Australian Government Initiates Covert Internet Censorship

An anonymous reader writes "Remember how the Australian Government tried to enact a big bad Internet filter on the population? Well, that effort failed, but now there's a new initiative in place. At least one government agency, the country's financial regulator, has quietly started issuing legal notices to ISPs requesting them to block certain types of websites deemed illegal. There's no oversight or appeals process, and already a false positive event has resulted in some 1,200 innocent websites being blocked from Australians viewing them. Sounds ideal, right?"

Comments

Here we go --

[SpoonStomper]

If we are not careful, this will come to america.

Re:Here we go --

[lightknight]

'Tis quite alright. In the future, the public internet (what's left of it) will only run encrypted data-streams. That's ultimately where this is headed. And since encryption is easier to make than decryption....well, the censors will always be on the losing side. Eternally.

The real fun part will be, of course, if / when humanity runs into other sentient lifeforms out in the universe. I'm sure that they will, of course, naturally have chosen similar schemes for controlling information within their own populations, as well as limiting reproductive choices, and implementing artificial castes. And that when they gaze upon what our great planet has invented, the very jewel of our solar system, the fruits of brightest minds and the labor bought off the backs of millions of straining peoples, they will acknowledge that we truly are just like them, and worthy to open trade negotiations / some sort of alliance. When our drones are flying over enemy territory, our borders, even our homeland itself, we are telling those with peering, but hidden eyes far up in the heavens exactly the kind of freedom America stands for. And they will know, like in all our broadcasts and films, that when they wish to pay homage to our wonderful civilization, exactly which building to visit and which leader they should strike up a conversation with.

Re:Here we go --

[smash]

You already have DMCA take-downs, and they spread to other countries.

Re:Here we go --

[FuzzNugget]

I could be wrong, but I think it already has. I've tried accessing certain sites with a US proxy and they'll consistently time out. Switch off the proxy and they'll magically work.

Re:Here we go --

[cheekyjohnson]

Copyright infringement is a threat to national security, so blindly infringing upon people's freedoms and censoring content at a random corporations request is perfectly justified.

Re:Here we go --

[EmagGeek]

They will simply make it illegal to use "unapproved" encryption, where "approved" encryption is that for which you have provided the decryption keys to law enforcement.

Re:Here we go --

[Anonymous Coward]

Player of Games - Iain M Banks

A significant section of the plot is devouted to the ideas you lay out.
 

Re:Here we go --

[wisnoskij]

Except ever encryptor needs a corresponding decryption, or it is simply a deleter.
If you encrypt data, you need to give everyone you want access this decrypter. And this is not taking into account, simply censoring all encrypted data, which has already started.

But even if they do not, they win in every case where it is not between two people who have access to unbreakable encryption techniques and exchanged encryption keys in the real world, AKA they win.

Re:Here we go --

[gruntspeak]

we are telling those with peering, but hidden eyes far up in the heavens exactly the kind of freedom America stands for. And they will know, like in all our broadcasts and films

I, for one, welcome the chance to sue our new overlords for illegally obtaining our broadcasts and films. Goddamn space pirates.

Re:Here we go --

[jeffclay]

what sites would those be?

Re:Here we go --

[Anonymous Coward]

Really if we don't the terrorists win...

Re:Here we go --

[Anonymous Coward]

Why that is background noise from the ccd when I recorded that video, officer. No communication going on here.

Re: Here we go --

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the Plots initiates or full Monks?

Re:Here we go --

[lightknight]

Perhaps I should have been clearer -> it's easier for two parties to whip up a means of encryption than it is for a third party to decrypt it.

At the end of the day, brute-forcing one-time pads with predictive heuristics still requires some time; mutate the encryption fast enough, and by the time the message is decrypted, it's worthless.

Now of course, you're going to point out, what about keyloggers, telepaths, aliens, double-agents, etc. Which mean nothing if two parties are actually honestly trying to keep communication encrypted.

All this without touching on the idea that censorship is dumb. It's a bad idea, embraced by bad people, to do horrible things, to other bad people.

What's the perfect way, of course, to get around any encryption? Well, log everyone's thoughts since child-birth; lie to them about being free, and when they discover the truth (they will), deep hypnosis to have them lie to themselves about the truth. You have the key, since you have all of their thoughts, right there, on the proverbial paper, but chances are, when they discover the truth, they'll probably kill themselves; the execution planned for them is probably sweetly embraced at that point, as the totality of their life being an utter lie is too much to take.

Re:Here we go --

[wisnoskij]

Do you have no idea how the Internet actully works?

Re:Here we go --

[Immerman]

Not quite - for example virtually all secure internet communication is based on SSL or similar, which allows the secure creation of complementary encryption keys over an insecure data channel. That doesn't help if you can shut down the origin, but it neatly sidesteps any sort of "gatekeeper" censorship that doesn't, as you point out, simply block all encrypted traffic. Even such drastic lockdowns could conceivably be sidestepped by steganographically hiding encrypted data streams within innocuous ones. Obviously that's going to hurt your bandwidth, but we're talking about just making things possible.

