Slashdot Mirror
5 Concerns About Australia's New Net Filter
daria42 writes "As you might have heard, this month Australia gets a new Internet filter, using Interpol's blacklist of 'worst of the worst' child pornography sites. In general, it seems like most people don't object to the idea in principle, but concerns are being raised around the transparency of the scheme, which so far has no civilian oversight, unclear backing legislation and an appeals process which does not exactly inspire confidence. Why is it those who want to implement this kind of filtering never quite address these sort of concerns up-front?"
They're not network engineers. They just don't get it.
Have you heard most laypeople give theories on how computers and the internet work? They assume it's all magic, which probably explains why things like transparency and oversight end up being an afterthought.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Because by flying the "We are protecting the children" flag they can be immune it criticism. Anyone who opposes is a supported of child porn.
Just like any one who opposes the massive privacy breaches in the USA is in support of the terrorists.
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
Why aren't the authorities using their resources to actually find, arrest, and confine the people who actually produce child pornography?
The whole point is to prevent free information flow so that directed information (aka propaganda) can be supplied. Any filter-list that can be scrutinized would fail to allow such use.
He who controls the flow of information controls the world...
Why can there not be a public list of blocked websites? And how hard is it to set up some sort of oversight that allows for an appeals process for wrongfully blocked addresses?
I know the answer is most likely "because they don't care" but still, have they even tried to come up with a reason for these shortcomings? Or is it pretty much just going to be one of those "well, if you're against this you must be for child porn, because we live in a world that has no gray area whatsoever" that is so typical in cases like these?
They do not address the issues of oversight and transparency because they want neither. They are using the horrifying crime of child sexual abuse as a shield to deflect objections to censorship, and it has worked. Governments the world over want more oversight and control over what their citizens do. In some cases (China) they simply implement that control to their heart's content. In others, like the USA, I am sure our own government will be watching how the public reacts intently - with an eye towards similar measures here at home.
Trust me - lots of us oppose this on principle. However, there is a massive amount of fatigue regarding this issue - every objection raised to it is either ignored or labelled as "supporting child porn".
As a result, the only way we can see to oppose it is on technical and transparency grounds. It's still being ignored, but at least we're on unassailable technical footing here - the filter is useless for its stated purpose (preventing people inadvertantly finding CP) and is trivial to bypass in any case (as admitted by Optus). And because the blocklist is private, it could be easily expanded to cover anything (for those people not technically-minded or politically-minded enough to change their DNS settings).
I chose my ISP (Internode) for several reasons - one of which being Simon Hackett's oft-stated position that they will not filter anything unless required by law.
Here's the interpol stop page.
I can't seem to find the blacklisted domains on Telstra and Interpol's sites. Is my google-fu too weak or is the list kept secret?
If it's latter, how am I supposed check whether my site hasn't accidentally ended on the blacklist? Use an Australian proxy?
I found it deeply ironic that the list of censored sites is itself censored.
Please do this.
Summary slightly inaccurate, this is Telstra/Optus and a few smaller operations (who already offered filtering) who are enabling voluntary filtering. There are plenty of ISPs refusing to implement the filter until it becomes legislation and will fight it with everything they can before then. This will do nothing but make many more customers go to the smaller operators who have better customer service, better pricing etc.
The other stupid part of this is that it is DNS based and the work around is to use different DNS servers. Who actually uses their ISPs DNS servers? I haven't in years!
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
if the sites are so bad why not go after the site directly instead?
Its not like Australia can send Seal Team Six to any country in the world to take out a web server.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The government is there to protect you, whether you want it or not.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Arrogance might be a factor. Here in Finland the ministers responsible never really even wanted public interest groups like Electronic Frontier Finland to participate in any discussions regarding laws like internet filtering or the infamous Lex Nokia that gave companies rights to monitor their employees' message traffic headers. In Finland all this culminated in a local Internet activist who publicly criticized shortcomings in the preparations of internet filtering getting filtered, labelled a paedophile and punished. This in turn led to a court case that ended in a decision that the police had greatly abused the rights given to them.
In Finland, the ministers seem to get more and more convinced that they don't need to listen to the citizens; that's when they're not completely bought or led like the minister responsible for our new, stricter, iPRED compatible copyright law...
I've thought about this too. I think one of the biggest fears of the implementer of such a filter is that they may then be held liable for the content they don't filter. I assume though that under the fluff, the charter of Telstra's filter is "to block sites on the Interpol 'worst of the worst' block list via a DNS filter". If you can access sites on the list without altering your DNS servers or having your DNS servers altered by malware then you may have a case. If you understand the underlying technology though, I think you'll realise they have themselves covered.
