Australia Waters Down, Delays Internet Filter Policy

An anonymous reader writes "Looks like Australia's government is running a bit scared of a population enraged by its controversial mandatory filtering project. The Government today announced a suite of measures designed to provide controls around the filter project, including independent oversight and a review of content which would be included. In addition, some Australian ISPs will voluntarily censor any child pornography URLs. But the whole project is still going ahead — it's just been delayed and slightly modified."

Comments

Next election will be crucial

[MichaelSmith]

I plan to put all Labour senators last, and to put the Greens ahead of labour in the lower house.

Re:Next election will be crucial

[CoolGopher]

It would be an even stronger statement to only put Conroy last, not all of the Labor candidates. That way there is no doubt whatsoever what you're voting against.

Re:Next election will be crucial

[BluBrick]

Problem is it's not his personal policy, he's just driving ALP policy. Boot him out and the party just grows another arsehole to take his place and enact their policy.

Re:Next election will be crucial

[MichaelSmith]

Yeah but if Gillard realises Conroy is poison she will keep clear.

Re:Next election will be crucial

[QuantumG]

Who ya gunna put first? It's not like Liberal has a different policy on the filter.

Re:Next election will be crucial

[MichaelSmith]

Better the devil you know. Give labour a slap in the upper house then put them ahead in the lower house, but behind the greens. Thus well trained they will come to heel faster than the liberals. Thats my theory anyway.

Re:Next election will be crucial

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

I still can't let Abbott get into power.

As a lefty trade unionist, here is my hierarchy of voting in Australia this election:

As a lefty trade-unionist my hierarchy of voting in Australia this election: Greens > Being Kicked In Crotch (Men's Size 10, Sharpened Wing Tip) > ALP > Skeletor > Stabbed By Transvestites In Mexican Cantina > Demi-crats > Nationals > Liberals > Suicide Booth > Family First

Re:Next election will be crucial

[Joakal]

If you really are against Labor, it works better to vote parties that are least for the parties. There's a most opposing parties method that will put Labor senators last to get votes so you don't have to understand the big list of candidates and preferences.

Disclaimer: My website

Re:Next election will be crucial

[CoolGopher]

Maybe, though that is open for debate.

However, if people who are voting e.g. Greens are also putting Conroy last - that will definitely make the Labor strategists take note (and hopefully discard the policy altogether).

Re:Next election will be crucial

[dakameleon]

Yes. His term expires in June 2011, so the next election will be the last one before his term expires and therefore he is up for the vote.

Re:Next election will be crucial

[deniable]

I'm similar, but the modern world has wiped out Leprosy and the Democrats.

Re:Next election will be crucial

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh their policy is "different."
Abbott was at an event a couple of months ago where he said he disagreed with the Krudd/Conroy filtering plans. Sounds good? During the handshaking afterwards a friend of mine asked him to clarify his position. He said, "You'll probably be disappointed, but.." and went on to say that he felt Conroy was wasting too much time consulting with biased parties and that the filtering list didn't go far enough in blocking things that no Australian wanted on their computers.
Still, a few hundred people left that meeting thinking that a vote for Liberal was a vote against internet filtering. It's not Abbott's fault they misinterpreted him, is it.

Well dont Australia

[CommanderEl]

Massive props to the major ISP's in Australia for standing up and showing the Government with action, what is the best course of action for Australia and it's citizens.
.
It's really disappointing listening to the arguments from the Labor government as to why Australia needs an internet filter. Tugging on the heart strings of the parents promising to "help protect their children" with a defunct solution.
.
I congratulate every Australian working hard to petition and protest about their rights and what is good for Australia. The people have spoken.

Re:Well dont Australia

[Fluffeh]

To place a rebuttal on your "but" (FTFA):

The use of a standardised block page notification, which will allow ISPs to notify users that the content that have requested has been blocked, and how to see a review of the block

This I can live with. It basically says:
Yes, the site you wanted exists, but it's on a no-no list, so you can't see it. This is why (link to review of site). Don't agree with the review? Complain.

That seems to be somewhat more "filtering I can live with" even as a pretty outspoken libertarian :)

Re:Well dont Australia

[MichaelSmith]

But done that way the filter is easy to circumvent. Write a browser extension or spider which registers blocked pages with an external https mirror. Once they tell you a page is blocked (rather than just not there) the filter doesn't really exist.

Re:Well dont Australia

[mjwx]

That seems to be somewhat more "filtering I can live with" even as a pretty outspoken libertarian :)

Except we don't know if the list is secret or not.

Those behind the filter do not want people to know what is being blocked as "it lets people know where child porn is". It's almost as if they have some delusional idea that if people know about child porn they'll instantly become paedophiles. This has the effect of hiding false positives.

