Slashdot Mirror


Australia's 2 Largest ISP's Start Censorsing the Web

unreadepitaph writes "Looks like after Stephen Conroy's web filter went down in flames he went quietly behind the backs of Australians and struck a deal with Telstra and Optus to start filtering an undisclosed blacklist of sites from organization within and external to Australia. From the article: 'Electronic Frontiers Association board member Colin Jacobs also expressed concern at the scheme, saying the Government and internet providers needed to be more upfront about websites being blocked and offer an appeals process for website owners who felt URLs had been blocked unfairly. "There is a question about where the links are coming from and I'd like to know the answer to that," Mr Jacobs said."

133 comments

  1. I wouldn't be too worried... by mfearby · · Score: 2

    ...because the current government is utterly doomed at the next election, and all their half-baked ideas will be junked, like they should be. Given the current - and trending downwards for over 12 months now - opinion polls, they'll be reduced to a mere rump of their former selves. The Australian Labor Party federally has the same disease as their state-based comrades in New South Wales and will be severely punished in similarly spectacular fashion at the next election, you mark my words :-)

    1. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Then Australia will have the Mad Monk for Prime Minister. You'd better pray the Liberals have another spill before then- all too likely given the fact that there's a few years to go before an election has to be called.

    2. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Namarrgon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Doesn't matter if they win or not. The Greens, who will have the balance of power in the Senate, have said they're opposed to any mandatory filtering, so the government would be unable to pass any filtering bills anyway.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    3. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good thing I live in EU .... and its my right to have uncensored internet......but even if i wasnt .... we have vpns, ssh tunnels, and so on .... there's no real way to block a site ...so what's the point ? Stupid ppl think they can control the internet ? :) Super if you ask me :] That's why i like to encrypt huge files and send them to random servers from time to time :) If someone is listening on the pipe, let him code some double crypted porn ;]

    4. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pity the Libs are just as technologically (il)literate as Labor.

    5. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...because the current government is utterly doomed at the next election, and all their half-baked ideas will be junked, like they should be.

      Unfortunately for us, the Liberal opposition to filtering schemes is that Labor don't go far enough. When I last discussed it with my local Lib candidate, he said that Labor were missing the boat by not including gambling, abortion, and other such sites on the black list. And that I should vote for him to make sure we get a proper family-friendly internet in Australia, instead of the dangerous and scary half-assed Labor internet. Both sides are playing the family-fear card here. They've got Today Tonight viewers convinced that overseas pedos can crawl up your phone line and out of your computer to rape your kids! (Maybe we should start a campaign to glue your USB ports shut to prevent the pedos getting out. :-)

      Currently, anyone who wants a free internet has to hope for the Greens. We're fucked.

    6. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Greens, who will have the balance of power in the Senate

      Will they? For how long? (yes, I'm planning to vote them, but if the Labor party go disastrously down, the Libs will have the majority even without Greens)

    7. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see them removing existing bills, though. This is the standard operating procedure: an unpopular law goes in, then after the election everyone mysteriously "forgets" about it.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    8. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Cimexus · · Score: 2

      Keep in mind this is just a private decision made by two particular ISPs. I don't really have a problem with that - can always change ISPs to one that doesn't do this, if I so desire. Most people simply won't care though.

    9. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      always

      Use of that word is (almost) always inappropriate.

    10. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but the fact is the other party is the libs, a bunch of useless conservatives who don't think we should have fact internet, think we should ignore climate change, reduce taxes for mining companies, keep troops overseas, and a lot more stupid ideas. So Labor may get through again, especially with the leaders the libs have.

      And in fact, apart from this obsession with the internet filter, the current government actually has the best ideas.

    11. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Smirker · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if most Labor politicians were more 'half-baked' than their ideas. I wouldn't be surprised if, when asked, they couldn't remember where the links are coming from.

    12. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      What if there is only one ISP in your area?

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    13. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Lakitu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why do people say things like this?

      "Voluntary compliance" with a government is never necessarily voluntary, considering the weight behind government suggestions. If the government wants people to do it, it should be a law. It's not a law because it's invasive and improper. This doesn't mean the government can lean on businesses to get what it wants extralegally, because it can be indistinguishable from a threat.

    14. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Cimexus · · Score: 2

      A good point. However the proportion of Australia where there wouldn't be any alternative is considerably less than the proportion of some countries that there wouldn't be an alternative. Due to the fact Telstra is forced to wholesale access to its phonelines, if you have a phone line, you can most likely get a different ISP. In ~most~ cases (though not all).

      Of course chances are that that other ISP will just be resold Telstra Wholesale access, but that would still get you around the filter.

    15. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by xaxa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good thing I live in EU .... and its my right to have uncensored internet

      It is? DNS is filtered for child porn websites in at least the UK (for some major ISPs) and Finland (IIRC).

      (In the UK last time I checked, by doing a DNS query on a blocked hostname, my small ISP returned the IP but my parents' large ISP gave a 'no such domain' message.)