FWIW, I think that this filter is one of the best possibly outcome (ranking behind an opt in filter, or no filter at all). As long as they stick to blocking DNS records that i'm never going to use anyway and I could circumvent if I wanted to then it seems reasonable. If they had started doing deep packet inspection and modification then Telstra and I might have had a problem... if I was a Telstra customer.
There is always the danger of the "slippery slope", and it's probably quite real in this case, but Telstra is mostly a private company and customers can vote with their credit cards, and if the government mandated it then Australian's can vote with their votes. Another concern is that the big political focus over here at the moment is the carbon tax, so if the government was looking for some misdirection then a compulsory internet filter might be just the thing.
The only ISPs to have signed up to the filter so far are the 2 big boys (Telstra and Optus).
A number of big ISPs (including the #3 provider iiNet as well as Internode and TPG) have specifically said they will not filter anything unless they are legally required to do so.
Anyone smart enough to care about the Internet filter should be smart enough to know that Tel$tra and Optarse are junk and should be avoided if alternatives are available (if you can get DSL from BigPond or Optus, you can also get DSL from better options like Internode, iiNet and others)
The censorship that is going on here in Australia would never work in America. Here in Australia we have a consistent history of censoring all forms of media. Our constitution is partially based on the US one but it only protects "political" speech, so we have always followed the British model of comprehensive censorship of non-political subjects.
Any kind of industry agreement in the US, which couldn't be "assisted" by the government like it is here in Australia, would last until one ISP figured they could make more money selling unfiltered access.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
Opponents of this can't easily beat the media vibe it'll get. So the solution, I think, is to make it a felony to falsely block a site. Do it one better, make it so that no actual intent is required. If a government official even mistypes the domain name, they do a few years in prison. Absolutely not a single ounce of leniency for even the slightest human error.
When asked why being so harsh, just smile and say how important the filter is. Spin it as a way of assuring the public that the list really will be accurate and trustworthy, not a tool for anything more than the "obvious, legitimate need to block child pornography."
This is Interpol we're talking about, and the worst of the worst. And they've got a list of domain names they know to be serving this stuff up.
Why on Earth are they blocking access to these domains rather than busting down the doors of the sites where the servers are located?
I mean, really. It's Interpol. It's child porn. And the best tool they can think of is to set up a DNS filter?
What gives?
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
Basic logic here. If you take all adult porn down from the internet then magazine sales would go up. If you block all child porn then where would all those pedophiles go besides parks, book stores and schools.
Anyone who is against this filter needs to see the long game. This filter is great for the following reasons:
1) It is a CP filter. Any argument in future for a government backed filter because "think of teh children!" can be defused by pointing out we already have a voluntary industry filter. This is why the US movie industry has a self-regulated rating system.
2) It is trivial to get around. Even my mum could follow directions to circumvent this filter. It isn't going to cause traffic slowdowns or require expensive VPN's to foreign countries to get around.
3) There is no issue about the list being secret because anyone who tries to visit a blocked website will get a redirect telling them that it is on the block list. If this website is innocuous this information can be spread via social media and the like and used to harass the ISP's into unfiltering it. Corporations are a lot more responsive to public complaint then government departments.
4) The law IS unclear. This is great, as it means the authorities have no real ability to force ISP's to comply with this "industry" filtering agreement. Which means they can't just block new categories of content on a whim, or increase the sophistication of the filter.
In summary people against censorship should be for this filter because it is such a house of cards AND defuses the main argument the pro-censorship people use "do you want people to be able to view child porn?". Things will go to shit if the government is actually allowed to get really involved, because both main parties here have shown no fear of incredible infringements of civil rights (here in NSW we only just got our right of association back after legislation was struck down that prevented members of criminal motorcycle gangs associating with each other).
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
I hate to do this, but...
If you can access sites on the list without altering your DNS servers or having your DNS servers altered by malware then you may have a case
http://207.46.19.254/en-us/default.aspx (Microsoft's main site).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The problem with these kinds of filtering schemes is the fact that they rely on allegations of illegality rather than on judgments which establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the website's operators are doing something illegal according to local or international law. The latter calls for the government to make its case against the website's operators in a proper venue, allowing the website's operators to mount a proper defense. At that point the government may as well seek to shutdown the website altogether, which shouldn't be a problem if those accused are truly engaging in illegal (and unethical) behavior.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
the problem is there will always be a way for the false positives to block non-offensive sites ...
Child porn sites start using Biblical passages as euphemisms for certain things - "Lot's daughters" would be a wonderful search term for under age girl porn.