Re:Here we go --

[Anonymous Coward]

All this without touching on the idea that censorship is dumb. It's a bad idea, embraced by bad people, to do horrible things, to other bad people.

Censorship is a dumb idea from greedy people looking to protect their own interests at the expense of everyone else. In other words it's market capitalism of speech and ideas instead of economics.

Idiots...

[dwarfsoft]

Interestingly I can still access the blocked site, so looks like they've undone that (I'm on Telstra at the moment... Don't ask). Also interesting is that they just dismantled the filtering scheme in the budget overnight, so with any luck it goes away altogether. The ACL are not particularly happy about it though (but who cares about them).

As is linked in TFS, the filter list that some ISPs may have implemented is the Interpol one. Certainly not as broad-reaching as the original Conroy planned one.

Re:Idiots...

[houstonbofh]

As is linked in TFS, the filter list that some ISPs may have implemented is the Interpol one. Certainly not as broad-reaching as the original Conroy planned one.

So it is a hit with a bat, not a stab with a knife? Like they say in AA, the best time to stop is before the first one.

Re:Idiots...

[smash]

(I'm on Telstra at the moment... Don't ask)

Nothing wrong with telstra's network, othert than cost.

And service. But the network itself is fine :)

Re:Idiots...

[Immerman]

try telling that to the guy with the bat...

Re:Idiots...

[fido_dogstoyevsky]

(I'm on Telstra at the moment... Don't ask)

Nothing wrong with telstra's network, othert than cost.

And service. But the network itself is fine :)

And sometimes the network. But always the service. And the price, and of course the service.

Re:Idiots...

[smash]

The network, compared to most of the other alternatives is a lot more available. And by that i mean both in terms of SLAs and actually having connectivity options in remote areas. :)

Re:Idiots...

[dwarfsoft]

They were the only one who could get me onto ADSL2+, due to their want to RIM all newer developments. I'm glad to finally get the speeds I should have had years ago, but now I'm locked in for another 1.5 years. The price is not so good, though.

You have consented to large government

[roman_mir]

Of-course Australian government will block your Internet access to materials it finds inappropriate, whatever that means, you have given your government enough power to do things like that. Gun control was implemented in the same way, taxing income on a graduated scale, telling people what they can and cannot do with their private property, same for people running businesses, all of this grows and emboldens the government and when governments grow and become emboldened people shrink and become scared little nothings.

Re:You have consented to large government

[Sarius64]

Sorry I'm out of mod points. How anyone cannot see this correlation is amazing to me. The Australian government is about to boot its people down more.

Re:You have consented to large government

[NeutronCowboy]

telling people what they can and cannot do with their private property, same for people running businesses,

Yep. I mean, a thousand dead or so is a fair price to pay so that businesses can thrive. Not to mention that it's better being a dead factory worker than some scared little suburbanite living in the US with two cars and a 5 bedroom house.

Totally. Especially if you're one of the rich business owners who can afford to not work in their own factory and hire a private army to guard your assets.

For those who are sarcasm impaired - yes, that was sarcasm. I normally write people like roman off as just crazy, but they seem to be proliferating like cockroaches.

Re:You have consented to large government

[Anonymous Coward]

What does that article have to do with roman's comment? I'm pretty sure he wasn't recommending complete anarchy and 100% lack of government oversight. You seem to be on the opposite end of the spectrum, content with surrendering everything for the government to control and divvy up how whoever is in power sees fit.

Re:You have consented to large government

[roman_mir]

Confusing individual freedoms and criminal negligence on your part I can understand, but confusing Australia and Bangladesh is something new.

Re:You have consented to large government

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you just love getting a lecture on freedom from a slav? As annoying as a reformed alcoholic or religious convert - like little sociopathic Ayn Rands. Of course you don't like gun control or governments; your only significant industry is organised crime.

Re:You have consented to large government

[roman_mir]

Don't forget I'm also part jewish (mother side), that should really twist your panties into a knot.

Re:You have consented to large government

[NeutronCowboy]

Roman's comment is a classic example of a black-and-white world. In his mind, it isn't possible to have a government do anything without it automatically becoming tyrannical. Furthermore, the slightest overreach by any apparatchik is immediately an indictment of the incompetence of all government, followed by cries to dismantle government in general. Because of the extremely low threshold that people like roman have for any sort of government activity at all, there is no way to have any sort of government regulation at all. What's more though, their threshold for what is appropriate for government allows absolutely no discussion - to paraphrase someone else, you're either with them, or against them. That's the worst aspect of their "solutions": there is no possibility for debate about it.

Furthermore, you're falling into the same logic trap that roman does: there are only two states, and if one advocates against one, one is forcibly for the other extreme. What I'm arguing is that their worldview has been tested, and it is utterly failing - and has always failed in the past as well.

