lose that ability, I'd really rather just off myself.

The problem is... at that point, I doubt I'd be very able to handle it myself. So you'd essentially be asking someone in your family and friends to go to jail for murder.

Personally I'm leaning toward some kind of old folks home suicide pact, where we all agree to kill each other when the time comes. Because, hey, when you're getting close, what's the worst they can do to you?

I watched my grandfather on his death bed beg his God to kill him for over a year. We need to stop this bullshit clinging to lives that aren't ours and allow people to die with dignity.

Crazy Australians.

[purpledinoz]

I always thought Australia was a developed country, economically, and politically. This Internet filter craziness makes them seem very un-democratic. What's next? Filtering the opposition party websites? Filtering any websites that has an opposing view of the current government? I don't think that next step is such a big one.

Re:Crazy Australians.

[totally bogus dude]

Undemocratic? The Hungry Beast had a phone poll of 1,000 people conducted, the results are in this Wikipedia article. The results indicate that a lot of people actually are in favour of the filter, but it seems to largely depend on how it's phrased and explained.

I think we have the same problem as pretty much every democracy: everyone gets a vote, but only a small portion of people actually care/know enough about an issue to make an informed choice. And the governments don't seem to be under much pressure to actually be open and honest about what the policies they're pushing will actually achieve. So, the government asks "do you want the Australian Government to block access to things only sickos would want to see like child porn?" and most people say "yes". The government doesn't mention the filter will only block unencrypted HTTP and therefore by absolutely trivial to bypass, or how much it will cost vs the amount of content it'll be blocking, or how effective it will be compared to installing your own filtering software.

Various online polls show strong opposition to it, but that's pretty much as expected. People who have some idea of how the internet works are hugely opposed to it for technical as well as "freedom" related issues, but people who have no idea (which is most people) just hear "this will stop child rapists and not impact you at all" and are of course going to be for it.

In a way, it's a lot like the "Free software" debate. Most people don't give a crap if their software is "Free" or not, and don't even think about how having a healthy Free software ecosystem may benefit them (regardless of what they choose to use themselves). But if it all disappeared and there was no alternative but proprietary software from big corporations, they'd realise what they'd lost. But explaining it beforehand? There's just no interest.

Re:Crazy Australians.

[stimpleton]

My observations and several unprompted anecdotal stories from tourist friends suggest Australia is actually quite conservative. Robin Williams recently drew criticism for his comments about Australia and the Prime Minister even more so for saying they were not as bad a Rednecks(in the South of the USA).

I am not famous so I can say what I am about to say with little fear of repercussion. I found southern US folks to be sophisticated compared to Australian Rural communities when I travel both the US and Australia. The Rosa Parkes seat-on-a-bus incident happened a long time ago in the US. While the Cronulla Beach Riots in Sydney happened but a couple years back where ordinary Australians fought pitched battles against foreigners. Politicians in Australia were found to lie about immigrants throwing babies overboard in ships, so that it would bolster their anti immigration stances. Aborigines were shot or hit by cars and killed and the attitudes of police were to treat it as an animal death up till the 1980's.

Do not confuse a laid back attitude with conservative beliefs. Because Australia, averagely is very conservative.

Re:Crazy Australians.

[dorward]

The results indicate that a lot of people actually are in favour of the filter, but it seems to largely depend on how it's phrased and explained.

See Yes, Minister:

Sir Humphrey “You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don’t want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Do you think they respond to a challenge?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?”

Bernard Woolley: “Ohwell, I suppose I might be.”

Sir Humphrey “Yes or no?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can’t say no to that. So they don’t mention the first five questions and they publish the last one.”

Bernard Woolley: “Is that really what they do?”

Sir Humphrey “Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren’t many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result.”

Bernard Woolley: “How?”

Sir Humphrey “Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Are you worried about the growth of armaments?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?”

Bernard Woolley: “Yes”

Sir Humphrey “There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample.”

Re:Crazy Australians.

[timmarhy]

well, i've lived in regional australia for 25 years and i've also traveled the southern states.

your entire post is full of 1/2 truths.

The cronulla riots were triggered by long standing tensions caused by gangs of australian born lebanese attacking people on cronulla beach. the outbreak of violence was sparked by a 13 yo life saver (life savers are an icon here in oz) being brutally bashed by such a gang for telling them to stop harrasing a female swimmer. just like your rodney king riots.

the baby over board saga, that was blown out of all proportion by all involved. i wouldn't be throwing stones about illegal immagration if i was you with your countries stance on their southern boarder....

you'll need to back up your claim about police treating aboriginal deaths the same as animal deaths. i've lived here my whole life and never heard such a claim.

while i traveled the south i came across the most intollerent gits i've ever met. while i agree that australia is a fairly conservative country, compared to the USA they look like left wing hippies. the impression i got from america is that people like to think they are all freedom loving and open minded, when really they just want THEIR kind of freedom.