      For Finland, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapsiporno.info

      (At work, "Access to lapsiporno.info has been blocked as 'Adult / Sexually explicit'". Shouldn't that be 'Child / Sexually explicit' ... though I'm not going to ask them to change it;-)

    16. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by mfearby · · Score: 1

      The Libs' idea of family friendly internet is a voucher for free "security software" that families may *choose* to install if they wish (and families probably should). Thankfully, the Libs believe in freedom of choice (and strong law and order to hunt down illegal stuff and shut it down where necessary, to balance things out).

    17. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by mfearby · · Score: 1

      "And in fact, apart from this obsession with the internet filter, the current government actually has the best ideas."

      Labor's last good idea came under Hawke and Keating in the 80s and 90s. This current lot are the crumbling shell of a once proud party, packed full of former political staffers and union apparatchiks. They are devoid of good ideas, and even if I agree with you for the sake of argument that they might actually have some, their implementation of them is a complete joke.

    18. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by makomk · · Score: 1

      They've got Today Tonight viewers convinced that overseas pedos can crawl up your phone line and out of your computer to rape your kids!

      Speaking of which: how many people here have seen the Brass Eye pedophilia special? Sadly it doesn't seem to have caused politicians anywhere to reform their ways.

    19. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      The link you provide for Finland explicitly states that all four major ISPs in the country to NOT censor anything, and many of those who sensor provide an "alternate sensored DNS" in addition to normal, non-sensored one. Only a few small regionals actually sensor (probably in attempt to market themselves to families with children).

    20. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "the Libs believe in freedom of choice" - Ha ha, ho ho, 'tis to laugh.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    21. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unlike the current party, a bunchg of useless hippies who want us to have ridiculously fast internet (within the nation only, without bothering to improve our pipelines overseas - whoops!), want to pretend climate change is 100% anthropogenic and tax us to "fix it" but can't tell us where the money will be spent or how it will reduce "carbon emissions", increase taxes for all industries to pass on to consumers, tell us they want the troops home but in fact increase their presence (and get more troops killed in 3 months than were killed during the whole previous government), pretend they're atheist yet grant more funding to theist organisations and educational institutions than any other openly-theist leader, and many more stupid ideas.

      Big surprise, the government pretends one thing but does another. Only difference with this one is, a lot more people believe them. Either they're better liars or we're a lot dumber now as a nation than we ever were.

    22. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be. The next election probably wont have the balance of power held by the Greens, and the Liberals will be only too happy to pander to the wishes of interest groups that want filtering.

    23. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

      Unless the government says something along the lines of "approve this net filter, which you only care about a little bit, in exchange for getting more of what you want in the carbon tax scheme". That's how politics works. The Greens will make a backroom deal, just like all other political parties and the Carbon Tax is waaaay higher profile and waaaay more important to them than a net filter.

    24. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why do governments and people in charge want to censor the internet?? i don't get it?!?!!?

    25. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      why do governments and people in charge want to censor the internet?? i don't get it?!?!!?

      Why does anyone want to censor images of child sexual abuse? Or details governments' top secret invasion plans?

      I'm just saying that censorship is not necessarily done for bad reasons. If it is illegal to possess pictures or videos of child porn, there is no logical reason for it not to be illegal to access over the internet. Whether it is practicable or not is another matter.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    26. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does anyone want to censor images of child sexual abuse?

      The same reason they want to censor cartoons of child abuse- mind control. Considering that abusing a child is already illegal, there is no reason that photographing your illegal act should be illegal- photography harms no one.

      In the same way, music with references to (untaxed) drug use is censored. I guess that's "gateway" music that can lead to harder and stronger music, right?

      Or details governments' top secret invasion plans?

      So the bastards in power can continue to have their peons kill one another for their pleasure. Or so they can finally invade Fossilfuelistan to see what's under the "X" on that treasure map they also censored for no bad reason.

      I'm just saying that censorship is not necessarily done for bad reasons.

      I was hoping that someone would have the courage to point out that sometimes censorship occurs for morally ambiguous reasons, too. It's not all heinous evil- sometimes it happens because your legislators are too lazy or stupid to prevent it.

      As for why mind control benefits those in power who wish to retain it- if you have to ask, then you're a prime example.

    27. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by magamiako1 · · Score: 1

      Technically, it's businesses leaning on government which then lean on other businesses.

    28. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I don't see them removing existing bills, though. This is the standard operating procedure: an unpopular law goes in, then after the election everyone mysteriously "forgets" about it.

      Except the law never went though,

      In the last 4 years, it's failed in the house twice (never even made it to the senate).

      Telstra and Optus are voluntarily filtering, no mandatory filtering here. Telstra and Optus are Australia's oldest and worst ISP's. Because they are so old, they have a large customer base.

      And TFS is wrong, Australia's 2nd largest ISP is iinet (Optus is only larger when you include voice customers) which have been staunch in opposing mandatory filtering and have not implemented a voluntary filter.

      Because this is voluntary, you are free to switch to ISP's that are voluntarily not filtering, I can suggest iinet and Internode. So I'm going to be enjoying unfiltered internet.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    29. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Please show me a Liberal party which is opposed to internet filtering and who would roll back the changes the Labor party is proposing?

    30. Re:I wouldn't be too worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "censor"

  2. Retail not Wholesale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I couldn't care less as long as they don't do it to their wholesaled connections since Telstra and Optus retail suck.

    1. Re:Retail not Wholesale? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      I dont think Telstra or Optus have the technical ability to mess with their wholesale customers in this way.