Re:You have consented to large government

[NeutronCowboy]

Criminal negligence is... wait for it... a concept that requires a government and regulation that is outside of contract law. Furthermore, ENFORCEMENT of criminal negligence requires an independent government, bureaucrats to track the paperwork, jack-booted thugs to apprehend suspects and judges unbeholden to the public to make decisions of law.

Considering you cry about the abuses of government in the most unimportant, small-scale and even incorrect situations (and spare me the slippery slope argument - if government was that efficient and monolithic, we wouldn't be having this argument), you seem to really be incapable of doing any cost/benefit analysis when it comes rules governing people's interactions.

Re:You have consented to large government

[roman_mir]

People don't need government, especially central gov't to carry out justice for criminal acts. Given that central gov't more often than not protects real criminals and creates moral hazards that provide incentives to increase acts of criminality, central gov't is actually counter productive to preventing crimes. Cost benefit analysis? It's on you to prive that big gov't reduces crime and increases prosperity, all facts show that the very opposite is the case.

Re:You have consented to large government

[Anonymous Coward]

All nations rise and fall, history is clear on this. When they fall it is almost always with violent revolution against a tyrannical oppressive government. Your nation is no different and you sir are simply grease within the gears of oppression.

Re:You have consented to large government

[Obfuscant]

People don't need government, especially central gov't to carry out justice for criminal acts.

Yeah, that vigilante justice system works so well and protects the innocent just fine.

They even named the courts after an Aussie mammal: kangaroos.

Re:You have consented to large government

[roman_mir]

So people cannot handle criminal cases without central gov't so is central gov't made of Martians? BTW kangaroo court is central gov't specialty. Should I bother typing up names, name after name after name of people tried by central gov't kangaroos? Worse than court, how is that Gitmo this time of year?

Re:You have consented to large government

[NeutronCowboy]

There is one simple fact that contradicts your argument: there hasn't been a single group of people operating without a central government (you still haven't defined where central government stops and local government starts, by the way) that has made a mark on history. The closest to them might have been the barbary coast pirates, and they were ultimately wiped out by the armed forces of a centralized government. In other words, when groups competed for resources, the ones with a larger or more effective central governments always won out. Always. Furthermore, the largest and most successful nations/organizations in history were marked by highly effective, pervasive and very large central governments.

Now, you can redefine crime and prosperity, but the more successful a nation or organization, the larger its government, and the better the average prosperity and crime rates.

Given that central gov't more often than not protects real criminals

Just for fun, show me nation-wide numbers.

Re:You have consented to large government

[sabri]

The Australian government is about to boot its people down more.

I'd say, let's get the entire Australian government and leave them on a deserted island somewhere in the middle of the ocean...

Re:You have consented to large government

[Anonymous Coward]

All nations rise and fall, history is clear on this. When they fall it is almost always with violent revolution against a tyrannical oppressive government.

At the same time, history is clear what happens before the revolution: some of the greatest empires in history. Hate the tyrants and murderers all you will, but they got to live as kings of their time.

Being ruthless, being violent, being amoral, and generally being the biggest asshole around works. Nice guys finish last, my fellow AC.

Your nation is no different and you sir are simply grease within the gears of oppression.

Better than being on the receiving end of those gears of oppression.

See, Saturday morning cartoons are not so far from reality. The villains get all the swag, the cool toys (doomsday devices, sharks with lazors on their heads, etc), lots of minions (including chicks with funny names and revealing clothing), secret lairs, etc. And oh yes, they always seem to get away from the heroes.

The difference is that in reality, there is no series/season finale where the villain is ultimately defeated and justice gets served. No, the heroes at best win battles, not the war. Cartoons make the heroes win and delivery justice to provide solace for the proles, and to brainwash them thinking that they have a chance.

Re:You have consented to large government

[Tokolosh]

The missing ingredient is what Americans call "due process".

A government that acts secretively, capriciously and arbitrarily, without oversight, will become tyrannical.

Re:You have consented to large government

[NeutronCowboy]

You might even argue that such a government is by definition tyrannical, since it generally will only work for the benefit of its friends, and exploit everyone else. However, there are differences between, for example, some people in the tax collecting agency specifically targeting organizations that use words associated with tax revolts, and the head of the government publicly praising the incarceration of opposition members or authorizing the use of troops to force the nationalization of businesses. While both are capricious enforcement of rules that end up benefiting the ruling party, the damage caused is very, very different. As a result, the solutions need to be very different, as well.

Always keep in mind: The best is the enemy of the good.

Re:You have consented to large government

[roman_mir]

there hasn't been a single group of people operating without a central government that has made a mark on history.

- I see, so what you are looking for is an empire, you can't just have people living without being oppressed by an empire because you are looking for "historic marks". Well, that's your idea - there should be 'historic marks' and the human cost is irrelevant.