It'll get through the filters for a while and when it's discovered, Bible sites will be blocked and the Christian Fundies will start scaring the shit out of the politicians to remove the filters.
At least that's how it might go down.
Religion is a wonderful political weapon and it should never be put to waste.
Known maliciously scripted sites/servers/hosts-domains & they DO have removal lists & ways to check on that too on many of them as well, vs. their databases (to see if any you are blocking should be removed). For example, I know of 17 reputable & reliable ones I use, & haul down on average 300++ sites per day to fortify my HOSTS file, & software firewall rules table with, every day (both in the forms of host-domain names & IP Addresses).
In fact - I am blatantly ASTOUNDED this has not taken place worldwide @ the DNS level, via DNSBL's being put into place to protect "Joe Public avg. internet non-geek user" from blundering into sites that ruin their systems, make them slaves of botnets, & steal their information + monies!
All I have seen, other than this child porn one out of "the land down under" (which I DO AGREE WITH, let kids be kids, & don't victimize them - life will do that on its own as it does to all of us to one degree or another eventually)?
Filters protecting "big business only"... that's bullshit to be blunt about it.
(& I've stated this here many times the past few weeks now on posts regarding the MPAA/RIAA & even this filter (this one I agree with though, by all means, though vs. child pornography (disgusting, and WRONG!!!)))
* Especially if these filters are being paid for by tax-payer monies, from ANY government putting them into place... that makes "Joe Public" the owner, not gov't. agencies or "big business only" (who face it, runs the show out there & always has when you come right down to it (the wealthy of the planet in other words)).
However, the thing is? Even the wealthy & BIG BUSINESS would benefit by it as well, since business & gov't. DO get "victimized" by malware makers + botnet masters as well!
The same types of lists also exist for DNSBL (DNS block lists) & a great one to use vs. the types noted above?
Norton DNS -> http://nortondns.com/ & you can even see how it updates every few minutes, here -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz
(It's really GOOD STUFF, & IF you're "security-conscious"? It only takes a minute to switch your system over to use them as your primary DNS... & same in your routers too!)
APK
P.S.=> Thing is, I've thought about it, as to WHY THIS ISN'T BEING INSTITUTED WORLD-WIDE @ THE ISP/BSP DNS LEVEL (like Norton DNS does, filtering vs. malware & bogusly scripted sites + bogus DNS servers, as well as botnet C&C Servers too):
About the ONLY thing I can come up with as to WHY this has not been instituted @ the ISP/BSP DNS level, is this:
"It might put PC techies out of a job!"
Well, that's crap: They have PLENTY of other tasks to do during the day (even though it can be up to 85% of their day, I know, I was one in between coding & networking jobs, working for ISP's & such, & much of it was fighting off malwares).
It's like saying:
"Yes, we CAN 'cure cancer', or drive it away to almost nothing... but, that'd put doctors out of a job!"
Again, crap - because doctors, like PC-Techs, have many other "maladies to deal with" during a day's work!
... apk
Because of this, there appears to be nothing to stop the Australian Federal Police from issuing much wider notices under the Act to ISPs, requesting they block other categories of content beyond child pornography, which are also technically illegal in Australia (‘Refused Classification’) but not blocked yet.
Awesome article. 5 concerns which are the opinion of some random guy who knows nothing about Australian law.
There is nothing illegal about Refused Classification content. NOTHING. There is no reason to block it. It is illegal to put on sale in Australian stores. It's not illegal to acquire, import, or even purchase online from another country. It is just illegal to sell in Australian stores.
My top 5 concerns about the new net filter:
1) _______________everything______________.
2) _____________________________________________________
3) _______________________________is ______going________
4) _____________to ___________ be ____________________________
5) _______________ fine ____________________ .
Politicians do not like web sites exposing their activities, they've been wanting to shut this down for years. By using "the four horsemen of the Internet" they've managed to convince people that making sites disappear is to "protect the children".
The big clue: the secrecy surrounding the list of blocked sites. If they know which sites source child porn then they would be using existing criminal law to deal with them. No, it's other kinds of information they want to censor.
It may seem like there's no good solution. You can:
1. leave that kind of content unblocked.
2. block stuff and don't give anyone the list which causes severe suspicion and probably abuse of the filter.
3. block stuff and give out the precise filtered list, which obviously gives pervs an extensive list of illegal sites that they can visit when they get around the filter.
So it's a no win situation, right? It doesn't seem that way to me. How the hell do they just have a list sitting around? Shut the sites down. Find out who's allowing the domain registration to continue (if there is one, I guess it could be purely IP based) and find the hosting company or physical servers. "Pass the list to Australia" doesn't really seem like it would come up high on interpol's strategy list about what to do once a list of illegal sites was assembled. If it's a list of IPs or domains and they got everyone in the world to implement the filter, obviously the criminals behind it would just move IPs or domains. You don't fix the problem any other way than taking out the source.