  3. Wait until the list is leaked. by Boltronics · · Score: 4, Insightful

    WikiLeaks will show them the stupidity of this.

    In the meantime, time to fire up Tor and change ISPs.

    --
    It's GNU/Linux dammit!
    1. Re:Wait until the list is leaked. by gtch · · Score: 2

      time to fire up Tor and change ISPs.

      Isn't that redundant?

    2. Re:Wait until the list is leaked. by Boltronics · · Score: 1

      Churning to a different ISP doesn't occur instantly, unfortunately. Not in Australia at least.

      --
      It's GNU/Linux dammit!
    3. Re:Wait until the list is leaked. by rvw · · Score: 2

      WikiLeaks will show them the stupidity of this.

      In the meantime, time to fire up Tor and change ISPs.

      Better move to another country...

    4. Re:Wait until the list is leaked. by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      Will that actually change anything though?

    5. Re:Wait until the list is leaked. by alanthenerd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Plus if you don't change they will think that their actions are acceptable. If at the point you contact them to cancel their service you tell them why and enough other people do likewise they may realise that filtering isn't acceptable and stop doing it.

    6. Re:Wait until the list is leaked. by dcollins · · Score: 1

      You need an organized protest/boycott. A little dribble of people complaining one at a time won't accomplish anything.

      Easily written off as nutjobs (assuming the tier-1 support taking the call even thinks about it that long).

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    7. Re:Wait until the list is leaked. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Plus if you don't change they will think that their actions are acceptable. If at the point you contact them to cancel their service you tell them why and enough other people do likewise they may realise that filtering isn't acceptable and stop doing it.

      Churning DSL takes all of 4 hours of service disruption (changing DSLAM operators may take up to 10 days though) which only indicates the whingers need to harden the fuck up the bigger issue is the fact most ISP's try to force you into 24 month contracts (Internode does not, signed, happy Internode customer).

      This would definitely constitute a change of contract, under Australian law allowing customers to terminate the remainder of their contract, so this is actually a good thing for people who dont want to be censored.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  4. Proxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Proxy Around Fascism
    Time for other countries to step up and give the Australia some help

    They can't ban everything or nobody will pay for nothing.
    0.0.0.0/8
    1.0.0.0/8
    2.0.0.0/8 ...
    253.0.0.0/8
    255.0.0.0/8

    Meanwhile keep exposing the globalists, make it so they never get anything to do with government.

    1. Re:Proxy by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Er it's only two ISPs that have made a decision themselves to do this - not a law, and not something that affects 'Australia' as a whole. Easier to change to another ISP than to start talking about proxies and stuff...

  5. "Second Largest ISP" by Skythe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just before someone chimes in with this, iiNet is the 2nd largest ISP in terms of Broadband DSL subscribers - Optus would have more combined subscribers with DSL/Cable/other (which is what OP would be referring to).

    1. Re:"Second Largest ISP" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just before someone chimes in with this, iiNet is the 2nd largest ISP in terms of Broadband DSL subscribers - Optus would have more combined subscribers with DSL/Cable/other (which is what OP would be referring to).

      What matters is the number of people affected by the blacklist, even if they are on dial-up only.

    2. Re:"Second Largest ISP" by Skythe · · Score: 1

      What matters is the number of people affected by the blacklist, even if they are on dial-up only.

      Yep. iiNet have been running a fairly extensive "The New No2" (ISP) after a series of recent acquisitions, although this reflects only DSL subscribers, so my comment was in relation to people that might dispute OP's post which stated that Optus was the #2 largest ISP.

    3. Re:"Second Largest ISP" by Smirker · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're referring to building size?

  6. Blah Blah Blah by Wild+Wizard · · Score: 2

    Get your real info from here :-

    http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/cleanfeed

  7. Hmmmmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why does everyone want to save me? I am happy to be damned!

    1. Re:Hmmmmmm.... by Shark · · Score: 1

      I think the real issue is that incentives to think make you dangerous to established structures.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
  8. Re:First post!!! by gtch · · Score: 1

    Yippee!!!

    If I was Stephen Conroy, I'd censor posts like that.

  9. Related to the NBN deal? by Boltronics · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gizmondo recently wrote that Optus and Telstra have just signed a lucrative NBN deal. Coincidence?

    Can't force it through parliament, so get the major ISPs to voluntarily do it via an offer they can't refuse?

    --
    It's GNU/Linux dammit!
    1. Re:Related to the NBN deal? by gtch · · Score: 1

      Coincidence?

      I say yes, I doubt one influenced the other.

      Both the ISP filtering and the NBN/Telstra/Optus deal have been in the works for years now. Neither is a surprise, they both were obviously going to happen.

    2. Re:Related to the NBN deal? by Boltronics · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Telstra and Optus announced support for filtering back then too.

      Looking through the comments of that old link, I see the suspicions have long been present.

      --
      It's GNU/Linux dammit!
    3. Re:Related to the NBN deal? by axonis · · Score: 1
      As i say NBN = 'National Blocking Network'

      The ALP wants to stop National party members from watching sheep facing web cams ! - Ha

      --
      bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
  10. Not cool! by EsonLinji · · Score: 1

    Not cool Optus. Not cool Telstra.