Rant aside, all this will end up being is a button on my iinet control panel saying "do you want to take part in voluntary filtering (_)YES (_)NO" and if it becomes a pain the "NO" box will get ticked by default.

Seems like they are putting a frog in hot water

[JDmetro]

and slowly bringing it to a boil.
Seems like that has been happening all over the world the last few years. Phase things in gradually so people don't notice, but always under false pretence. But what does in it matter to the government? There will never be another revolution of any kind because now they have the technology to stop any kind of uprising (isn't the constitution against the government keeping a standing army?)

Don't be fooled

[dmiller]

The changes announced today seem to be little more than a delaying tactic to remove the issue of mandatory Internet censorship from the agenda ahead of the election that is expected to be announced any day now. This issue has turned quite toxic for the government; the people who are for it are only weakly so, but the people who are against it are furious and are already organising campaigns against the government on various social media.

I don't think the government can be trusted not to bring it back in a essentially unmodified form after the next election. Vote accordingly.

Re:Don't be fooled

[Cimexus]

Agreed. Those opposing the filter (i.e. any thinking person who knows a bit about technology and the Internet) should be pleased with their efforts so far. This is fantastic news ... and it's actually a much bigger backflip than the summary alludes to (for some reason, /. always tends to overstate any 'filtering will happen' news, and understate any 'filtering is looking like it probably won't happen' news - "delayed" in political terms means "possibly never going to happen, depending on feedback we get/election results").

But we have to keep the pressure on the Government.

If we keep the pressure up, this 'delay' will become a 'very long delay' and eventually 'indefinite'. I'm confident already that mandatory filtering will never actually happen in this country (the population are too against it, and rightfully so). It may eventually come to fruition in a watered-down version. But I think that's still a win. I personally have no problems with an opt-in or opt-out filter - so long as users have the choice, there's no harm in that. Even if that extends to whole ISPs - e.g. Telstra and Optus may filter compulsorily, but all the other ISPs out there won't (including those which wholesale Telstra services, which you can get anywhere that you can get Telstra so you will always have another choice).

Re:Don't be fooled

[jamesh]

The changes announced today seem to be little more than a delaying tactic to remove the issue of mandatory Internet censorship from the agenda ahead of the election that is expected to be announced any day now.

I view it more as a strategic backdown while trying to save whatever dignity they have left. I think most people in the industry knew it was flawed from the start and would never come off.

I don't think the government can be trusted not to bring it back in a essentially unmodified form after the next election. Vote accordingly.

You can be sure I will. Unfortunately there are other issues at stake that trump internet access.

Re:Don't be fooled

[aussie_a]

So we have a choice between a censored internet or becoming slaves to corporate overlords. This is the issue with the two party system.

Re:Don't be fooled

[bug1]

If you live in Victoria then you can vote below the line and Put Conroy last for Labor, no need to change which party you vote for.

See http://filter-conroy.org/ for more info

It's voluntary filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

But customer of both Optus and Telstra will be unable to opt-out.

Re:It's voluntary filtering

[Cimexus]

True but there are many other ISPs. So your 'opt out' in that situation is churning to another ISP. Plenty of ISPs wholesale Telstra services, so if you can get Telstra you can get service through another ISP ... one exception to that is the Telstra and Optus HFC (cable) networks I suppose. But that will eventually become redundant anyway as the NBN rolls out and you will be able to choose any ISP in any location in Australia.

Re:It's voluntary filtering

[jamesh]

I can just imagine the call to Telstra to opt-out... "Yes valued customer, we will be happy to take you off of our internet filter and place you on our 'pervert' plan. Please download the necessary forms and fill in the exact nature of your perversion. Your next payment will be identified as 'Telstra Internet Pervert Plan' on your bank statement, in extra bold print. You can be sure that Telstra will be the first to give up your details when the government is hunting down potential internet predators. Thankyou for calling Telstra, you sick bastard."

Re:It's voluntary filtering

[c0lo]

But customer of both Optus and Telstra will be unable to opt-out.

that is not true ... they CAN go somewhere else.

Like what? Take their home and leave the community? (fyi: that's the only downside in my eyes of the area I'm living: everything in communications is Telstra only - the only wire is Telstra's optical fiber, no mobile but Telstra's has coverage. Cannot install a satellite dish - would cast a shadow on my solar panels).

Everything happened just I have forseen

[mjwx]

For a long time now I've said that this will be kicked around parliament with no real action being taken. Every time KRudd bought it in the last year up he faced a rebellion from the back bench from those MP's who relied on a narrow margin to keep their seats. Gillard has not gone one way or the other remaining ambiguous on the subject (she's a lawyer after all). I don't think Labor needs the fundie vote and Abott is more likely to get the fundies on side with Gillard being "non-religious" but Labor is not willing to alienate any voters at this point in time.