But we know of historic marks, Stalin was historically remarkable. So was Lenin. Hitler. Mao. Pol Pot. Nixon. Lyndon Johnson. Kennedy. FDR. Hoover. Teddy Roosevelt. Bush the first. Clinton. W. Obama. Genghis Khan. Alexander. many more, I do not consider them to be good for people as a general principle though they left their marks alright.

OTOH I consider people like Martin van Buren to be historically significant because they did NOT leave marks like that and instead allowed the PEOPLE to live their lives in a much freer society because of much smaller government intrusion. He was for complete separation of government from banking, from money, from business in general and he did not sell out for more power. He strengthened peace with the British instead of pursuing war.

Warren Harding would be another case, he was the POTUS when USA went through its first Federal reserve inflated bubble crash that cause a depression. He did not do anything and instead cut government spending by 70% and the problem dissipated in 1.5 years.

(you still haven't defined where central government stops and local government starts, by the way)

- good question. As with everything there are grey areas here, but at the least with local governments you know the people that are elected, they live in your town probably and they do their business in the town, they are responsible to people in the town. I suppose the real difference is proximity to power, the more central the power is the further away you are from it, the more abstract it is, the more institutionalised it is, the less you can have direct influence on the outcomes for your locality. Ideally there is enough competition that you can choose to live in a town with central government or in a town where there is no government of any kind at all and all decisions are completely on individual and business levels.

the ones with a larger or more effective central governments always won out.

- you find this to be desirable, I do not.

the largest and most successful nations/organizations in history were marked by highly effective, pervasive and very large central governments.

- I disagree with your definition of the word 'successful'.

AFAIC any system that destroys individual rights is unsuccessful by definition. What is the success for an individual in that scenario? Ability to steal from a minority by using a huge institutionalised authority that has enough apparatus at hand that crashing an individual is not even an afterthought, I disagree that this is even remotely a success story.

Just for fun, show me nation-wide numbers.

I will do better. Stalin said something I agree with: when a person is killed people see it as a tragedy. When millions are killed, that's just statistics.

Governments are the biggest criminals and harbour the biggest criminals in history of humanity. Every government that started a war for power and resources and egos are criminal by definition. In the eyes of history the only difference between war criminals and heroes is who lives to tell the story.

I don't need to talk about hundreds of millions killed by central governments over the millennia, how about Iraq to make this simple? What local government, what private institution or individual can boast up to a million people dead over 10 years of murder and destruction?

Did you know that in Mein Kampf, Hitler specifically argued that the State power must be diminished for the explicit purpose of increasin

Re:You have consented to large government

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut the guy a break, Stalin killed his family.

Re:You have consented to large government

[Obfuscant]

New Zealand has immigration laws that would prevent this.

Re:You have consented to large government

[Obfuscant]

So people cannot handle criminal cases without central gov't so is central gov't made of Martians?

You're so far out in left field as to what was said that the hot dog vendors don't even come by.

Re:You have consented to large government

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, of course, roman_mir did none of that. All roman_mir did was point out that this is exactly the power given to the Australian government by its own people. All the nonsense you spouted about "black-and-white" and "cries to dismantle government in general" is nothing but a straw man. Perhaps roman_mir holds the opinions you suggest, but it is entirely irrelevant to the points he/she made right here.

Re:You have consented to large government

[Adrian Lopez]

In other words, when groups competed for resources, the ones with a larger or more effective central governments always won out. Always.

That's because a central government is also a monopoly on resources, labor, and defense. Just as it's difficult for smaller companies to compete against established monopolies, so it is difficult for smaller, locally managed groups of people to compete against those who would claim the whole world as their kingdom if they had the armies to maintain it.

Furthermore, the largest and most successful nations/organizations in history were marked by highly effective, pervasive and very large central governments.

As were some of history's greatest failures. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Re:You have consented to large government

[s.petry]

While you make a fair "feel good" argument, it's not historically accurate. If you read history, you will find that there have been no perfect Governments. Governments that are granted powers always request more and more, until the point where a revolution is required to restore a Government that people can live with.

I guess you could ignore the fact that the US had been trending toward a tyranny for a very long time. Each year, more and more power is granted to the Government. Each year we pay more and more in taxes, and what does the average person get? The trend has not been moving the other direction, because that is how it works. Governments become corrupt, the corruption becomes entrenched, and the corruption becomes the normal Government. People will go through several phases (apathy, complacency, etc..) before they are fed up enough to revolt. But it happens in every single situation where corruption becomes the Government Normal. Where it has not happened yet, is places like Russia and China who have been diligent about shooting anyone that discusses revolt.

Australia kind of leapfrogged past the US and even the UK in terms of a soft tyrannical take over. I found it surprising, but as soon as they lost their ability to fight (gave up the guns) the changes have been moving very quickly.

A tyranny is not necessarily an outrageously oppressive Government murdering masses. I think this is why you are trying to justify such Government and attack people that point them out. It's easier to live in delusion than face cognitive dissonance.