    --
    Considering Phlebas, whoever the hell he is.
  11. err.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who the hell uses telstra or optus????

    1. Re:err.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 100Mbit Optus cable and It's a shame they're getting rid of it. I guess that now we're returning a government monopoly I'll have to make do with a crackly intermittently failing copper line that can't run ADSL.

  12. You ain't seen nufin yet - NBN will be the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is only the start of it.

    The NBN will kill the Internets as Australians know it.

    The current plans to force everyone to connect to the NBN weather they want to or not gives the Grubbermint instant control over all net traffic.

    FWIW, the biggest winners from NBN will be Foxtel and other media providers who will simply suck up as much bandwidth as they can get. The current cable TV networks will be shut down and everything will be moved to the NBN. Where do you think the bandwidth is going to go then?

    All telephone lines including POTs will be routed though the NBN.

    The people who actually believed the garbage about 100Mb to their homes were only dreaming. They never had a hope of getting those sort of speeds as it was never in the game-plan.

    The NBN is going to make Telstras Bigpond look like a good deal. All of the current ISP's will simply be relegated to be billing companies. In one swoop the Grubbermint get the control they want and their friends in big corporations that will hire them when they get thrown out of office will have somewhere cushy for htem to sit while they continue to suck on the public tit with their pensions.

    Australia, is having a lemon shoved down it's throat, while the vocal kiddies who dream of 100Mb porn to their screens are being flashed a pair of titties to tease them.

    1. Re:You ain't seen nufin yet - NBN will be the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily correct, but an interesting take, nonetheless...
        -The Moderator

    2. Re:You ain't seen nufin yet - NBN will be the end by axonis · · Score: 1

      NBN - "National Blocking Network" ha ha !

      --
      bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
    3. Re:You ain't seen nufin yet - NBN will be the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I never realised that the NBN was supposed to be a complete replacement of all ISP's infrastructure as well as the physical cables. I always thought they'd be spending the money on the expensive thing to change. You know, the one that no private company is willing to construct on its own.

      Never realised that the ISPs own equipment at the endpoints would be replaced, too, and that ISPs would have to stop having networks of their own and simply buy access to the "grubbermint's" (real clever pun, that) network to resell it.

      But it makes sense. It is state government policy to dismantle all data networks, after all.

    4. Re:You ain't seen nufin yet - NBN will be the end by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So how does this compare with any other country's telecom infrastructure? I mean it's not Telstra has been a private company for ever. This also isn't a problem in other countries where the government funds infrastructure.

      Or do you propose we sit and wait patiently for Telstra to upgrade it's network? May happen any century now.

      Also "Grubbermint"? How old are you, 12?

    5. Re:You ain't seen nufin yet - NBN will be the end by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      Interesting to see that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Liberals don't know how to create a Slashdot account. If you're claiming that a fibre cable won't support 100Mb/s data rates, you must think we're a bunch of drongoes. If NBNCo is going to do any filtering, then you'd have a legitimate gripe with it. But that's not the story here. The story is that Telstra and OPTUS have agreed to implement Conroy's intergoogle filter without his having to have a law passed. If NBNCo did it, we'd be fucked. As it is now, we can just use a different ISP.

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
  13. Why are the so obsessed with this? by enter+to+exit · · Score: 2

    Why the hell is Conroy still pushing for this? He has a face saving excuse to drop it with the hostile parliament so why doesn't he just drop it?

    It seems like he's taking it _way_ to personally. It's as if he wants to filter the net just to spite everyone.

    What's the bet this is just going to be DNS filtering?

    1. Re:Why are the so obsessed with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because Conroy is an utter Jack@ss and has no idea about the internet. He won his portfolio at a pub raffle.

    2. Re:Why are the so obsessed with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell is Conroy still pushing for this? He has a face saving excuse to drop it with the hostile parliament so why doesn't he just drop it

      My guess: too small of a dick, too many frustrations, feels the need to compensate.

    3. Re:Why are the so obsessed with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he is - he has been spammed through his portal.

    4. Re:Why are the so obsessed with this? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re: Why the hell is Conroy still pushing for this?
      The faith based groups had a 20 year plan to infect both sides of politics.
      They have their people in place now. "Family First: A Federal Crusade"
      http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s1358912.htm

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Why are the so obsessed with this? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Why the hell is Conroy still pushing for this? He has a face saving excuse to drop it with the hostile parliament so why doesn't he just drop it?

      Because like most politicians, he has pandered to some influential individuals to get them to use their influence to get people to vote for him. Thus he owe's them favours. Conroy buddied up with the Church who are in favour of censorship. Most others have aligned themselves with unions, business/industries, educational institutions for the same purposes. Few politicians get in on their own merits unfortunately.

      Not defending Conroy, I think he's an utter twunt but it's not hard to see why he's trying to push censorship even if it's as useful and effective as rolling a wet dog turd up a hill with a sharp stick.

      Also, it doesn't matter what kind of filter it is, even an easily bypassed DNS filter will show the churchies Something(TM) is being done which to a polly, is more important then doing something that works.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  14. Re:You ain't seen nufin yet - NBN will be the dawn by gtch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or, to put it more rationally:

    The NBN takes the aging copper network out of private hands where Telstra was using it to restrict competition, and replaces it with an open-access high speed network open to full competition.