This seems so obvious that I think it's evidence that Australia is using this as a poster boy excuse to implement a net filter whose primary purpose is not to block illegal porn.
and participate in political censoring.
Blogging because I can...
I know a lot of people on Slashdot might think that this is the thin of the wedge and the first step on the slippery slope towards a more comprehensive censhorship scheme the likes of what labour tried to bring in recently but to be honest I think that as long as this filter remains voluntary and restricted to hardcore CP then it wont get any airplay in the wider media at all because the average member of the public will be pretty much fine with it. The real question is a) will its current authority be expanded to material beyond hardcore CP and b) if its current authority expanded would the average joe have issues with it?
a) is up for debate however I would expect that joe public will be much more concerned if there was evidence of scope creep on the filter and therefore it would get more airplay in the wider media and be shot down as it was last time http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/conroy-backs-down-on-net-filters-20100709-10381.html?autostart=1.
The wider public has shown that they are fine with filters as long as it stays restricted to Child Porn only - anything further and governments can expect serious opposition from large sections of the community which can have repercussions for them at the ballot box which is exactly why the last aussie filter was shot down - it started to look like it was going to cost the labour party votes so they ditched it
Funny and Interesting things from all around the net
But I can't see why anyone would want a filtering system in place they have no control over.
Political and social history makes it painfully clear such a system will sooner than later be abused for other than the original intent.
The result would be plain old censorship.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Few nations and police forces would like to be in the news for refusing such assistance.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Just publish the list and let societies extremists do their job. They'll accomplish what authorities can't - one way or the other.
I wasn't real happy with OpenDNS - why would Norton do a better job of "filtering" than OpenDNS did?
Actually, despite the fact that I hate some of the (mostly malicious) crap that comes across the internet, I HATE censorship even more. I'll click the "close" button on that stupid popup, instead of allowing some DNS server to do it for me. Closing my own popups means that I can actually visit and view those sites that I really do want to view.
Download and run Namebench sometime, to get an idea how much of the web is blocked already by DNS servers. They are already hiding portions of the web from Joe Average.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Few nations and police forces would like to be in the news for refusing such assistance.
Really? Practically every country on Earth has Internet access. Lets say the site in question is hosted in Sudan. Even if the local police in places like that care one way or another about CP, it could be months before the police turn up, and cutting them in on the profits could delay them indefinitely. And when the site actually has to move its owner in (say) Belgium just rents another server in (say) Chad, uploads his files and moves the domain name to a different IP address.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
What I don't get is that they have to intentionally look at a ton of child porn sites to find out if they are child porn sites and put them on the list. Doesn't that make them criminals?
That would make you or me a criminal but law enforcement are above the law,
These places suffer a fundamental lack of infrastructure like fiber and power, the reason is obvious, there's no authority to protect your property.
Now you do find sites registered in such places but they are usually hosted in more developed countries where Interpol can act.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Why is it those who want to implement this kind of filtering never quite address these sort of concerns up-front?
Because NONE of this is EVER about achieving the worthwhile goals which are stated up-front.
These things are ALWAYS a behind-the-scenes attempt to deploy *government mandated censorship* of what is (currently) an uncontrolled medium.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
If I'm going to MITM you, I would just be a hop to any address, and you wouldn't have a clue, infact, your data goes through upto 30 routers to any server anyway. I can modify it at any point and pretend it went all the way and/or modify the reply. Sorry, easy to fool.
The only way to protect against MITM is complicated encryption systems that sign data to prove integrity, then it comes down to trust, one still needs to trust that is the servers key, and it hasn't been compromised (known by the eavesdropper).
Everyone assumes that child pornography, especially the "worst of the worst", consists of pictures of children being forced into sex. We are seldom allowed to see the evidence for ourselves, because of course it is strictly illegal for a member of the public to see it.
However, occasionally failed prosecutions for possession of Jock Sturgis or David Hamilton photos, or best-selling sex education books, gives us an insight into what prosecutors think child pornography is, and when one realizes that even photos of fully clothed children have been successfully prosecuted as child pornography, one has to consider that maybe there are ulterior motives to the campaign against child pornography, and maybe the authorities are lying to us.
Recently, some of the Webe Web child models - now adults - have begun a campaign to tell the truth about their participation in what has been successfully prosecuted as "child pornography". As they tell it, the only time they felt like victims was when the FBI came calling.
Here is one of their videos at YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2xfzmcOPg0