Re:You have consented to large government

[NeutronCowboy]

I see, so what you are looking for is an empire, you can't just have people living without being oppressed by an empire because you are looking for "historic marks"

The point that you're missing is that every time there was any resource contention, any conflict whatsoever, the larger, more organized group of people won out. Every. Single. Time. For fun times, check out what happened to the Indians in the US. And ultimately, that is why people band together: for safety. You might have your ideals living out by yourself in the boonies, but they don't serve you much when you're dead because a few people thought they could use your resources and didn't take no for an answer.

As with everything there are grey areas here, but at the least with local governments you know the people that are elected, they live in your town probably and they do their business in the town, they are responsible to people in the town.

What's a town? If I live in the Los Angeles area, I have about as much influence on local politics as if I'd live somewhere in North Dakota. I will know the mayor about as well as the Senator from California, and they will care approximately as much about me. If it's a town of 10000 somewhere out in the middle of Iowa, my vote might carry a higher percentage weight, but what about the guy who owns the local grain processor, and whose net worth is about 1 million times mine? If I and 9000 other people in the town decide on something, and the guy with the grain processor says no, what exactly do you think will happen? Certainly not what I want.
The point (and which you're missing again) is that there's always a power center. If government is weak - whether it is by design, or because it is too local - it is overtaken by private power, which in turn is defined by resource control. And those private people will rule just as much as any government entity would. The difference now is that their power cannot be checked by elections or any voting system.

AFAIC any system that destroys individual rights is unsuccessful by definition.

I know that's your definition. That's the only way that your argument holds the any problem. The problem with that ridiculous assertion is that the only people who think that way are those whose basic needs are fulfilled, aren't threatened by government overreach or warlord terror, and can spend time dreaming about how much life better could be it weren't for other people.

Stalin said something I agree with: when a person is killed people see it as a tragedy. When millions are killed, that's just statistics.

Holy crap. I had no idea that you could so completely misread Stalin. He specifically used that to point out that people are terrible at statistics, and care only about personal stories. On the other hand, it nicely illustrates your problem: the only result you care about is how a system affects you. That's it. If something has the slightest negative effect on you, it is terrible, regardless of how much it helps others. As a matter of fact, not only do you only care about how a system affects you, you are incapable of devising a system that does anything but help you specifically.

Did you know that in Mein Kampf, Hitler specifically argued that the State power must be diminished for the explicit purpose of increasing central federal power?

Considering how badly you mangled the Stalin quote, I'm waiting for the entire paragraph in Mein Kampf where you got that quote from. In German.

Your problem is two-fold: you think that at the core, liberty is a stronger need for humans than safety, and you think that power structures are not part of human nature. What you call the evil central government is nothing but the formalization of what used to be ad-hoc power structures. You're arguing that individuals can't compare to the killings of today's central governments - what you're missing is that until

Re:You have consented to large government

[Anonymous Coward]

The point that you're missing is that every time there was any resource contention, any conflict whatsoever, the larger, more organized group of people won out. Every. Single. Time. For fun times, check out what happened to the Indians in the US

The point you seem to have missed, though, is that roman actually IS arguing for large organized groups of people. They are just more organized - and less large - than the current US government. He writes about wanting "liberty" for people, but that is nothing more than an advertising pitch for his actual goal - concentration of wealth and power.
 
 

Holy crap. I had no idea that you could so completely misread Stalin

Roman did not successfully take any history, math, or science courses while at the University of Toronto (a state school, no less), as best we can tell. Misreading Stalin is only the tip of the iceberg, as you have noticed.
 
 

If something has the slightest negative effect on you, it is terrible, regardless of how much it helps others. As a matter of fact, not only do you only care about how a system affects you, you are incapable of devising a system that does anything but help you specifically.

You hit the nail on the head. Roman is a member of a cult that is concerned about nothing more than 3 inches from the end of their own nose.
 
 

Considering how badly you mangled the Stalin quote, I'm waiting for the entire paragraph in Mein Kampf where you got that quote from. In German.

At best, you'll likely see him respond with a link to a youtube video of his cult leader preaching on something else that supports his belief structure.
 
 

In other words, the vast majority of genocides, wars and misdeeds going on in the world until about 1800 were done at the command of individuals sitting atop a pyramid whose order was enforced through violence.

Which is, of course, the exact power structure that roman advocates for - one person atop a pyramid with no limitations on power or time.

Because in the end, while roman presents a guise of "liberty", he seeks very plainly to take those who have the majority of the power and wealth, and give them more of both. Massive unbridled concentration of power is also known as fascism; roman wants to bring fascism for the people.

Re:You have consented to large government

[gnoshi]

Thankfully because of the lessons of history, we can hopefully change the course this time around.
For example, perhaps we could have the positive benefits of government (gun control, progressive taxation used to fund public services, telling people what they can do with their private property - 'no, you can't build a rubbish tip in suburbia, sorry') and actually intervene in the problem of creeping power (such as this).