    Just to be clear: almost everyone being forced to switch to the NBN is currently using Telstra infrastructure. If you're on iiNet, Internode, TGP, Optus ADSL etc then you're using Telstra copper. The only people being forced to switch to the NBN who aren't using Telstra infrastructure now are the relatively small number of people on Optus Cable Broadband. After the switch to the NBN, you'll still be using iiNet, Internode, etc for your internet access (if you want to) but instead of using Telstra's infrastructure you'll be using NBNCo's infrastructure. And it will be damn fast and more reliable. And it won't be Telstra... which in itself is simply wonderful.

  15. Censorship by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The act of censorship is always more obscene than the material being censored. My personal opinion.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The act of censorship is always more obscene than the material being censored. My personal opinion.

      You're so profound. Inane comment is inane.

    2. Re:Censorship by ThreeDeeNut · · Score: 1

      Sounds Like Newspeek to me. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength Sadly it seems this is what we are fed these days...

  16. Breaking the Internet by neurosine · · Score: 1

    It seems kind of silly to break the internet in this way. It was designed not to be broken. Policies created by individuals who really don't understand the engineering and underlying technology should never be introduced into the system. I do still remember when we were being asked, "Should governments control the internet." It doesn't really matter that everyone who did understand the tech said, "No, that's ridiculous." They did it anyway. People who want to circumvent these filters will still, of course be able to do so. Those few people who do leverage the internet for illegal activities are unlikely to be stopped, only inconvenienced. I don't know the numbers, but I feel safe in assuming that this is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars.

    1. Re:Breaking the Internet by ThreeDeeNut · · Score: 1

      I sure hope you are right. Unfortunately I think that if enough money gets behind it, they will be very successful. At least for the majority. Then just set up a few laws (which everyone will support by then) to jail the minority of people who visit IP's that are not "allowed". It wont happen overnight, but i dare say it will likely happen. Besides, by denying the large lot access to media, the small lot ends up powerless and feeble.

  17. Comming to a Country Near You Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Living here it's amazing. All I can say is Australia is undergoing some sort of social experiment. The Government is doing a whole raft of things that the majority of people disagree with. Infact I have come to the view we dont actually live in a Democracy, kind of like Greece but less obvious.

  18. Optus and Telstra? Who cares? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    Nobody with a choice and a clue goes with them anyway (and there is quite a lot of choice in the DSL market in Australia). While I'm vehemently opposed to government enforced filtering, I have no problem with individual ISPs doing it - as long as they inform their customers that they're doing so. As long as we don't have the market collapse into a duopoly, and there's no government-mandated filter, those who want a clean feed have that choice.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    1. Re:Optus and Telstra? Who cares? by Boltronics · · Score: 2

      My ISP (Exetel) uses Optus to provide their Internet services. It is unclear to me if this means I will get the block list, but I don't want to take any chances.

      The article mentions two other smaller ISPs voluntarily censoring the web. I'll bet one is Primus. Anyone got any idea what the other one would be?

      --
      It's GNU/Linux dammit!
    2. Re:Optus and Telstra? Who cares? by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      I doubt it. All information I hear indicates that it's a DNS-level block, and every ISP I've ever used runs it's own DNS servers. Haven't used Exetel, but I doubt they're an exception. Telsta/Optus just provide access to the infrastructure for most of those arrangements, no service on top of it.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:Optus and Telstra? Who cares? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Recall Canada and its big p2p shaping main isp's?
      http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/03/canadian-isps-furious-about-bell-canadas-traffic-throttling.ars
      "... traffic-shaping hardware even on the lines it resells."
      Does your Australian isp work on a shared best effort network or have some real dedicated optical 'deal'?
      With suburbia filled with RIMs (digital loop carrier ), closed exchanges what one ' cheaper ' isp resells in your area might be sitting on a big clean telco network.
      Do Australians admins and networking people have the cash, smarts and equipment to unclean and reclean packets at a local level?
      As for opt in/out, how long before its connected to a "National Criminal History Record Checking" system?
      ie you can choice the net you want and the gov can note that freedom choice.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Optus and Telstra? Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean by uncleaning and recleaning packets?

    5. Re:Optus and Telstra? Who cares? by SigmaTao · · Score: 1

      I live in the country and have no realistic choice but Bigpond. Not sure what the hell to do about it quite frankly.

    6. Re:Optus and Telstra? Who cares? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      If your isp is using a Telstra card in a RIM box or exchange do you get filtered too?
      Will it be like Canada where the whole telco network is shaped or will other isp's get a real internet connection vs the Telstra clean feed?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Optus and Telstra? Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can anybody confirm and provide a reference to this being only DNS level blocking... I'm assuming this means that the the isp's default DNS server will not list the offending sites.... Seems a little pointless when configuring an alternative DNS such as OpenDNS is simple... The only other thing they could do to avoid this would be to actually block DNS requests to any DNS other than the ISP provided...

       

  19. We have something like this in the UK by splodus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's a 'voluntary' scheme whereby the biggest six ISPs implement a block list maintained by an organisiation called the 'Internet Watch Foundation'. They claim that only child pornography sites are blocked, but of course there's no way to know what is on the list.