Re:What is Australia thinking?

[thijsh]

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your highlander.

Re:Is this even possible?

[Arancaytar]

Elderly firewalls?

Like, Norton 1.0?

Moral campass

[pickyouupatnine]

Hmm.. government trying to dictate to the elderly what is moral in society. One would think that the elderly would have the most conservative view on what is considered moral.

Re:Moral campass

[QuantumG]

This is Australia, we don't have lobbyists.

We call campaign contributions "bribes" and we call politicians who take them "criminals."

Re:What is Australia thinking?

[TheLink]

Too bad, there can only be one subscriber.

Re:moral compass?

[mrsurb]

Citation needed for these back room deals.

I am a Christian and am opposed to this filter. In fact, many Christians are arguing AGAINST this legislation because we have potentially unpopular views which could be silenced through future use of this scheme: http://solapanel.org/article/conroys_internet_filter_full_of_contradictions/

another step in Australia's euthanasia saga

[Trepidity]

The federal government of Australia, due to some sort of religious-conservative influence, has been really, really anti-euthanasia for some time now. The last major time the issue came to a head was in 1995-97, when the Northwest Territory passed the Rights of the Terminall Ill Act 1995, which allowed euthanasia for the terminally ill, under certain conditions and with a lengthy process. The federal government attempted to pressure NT into repealing the law, and when it refused to do so, in 1997, the federal parliament amended NT's territory charter to specifically remove its ability to pass laws relating to euthanasia (this was possible because NT is a territory, not a state, so its powers of self-government can be reduced by simple legislation).

Re:moral compass?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

But... but... but... How else can we pigeonhole people who support censorship? Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that pinning the rest of our political problems on religion is also wrong!

Australian Opposition may back Web Filter

[CuteSteveJobs]

Whoa Slashdot! Why are you running stories like this? Do you want to get this site *BANNED* in Australia? Better tone it down. I suggest the only Aussie news you consider running are positive stories about the Rudd Government:

Like the one how Conroy gave a plum job for the Governent's Broadband network to Mike Kaiser, a Labor Party stooge who was previously convicted of electoral fraud. A $450K a year job without an interview for a guy who knows nothing about IT or comms and who should be sitting in a prison.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/i-recommended-mike-kaiser-for-nbn-job-says-stephen-conroy/story-e6frgczf-1225827983520

Submitted this next story to Firehose but it never ran:
"Stephen Conroy's Internet Filter has received an unexpected boost from the Australian Opposition. Instead of voting down the Filter in the Senate, the Opposition Party Leader Tony Abbot refused to articulate a definitive position on the Filter saying he would "await the final legislation and seek technical assurances from the government on the operations of the filter". Both Tony Abbot and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy who is implementing the Filter have affirmed their strong Christian faith, overwhelming anti-censorship moderates. This raises the question for those opposed to the filter: How can a Democracy work if the only two viable parties both offer the same thing?
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/web-filter-splits-opposition-20100406-rpf7.html

At least Conroy recently got a taste of his own medicine when Trend Micro's parliamentary web filter blocked politicians from accessing news commentary and train timetables."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/parliamentary-services-to-probe-trend-micro-filter/story-e6frgakx-1225850540731

He already copied China

[ciaran_o_riordan]

China's filter is also bypassable. I assume want it that way. The strategy is to ensure that the young and the very concerned have ways to protect themselves individually, to avoid having them motivated to look into organised ways. A classic way to take the wind out of people power.

Re:Tech Generation?

[dangitman]

yes but take a look at the tech they grew up with

Let's see - aircraft, cars, spacecraft, telephony, television, radio. All pretty advanced stuff.

Computers: early days that meant guys/girls that could do math in their heads and later days meant huge things that took punch cards

But people in their 70s or older were the ones who fucking made computing happen. For example: Seymour Cray: born 1925. Alan Turing: born 1912.

Who is the "tech generation" supposed to be? People who are 20-30 years old? I wouldn't trust many of them to know the first thing about technology, unless you call "using Facebook" knowing about technology.

Anyway, since when was technology limited to computing and electronics? I know a bunch of 65-80 year olds who could repair a car blindfolded. How many of today's youth can even change their car's oil? How many could debug a computer program?

Re:What is Australia thinking?

[PopeRatzo]

As an Australian, I find it rather depressing that most Americans' "knowledge" of Australia is limited to that single Simpsons episode..

I'll have you know that I got my knowledge of Australia from The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.

And a fine film it was.

Also, I've been to Outback Steak House on numerous occasions.