Somehow people manage to keep bringing this back to gun control - "when we gave up our guns we lost our ability to fight". However, gun control is widely supported in Australia, and I'm pretty sure that pretending we'd be able to overthrow the government with our guns wouldn't aid the cause of social change. Clearly having a profusion of crazy (and sane) people will guns in the U.S. has stopped your problem of creeping government overreach, right?

Yes, there is a need to monitor government and work to ensure their are limits on their powers, but can we stop pretending that progressive social policies are part of an inexorable creeping towards totalitarianism? I understand that may be hard for some people who need to justify their access to guns and their anger at paying tax, but please do try.

Re:You have consented to large government

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget I'm also part jewish (mother side), that should really twist your panties into a knot.

I've met Jews who converted to Christianity, Jews who abandoned their faith altogether, and Jews who did either of those and then went back to Judaism. You are the first Jew I've ever met who left Judaism to join a cult, though.

Re:You have consented to large government

[roman_mir]

The point that you're missing is that every time there was any resource contention, any conflict whatsoever, the larger, more organized group of people won out.

- I am not missing anything, the entire point of USA Constitution is to ensure that individuals are not treated by the government in that exact manner - where the federal government exercises its power to destroy any freedoms of individuals (and when we talk about State rights, we are not automatically giving authority to State governments, we are talking about individual rights).

The point (and which you're missing again) is that there's always a power center. If government is weak - whether it is by design, or because it is too local - it is overtaken by private power

- no, you are missing the point. With local decisions being made locally (and for all I care even your street shouldn't be forced into a scheme of government that it objects to) there is competition and thus you have huge number of choices, real choices that you can make as to how you prefer your locality to be governed if at all. I am not talking about restricting your ability to gang together with a bunch of likeminded neighbours and to come up with your own system of local government if you want one.

The problem with that ridiculous assertion is that the only people who think that way are those whose basic needs are fulfilled, aren't threatened by government overreach or warlord terror

- so you know all about all "those people" and you know all of their personal conditions. By the way, your personal conditions are not supposed to change the way a government treats you under law, whatever your personal circumstances are, you shouldn't be getting any special treatment. That's the only way to achieve a society that does not discriminate against people while creating the most diverse market, market where individuals are not obstructed from actually creating new wealth and are not punished for that either.

Holy crap. I had no idea that you could so completely misread Stalin.

- I didn't misread a thing. He was happy he could control people easier because to them very large numbers stop being personal and become abstract.

Of-course Stalin and every ruler like him and every government employee under him should be tried for every case of murder, every case of maiming, every case of destruction and confiscation of private property.

Millions upon millions of cases because these government kill, maim, steal from millions and millions of individuals. That's what is lost when people think of others as just of large numbers - the fact that they are individuals.

That's it. If something has the slightest negative effect on you, it is terrible, regardless of how much it helps others.

- millions of people were killed by Stalin's government. I don't know where you see positive effects in that, positive effects for the entire country in fact, that was robbed of the most incentivized, most individually entrepreneurial people.

Considering how badly you mangled the Stalin quote, I'm waiting for the entire paragraph in Mein Kampf where you got that quote from. In German.

- I am in Germany. I spend enough time here over the last 3 years that I can easily give you the necessary paragraphs, but will YOU be able to read them?

Der Foderalismus als Maske ...

Die Bedeutung der Einzelstaaten wird kunftig uberhaupt nicht mehr auf staats- und machtpolitischem Gebiet liegen; ich erblicke sie entweder auf stammesmassigem oder auf kulturpolitischem Gebiete. Allein selbst hier wird
Heer und Einzelstaaten die Zeit nivellierende wirken. Die Leichtigkeit des modernen Verkehrs schuttelt die Menschen derart durcheinander, dass langsam und stetig die Stammesgrenzen verwischt werden und so selbst das kulturelle Bild sich allmahli

Re:You have consented to large government

[s.petry]

You can't change human nature. This is why Socrates stated that the only people that should be representing people in a Republic are the people that don't want the job. This prevents people craving power from holding offices and abusing their offices to gain power. Remember power comes in many forms.

Socrates was also adamant that society needs to be highly educated. The people holding offices in the US have done everything they can to make the populace some of the dumbest people in history. People don't understand fallacy and rhetoric, and the people in Government don't want them to understand either. It's not just in the US either, all of the "free" countries have gone down the same road.

Re:You have consented to large government

[Cacadril]

But Roman_Mir followed up with a couple of other things that he said were implemented in similar ways: Gun control, taxing income on a graduated scale, telling people what they can and cannot do with their private property, same for people running businesses.

Then he finished off with this diagnosis: all of this grows and emboldens the government and when governments grow and become emboldened people shrink and become scared little nothings

This is not quite enough to guarantee absolute certainty about his opinions, but there's a well known ring to it.