    Recently the first efforts to expand block lists to include 'other illegal' content have been made, and to set up a list for copyright-related restricted sites.

    It seems governments have realised that legislative oversight is a bit of a nuisance, and it's just easier to coerce and/or bribe big business to get what you want.

    1. Re:We have something like this in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VPN, bitches.

    2. Re:We have something like this in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but that's an additional expense and requires some degree of technical expertise. They're not trying to stop everyone, just most people. Also torrents become less useful when all the peers in your country disappear.

    3. Re:We have something like this in the UK by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      there's no way to know what is on the list.

      There is a simple way you can discover many of them. Check to see if a site is accessible over normal HTTP, and if it isn't check with Tor or a foreign ISP. Obviously you need to have an idea of the banned sites before hand by Wikileaks provides handy lists of what other countries have blocked which is a good start.

      I used this technique when I noticed that I couldn't access mobilism.org from my phone. I opted out of net filtering but Vodafone still blocks sites it doesn't like. I keep meaning to tether it to a PC and run a script checking domains returned by Google searches for phrases like "warez" to construct a list of what they censor.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:We have something like this in the UK by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 1

      Crowdsourcing is the best way to get these lists, until someone breaks in and takes it.
      Create a list, on a forum, or anywhere else anyone could contribute to it... and start announcing.

      There are ways around it, but the idea in general is pretty offensive... Censor?

      --
      Something witty.
    5. Re:We have something like this in the UK by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      It seems governments have realised that legislative oversight is a bit of a nuisance, and it's just easier to coerce and/or bribe big business to get what you want.

      I think you have it the wrong way, I would rather say: "It seems big business have realised that legislative oversight is a bit of a nuisance, and it's just easier to coerce and/or bribe governments to get what you want." The push behind those schemes comes from copyright holders and they have the means do what is necessary to get to their goal.

    6. Re:We have something like this in the UK by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      It'd be great to be able to drag officers from DBCDE, OPTUS and Telstra through an inquiry and make them all prove that there was no financial inducement to implement this filter.

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
  20. T&C? by Jarryd98 · · Score: 1

    Just to clarify, both ISPs have elected to be involved in the program - yet neither of which will (if I'm understanding this correctly) allow their users to opt out? Surely this is a breach of the contract terms/conditions.
    Introducing mandatory filtering to customers (who, in the case of either ISP, are likely bound by 24 month contracts...) falls slightly outside the bounds of 'we reserve the right to alter terms and conditions at any time.'
    This is far beyond a sick joke.

  21. Thats why Australia is spending $36B on the NBN by axonis · · Score: 0

    If Australians hadn't worked it out, when the whole broadband filter when a little quiet, along came the NBN. Its clear after trials of the filter that some smart guy told the government if you force everyone through the same controlled internet system you have a better chance of filtering / tracking sites , well the NBN was born. This is the only way the government could implement a broadband filter, and today Optus and Telstra signed deals with the NBN totalling billions, offcouse the NBN is just one big internet filter, and the government is going to try force everyone through it to implement their filter.

    --
    bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
    1. Re:Thats why Australia is spending $36B on the NBN by Jarryd98 · · Score: 1

      Except the NBN was proposed as in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election. Policy regarding filtering wasn't mentioned (at least publicly) until after the party had gained power.

    2. Re:Thats why Australia is spending $36B on the NBN by axonis · · Score: 1

      The 'nbn' was part of the previous govenments commitment for many years to support faster broadband in rural Australia, not the major cities

      --
      bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
    3. Re:Thats why Australia is spending $36B on the NBN by Jarryd98 · · Score: 1

      The post was intended as clarification (for those unaware) that the NBN was proposed (by the same party - Labor) well before 'clean-feed' or filtering of any form had been publicly mentioned, or suggested in Parliament.

      It's debatable whether the government's original intent for the NBN was for use as a means of filtering/monitoring. I've only highlighted that any form of filtering was proposed well after the original NBN announcement (and Labor's rise to power). Not before, as suggested in your original post.

      I'm not sure if you're unaware, or conveyed that message unintentionally because, at least at the beginning, it wasn't simply a case of 'hadn't worked it out.'

  22. He's that sort of person by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He takes a lot of things way too personally. One hysterical press release of his was about a "lesbian cabal" that was trying to stop the NBN. It turned out to be a female staffer that was insisting on sticking to tendering procedure to avoid legal problems and a female former member of his department that just happened to work for a potential contractor that agreed to wait until a contract had been drawn up before signing on. Two parties agreeing not a sign a blank cheque became a "lesbian cabal" in a bizzare press conference.
    Thanks to the necessity of dealing with Telstra the Communications Ministry is almost a punishment post so it has been historically been given to a complete dropkick that a Government hates but has to give something to keep a powerful faction happy. Thus the long string of utter bastards and incompetant wankers in the job. Sadly Conroy is a competant wanker so actually manages to make progress on a filtering policy that his own party hates and only put up to get the reactionary weirdo vote. If he stuffed about on the policy for a decade saying it was a good idea and he'd do something soon (which is what the previous government did) everyone would be happy - even the weirdos that may get a few more paying customers in their fake churches.