This bill will get kicked around some more and dismissed or watered down so much that it's never truly implemented. With any luck, Conroy will lose his seat in the senate (dearest Victorians, this is your problem, we westies have our hands full supporting the nations economy right now) and a Labor/Green coalition will remain in power. I have no doubt the ACL (Australian Christian Lobby) will pressure Tony Abott to implement some kind of filter if he wins and I don't think Abott has the stones to deny the ACLs request.

Re:Everything happened just I have forseen

[QuantumG]

"Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she has no intention of pretending to believe in God to attract religiously-inclined voters."

Now if only she would denounce the filter she'd get my vote.

All this filtering...

[eld101]

Why don't people in China and Australia just get Cheap Linux Servers in the US and just tunnel into them when they want to hit some blocked content? I use mine whenever I travel and/or use public wifi. Then I know anything I do on the web is encrypted until it his my server in NJ.

Re:All this filtering...

[smasha]

Why don't people in China and Australia just get Cheap Linux Servers in the US and just tunnel into them when they want to hit some blocked content? I use mine whenever I travel and/or use public wifi. Then I know anything I do on the web is encrypted until it his my server in NJ.

That is a valid way of bypassing the filter, but the main point is that we shouldn't have to resort to anything like that to be able to view the internet uncensored.

www.kiddiporn.com?

[gizmonty]

Child pornography URLs? Really?

Re:www.kiddiporn.com?

[OrwellianLurker]

Just have a seat over there.

The problem, I suspect, is Scope Creep

[igb]

The UK has an effective system which enjoys largely popular support. An independent organisation, with clear governance, provides a list of URLs that contain illegal content. Those URLs are blocked on a voluntary basis by consumer ISPs. The performance hit is a red herring: the technology used is two-stage, so only the IP numbers that are hosting the material are proxied (it's done by injecting local /32 routes to a transparent proxy, mostly). Although there's an iron fist in the velvet glove of voluntary filtering, in that government has threatened to legislate, in reality every ISP is on board. Business connections may or may not be so filtered.

There have been fuck-ups, most notably the Virgin Killer affair which (a) revealed that Wikipedia doesn't play nicely with ISP-level proxying and (b) there are edge-cases in the law on child porn. The argument that the record cover in question isn't child porn is weak, but the whole affair was mis-handled.

Is the system perfect? No. Because it was never intended to be. A proxy or an https tunnel or any number of other things will subvert it. The effect is more straight-forward: it removes the ``oh, I stumbled over it accidentally'' defence, and prevents pressure to impose filtering for anything other than illegality. In the grand British spirit of compromise (which tends not to sit well with the American desire for 100% legal clarity) it does a reasonable job reasonably, and if it lost public confidence it would rapidly have to adapt.

The Australian problem is that (a) it's being imposed by legislative fiat, rather than emerging from industry debate (the UK system arose from a couple of the major ISPs) (b) Australia has some states that are culturally conservative that the central government isn't prepared to overrule (a problem we don't have in the UK) and (c) there's a skein of support for strong censorship that neither the UK nor the US suffers from.

Re:The problem, I suspect, is Scope Creep

[badfish99]

1. No, presumably because they are not actually censoring very much. When a Wikipedia page got onto the list, the performance went to hell.
2. Yes. I believe this has happened.
3. Hard to say. Presumably the cost is that of the filtering hardware, plus the cost of the people who maintain the list. All of it seems to be paid for by the ISPs themselves.
4. It can't be. There can't be many kiddie porn websites, given that they are illegal everywhere, so if there's any real trade in that sort of stuff it will be underground, so unaffected by the censors. My guess is that it's main effect is to allow half-a-dozen or so perverts to spend their working days looking at stuff that secretly turns them on, without any fear of reprisal. And, of course, the filtering hardware is all there ready for the day when the government decides that we shouldn't be allowed to see whatever it is that they are going to ban next.

Protect the Children!

[oldmac31310]

I know it has been said before many, many times but if you want to protect children from stuff they shouldn't see on the internet then it is the parents' duty to monitor what they see and do on it. Simple as that. State butt out of families. Keep it free and nasty and abolish Windows!

Greens aren't the only alternative

[timbo234]

For those like me who aren't so sure we want to vote Green there is at least one other viable alternative:
The Australian Sex Party are contesting senate seats for the first time this coming election http://www.sexparty.org.au/

One of their policies is to oppose compulsory internet censorship.

Re:Thanks to people

[Crypto Gnome]

NO!

And let me say again NO! You are 100% entirely wrong ,sir.

If you see a man being beaten to death by the side of the road, do you

1. turn your head and ignore the *blindingly obvious evidence* or
2. DO SOMETHING (eg call the police)?

"Filtering" the internet actually encourages child abuse and paedophilia, because it shows YOU DO NOT WANT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, you just want to pretend that it doesn't happen.