Re:You have consented to large government

[greenbird]

Roman's comment is a classic example of a black-and-white world. In his mind, it isn't possible to have a government do anything without it automatically becoming tyrannical.

NeutronCowboy's comment is a classic example of a black-and-white world. In his mind, it isn't possible to have a government do anything that isn't in the interest of the people. Furthermore, the slightest overreach by any individual or organization is immediately a call for government regulation to protect the interest of any individual or group that might be harmed in any manner , followed by cries to dismantle those organizations in favor of government controlled and regulated ones instead.

See. That works both ways. You're at least as closed minded as the individual you are accusing.

I'll tell you though. If you don't think the governments of the free world, with the US taking the lead (USA, USA, USA...), aren't overreaching and acting in interests different than, if not outright opposed to, the interests of the people in general you're either willfully ignorant or blind.

Re:You have consented to large government

[Cacadril]

History does not support that things only deteriorate except through revolutions. The twentieth century saw a tremendous improvement without violent revolutions. I tend to think that there was a couple of historical factors behind, like the combination of a world war to create a greatly enhanced sense of community, and a socialist and unionizing movement creating a previously unheard of balance of power -- until the the unions themselves became too corrupt or too dumb and static.

If the 99% find new ways of organizing we may see another golden age until that new structure again becomes too corrupt. Then newer generations will have to develop still newer ways of organizing, etc. But these changes do not have to be violent revolutions.

On the other hand there is another factor behind the ever increasing level of taxes: As manufacturing becomes cheaper, the kind of things that are best done through a government becomes a larger fraction of the GDP.

Re:You have consented to large government

[s.petry]

WTF? Are you mentally handicapped or just trying to voice propaganda? The 20th century saw Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.. etc.. etc.. so you are absolutely full of shit. WW II was to stop Hitler, after corrupt people in other countries gave him money, weapons, and power.

Re:You have consented to large government

[NeutronCowboy]

Wow. You always, always amaze me with your ability to change topics, redefine commonly used words and ignore statistics to cherry-pick data. But what takes the cake is that instead of actually following up with your ideals, you move from a somewhat socialist country (Canada) to an even more socialist country (Germany). Next, I expect you to end up in Sweden or France. It's almost as if those countries offer better opportunities than the countries that fit your small-government ideals. Nah, that couldn't be.

By the way, thanks for actually providing the relevant text. As expected, the concept that you ascribe to your quote is a descriptive detail to the overall theme of the paragraph: that the idea of federal state is being made irrelevant by easier travel, and that the concept of the cultural nation is taking over. As a result, for Nationalsocialism to compete on the field of cultural ideas, it also has to ignore the federal states. Which is quite different from what you said it does, and, coincidentally, is very similar to what you're arguing for: that the idea of laissez-faire capitalism and personal freedom has to transcend the boundaries of federal states in order for it to win in the battle with the other social ideas. Even funnier is that the carrot at the core of Nationalsocialism is more individual freedom. Ironic, to say the least.

Your ideas are as old as the world, ideas of freedom are very young, they are going to become more prevalent I think than your old ideas.

Even ignoring for a second the fact that local government is how government even got started, your own life is giving lie to your propaganda. If even someone like you is actually moving to more socialist, more big-government countries, your ideas are losing followers, not gaining them.

Re:You have consented to large government

[ras]

as soon as they lost their ability to fight (gave up the guns)

As an Australian who has played with guns recently, that's factually inaccurate. Almost all Australian adults can own a gun if they wish to. In fact many of us own entire rooms full of them. The only exceptions are the same as everywhere else - the mentally ill, felons and so on. We are perhaps a little more restricted in the types of gun we can own - you need to have a professional reason to own concealable weapons and automatics.

Re:You have consented to large government

[s.petry]

No offense, but I'll have to do some research since I'm not in Australia. Your statement does not back what I have read here in the US, which is that people had to turn in guns and, that if you did keep them there is little ability to actually use them. Components had to be removed and stored in separate locations, ammo restrictions on keeping rounds, etc.. Much like the gun laws in the UK where a common person really does not have a gun.

Re:You have consented to large government

[NeutronCowboy]

You misunderstood. I'm not arguing that there have been perfect governments. I'm arguing that when it came to contesting for resources, larger, more efficient organizations always won out. Furthermore, by standard measures of prosperity, larger, more efficient organizations always come out on top. The only exceptions are smaller organizations that can piggy-back on the services of larger, nearby organizations.

Furthermore, what's decried as tyranny is pretty damn far from what people normally have in mind when they complain about tyranny. In the US, people argue that a tax rate of 35% on the top income is tyranny, which is ridiculous. Talk to me when you get killed for criticizing the government.

Each year we pay more and more in taxes, and what does the average person get?

Considering how wrong you are about this, I'm not sure how much credence to give to the rest of your post. Fun fact: what was the top marginal tax rate from the thirties through the sixties?