    1. Re:He's that sort of person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One hysterical press release of his was about a "lesbian cabal" that was trying to stop the NBN.

      This is freaking hilarious. Given that the filter has no way of getting through the Green Party and Conroy's been the major force behind the NBN, I can only laugh at how awesome his craziness is in a Mike Tyson kind of way.

  23. Re:You ain't seen nufin yet - NBN will be the dawn by axonis · · Score: 1

    Whats all that copper worth recycled in China ?

    --
    bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
  24. Or the internal workings of the filter by biodata · · Score: 1

    Once dox relating to the internals of the filtering machinery are leaked, I would imagine someone will figure out how to cure the cancer by disabling the filtering machinery. Like everything, it's bound to have some weak points making it vulnerable to being compromised one way or another. Unfortunately, disabling the filter might involve disabling the ISP's routing altogether. I guess these ISPs must have already built into their business models that they are painting giant targets for international protest action against them, and are ready to lose customers, handle complaints, and clean up the mess after the inevitable backlash.

    --
    Korma: Good
    1. Re:Or the internal workings of the filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like the GIANT ENEMY CRAB, it's bound to have some weak points making it vulnerable to MASSIVE DAMAGE one way or another.

      Fixed that for you.

  25. Re:You ain't seen nufin yet - NBN will be the dawn by gtch · · Score: 2

    Today, Gillard and NBN paid Eleven Billion Dollars to buy the Telstra copper network. Do you really think they're going to rip it out or decommission it?

    Yes, they are decommissioning the entire copper network: http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/350563/telstra-nbn_co_deal_telstra_plans_phased_copper_decommission/

  26. Re:You ain't seen nufin yet - NBN will be the dawn by mijxyphoid · · Score: 0

    Your assuming that the NBN is going to be accessible to everyone
    You will notice the NBN roll out so far is in low density areas.

    Have you ever tried to get cable in to an apartment / unit / business park ?
    You will find that Telstra / Optus will force the strata of the apartment / unit / office park to foot the bill for each individual unit connection, as well as some of the costs incurred for the connection off the street.
    This connection can cost up to and over a thousand dollars per each individual unit, which will be borne by the unit owner.

    The NBN is going to be no different in the sense that there is going to be a significant cost for strata units to connect.
    And with using Fibre, it means the average electrician / data cabler with their open cablers license will not have the necessary equipment to do this cheaply.

    And with everyone being forced to use the NBN infrastructure, these poeple will be effectively blackmailed in to paying huge setup costs, as well the associated cost of fast data plans, for what ??? Checking email ? Posting on facebook ? A bit of online shopping on eBay ?

    The NBN is a farce. Labor is betting everything they have on the NBN, and the tax payers are going to foot the bill !

  27. Cool by Toam · · Score: 1

    Yet another reason not to use either of those ISPs

  28. Does this matter ? by kyuubi1 · · Score: 1

    You could always get a low end box and tunnel through it. Since the data is encrypted, the ISP can't know a thing. Denying freedom is so 18th century, in this day and age things like these are nothing but a joke.

  29. Wow, I'm amazed by Haedrian · · Score: 0

    You mean that large companies can agree together to mutually do bad things to their customers without having any problems with the customers leaving them?

    I'm so amazed, this wasn't written in my "Free Market 101: Why it works".

  30. Where is the list ? by dargaud · · Score: 1
    I'm surprised the blacklist of banned sites hasn't been leaked yet... 3... 2... 1...

    With the usual backlash that'll ensue when it's discovered that it contains dentist websites, political opponents websites, typos or simply unfortunate names (expertsexchange.com)

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:Where is the list ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experts Exchange should be instead be blocked for being useless shit.

  31. Anti-Democratic, Anti-Republican by nickmalthus · · Score: 2

    "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." Benito Mussolini

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
    1. Re:Anti-Democratic, Anti-Republican by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mussolini did NOT say that. He did love the phrase and tried to claim credit for it, but it wasn't his.
      The phrase was written by philosopher Giovanni Gentile in the Encyclopedia Italiana much earlier.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:Anti-Democratic, Anti-Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he tried to claim credit for it, then he certainly said it. Whether he said it FIRST is immaterial to that point.

    3. Re:Anti-Democratic, Anti-Republican by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Mussolini DID say that.

      "Did not say that" != "Did not originally say that"

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    4. Re:Anti-Democratic, Anti-Republican by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You don't credit a quote to somebody when there is documented history that he tried to steal credit for something somebody else said first.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    5. Re:Anti-Democratic, Anti-Republican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for posting, I use that quote frequently and was unaware of its origin. I'll still attribute it to Mussolini in verbal discussions, because it lends a bit more authority to an argument and isn't necessarily false.

  32. The list is the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From the wording of the summary, the submitter seems to be worried about the contents of the blacklist. Who cares what's on the list - the fact that some persons feel they are more qualified (than the person paying for access) to judge what is appropriate should have all of Australia in an uproar. Child pornography or not, I don't want anybody determining what is "appropriate".

  33. Ideological reasons. by the_raptor · · Score: 1

    Conroy isn't doing this for "political" reasons (of the sort that most Australian politicians have were they back down when it polls badly). He apparently strongly believes in censorship. Also people who blame Christian and other faith based groups for this are wrong, Conroy is pushing for it for his own reasons and not to buy votes. The rest of his party have pretty much dropped it because they are polling at around sub-30% approval or something silly.

    I am an Evangelical Christian and am against filtering not only because it is a threat to democracy (the government originally wanted to block material related to political debate like euthanasia) but because there is almost no evidence that censoring material related to certain acts actually reduces the rate of offences. Instead the evidence seems to be pointing the other way (eg access to porn reduces sexual assaults, violent video games reduce violence). And what we know from psychology's studies into behavioural theory backs this up (ie that if you are denied the opportunity to partake in a desired behaviour your desire for that behaviour just increases, hence why food restriction diets don't work).

    People abuse children because they are either paedophiles and hence sexually attracted to children, or just get off on controlling and domineering others and children are easy targets. They don't do it because they saw a picture of a naked child.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  34. Re:You ain't seen nufin yet - NBN will be the dawn by forebees · · Score: 1

    I know.

    I'm always amazed by such comments.

    The first thing is you have to have a floating paranoia. Then the paranoia become focused on something. The government is good because it's so vast, so integral to the functioning of the community and has such enormous power. Next you see conspiracies in most things (it goes with the paranoia) and finally whatever is being done by the 'Grubbermint' must be suspect thus the paranoid conspiracy theorist makes connections to to things were are not and fails to see the wood for their paranoid forest.

  35. What's a "censorsing"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A censor sing-song?

  36. Dear Australia, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've put up a dedicated Freenet node for you. I also have a Tor node running. Let me know if there is anything else I can do from here.

    Much love,
    AC from US

  37. About 5,250,000 results by sgt+scrub · · Score: 2

    When you google "Australian Evangelical Churches". Maybe that is why they claim social media tools edged out pornography as the nations No.1 internet activity by 09. Or better yet, how they know.

    http://www.eyefortravel.com/news/online-travel/social-channels-top-porn-sites-australia

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  38. just thinking out loud here but... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    does anyone else think it's about time to build a new internet that doesnt allow this kind of bullshit?

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  39. The Doctrine of Fascism by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 2

    Check out the essay "The Doctrine of Fascism", attributed to him. Its roots are really in the philosophy of Hobbes, Rousseau, Hegel, and even Plato. Mussolini's main idea was that fascism is anti-individualist, and that all people should see themselves as incomplete beings whose lives only have meaning and value in service to the all-powerful State. That's not really a corporatist viewpoint. Re: Net censorship, a fascist viewpoint would be that your individual desire to see porn, bomb-making instructions, copyrighted material, or sites about democracy is absolutely meaningless before the State's collective desire to shut you up and make you obey. Not to say that the ISPs are innocent here, but it's not because they own the government.

    --
    Revive the Constitution.
  40. It's probably already being politicaly abused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they refuse to reveal which sites are being blocked then they know they are blocking something they shouldn't.

  41. Not me, Internode FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I switched years ago, never looked back.

  42. Re:You ain't seen nufin yet - NBN will be the dawn by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

    You're a complete and utter moron, you know that? Right now Telstra owns EVERYTHING. You're already "footing the bill" *and then some* by being forced to sustain Telstra's ridiculous monopolist profit margins.

    Why would you NOT want the government to build and own the infrastructure, exactly the same freaking way it builds and owns the power lines, the sewer lines, the roads, etc. You don't have to pay for a bunch of CEOs' $10 million bonuses, or shareholder dividends. All revenue goes towards paying off the network.

    How else were you planning on getting FTTH to 93% of Australians? Telstra had no intention of EVER building FTTH. They wanted to build a new monopolistic FTTN network that would have cost $20 billion (with most of the bill footed by taxpayers) and provided no upgrade path to FTTH.

    God you anti-government morons make me sick. You WANT to keep paying Telstra for their rotting copper network? You DON'T want ultra high speed FTTH? Can you just drown yourself in an ocean and save the rest of us from your stupidity? PLEASE?

  43. Re:You ain't seen nufin yet - NBN will be the dawn by mijxyphoid · · Score: 0

    Huh ! Who on earth said ANYTHING about wanting having or even needing Telstra copper ??????

    You have been drinking the labor cool aid for far too long, and it is clearly rotting your brain !!!!!
    Laying fibre for Strata style units IS going to cost $$$$$$....

    So as a taxpayer, I'm already helping foot the bill for something that I DO NOT NEED, DO NOT WANT, WILL NOT USE, and WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD !

    I can, and already have said NO to telstra copper. For a complete and utter moron its very easy to do.
    Simply tell Telstra to shove their bill, and thats the end of it !
    Many properties do not even have copper, and as such are using wireless technologies, and are getting along just fine.

    Also another problem with FORCING everyone on to the NBN is many of these Strata properties have already paid $$$$$ for Coax / Cable Networks.

    Seriously, your over zealous and ignorant comments just go to show how little stupid Labor FANBOYZ like yourself know about anything that is slightly technical.
    Go back to sucking on Conroys Cash Cow tit, and stop wasting our time with your useless comments

  44. Australia country of freedom? Not anymore. by luk3Z · · Score: 0

    Australia country of freedom? Not anymore.

    --
    Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)