Re:You have consented to large government

[NeutronCowboy]

Foed just because you're quoting Ayn Rand.

Re:You have consented to large government

[ras]

Your statement does not back what I have read here in the US,

If what you have written here bears any resemblance to what your what your friends write in the US, you are bunch of conspiracy theorists inventing rubbish and feeding off it.

However, onto your actual claims. Regarding storage - you must have an approved gun safe. Personally, I think the law is too weak. Most of out gun crime is now committed by guns stolen from domestic gun safes. A wooden cupboard with a padlock on it is nowhere near good enough. It needs to be a real safe, bolted to the floor and lined with concrete. They aren't expensive.

Regarding ammo - you go the local hardware store and buy it. About the only restriction is you need to produce you gun licence. It must be stored securely, of course.

As for storing the things safely making them useless - you must use guns differently to how we use them in Australia. Here we take them out of storage before firing them.

The most onerous part of Australia law is being registered to own a gun. It is not hard to get registered and you certainly do not need a reason - "I want to" is good enough. There is no limit to the number of guns you can own (I know people who have 30 of them), but you do have to display a minimum competence in gun handling, you do have to prove you have safe and secure storage for it, and you do have to keep your registration up to date. It's less effort than getting a car drivers licence, and far less effort then getting a ham radio licence.

But it does involve some ongoing effort. And that is the point. That is enough to stop people who have no interest in guns whatsoever from keeping one in the draw, just waiting to be misused. For people who a genuine interest in guns like yourself the law isn't a barrier to owning a whole armory, and isn't meant to be.

Re:You have consented to large government

[lordlod]

Australia kind of leapfrogged past the US and even the UK in terms of a soft tyrannical take over. I found it surprising, but as soon as they lost their ability to fight (gave up the guns) the changes have been moving very quickly.

You are making a mistake in assuming the Australian culture is the same as US culture. It's one our own commentators have actually started doing too.

Australia has never had the same views on freedom and rights that the US has. It has always been understood that there is a compromise between personal freedoms and state control. An example of this is that we don't have a Bill or Rights, we don't have a Freedom of Expression, in fact there are no "rights" in our federal law at all. (We are a signatory to the UN human rights convention and one of the territories has rights legistlation which complicates things a little, but in general when an Australian mentions their rights they have no idea what they are talking about).

So this isn't a recent tyrannical takeover and raising guns as an issue is completely irrelevant. Hell, we started has a prison colony where everyone had to obey orders and there has never ever been a serious movement of Australians employing violence against their own government. What we have is a misstep by a government regulator that has very little idea what it's doing. The IT press are whipping up the rage to try and ensure that this is an election issue, for at least a day or two. The major parties will probably move strongly to avoid it becoming a problem for them and the regulator will be put back in it's box for a few years.

Re:You have consented to large government

[greenbird]

Foed just because you're quoting Ayn Rand.

Yeah, you're not narrow minded at all.

Re:You have consented to large government

[roman_mir]

He is French and came 5o the USA for opportunities but he never dropper his innate socialist ideology, his mind is a mess.

Wait for it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see how long somebody takes to blame the U.S. for this.

Denied

[Anonymous Coward]

Links doesn't work... keep getting error 403 access denied. So im just going to assume that the facts are wrong in this case.

Re:Denied

[houstonbofh]

Links doesn't work... keep getting error 403 access denied. So im just going to assume that the facts are wrong in this case.

Not down. Just filtered in your country. Try a VPN...

Old ladies tea groups should also have the power!

[Aguazul2]

Think of the geriatrics! What would the elderly ladies of your locality think of what you're browsing? Would it cause them a heart attack? We only want crochet patterns, recipes and pictures of cute puppies on our internet. Please delete anything controversial or too hard to understand! (This being not too far from what 100s of government agencies censoring the internet would end up with.)

NBN

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait till we have the NBN firmly in place, filtering will never go away. They only put it on the back burner while they build the backbone for it.

I am part of a community wireless network which covers a whole city, good thing there is no such government control over like this for its users. I would recommend everyone join or create one to promote free networking.

they are dropping IP address's

[johnjones]

ok they are not even filtering they are producing a drop list

clearly they do not understand how a IP network functions and are simply taking whatever huawei can fund...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_by_country

surveillance via huawei marketing dollars... working well...
(just ignore the fact huawei copy cisco kit and install backdoors and your fine...)

have fun

John

Re:they are dropping IP address's

[EmperorArthur]

It's worse than that.

This shows what I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ugdpbPW_k3g#t=1964s

Huawei doesn't install backdoors in there equipment, because it's so badly coded that there are huge vulnerabilities all over the place. Who needs a backdoor, when good old 90's buffer overflows are everywhere.

I think it went something like this

[TheSpoom]

"Sir, they just don't want to have their internet filtered."
"Do it anyway and don't tell them about it. They'll get used to it eventually."

Re:I think it went something like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much precisely. They'll definitely get used to it, especially if it's done slowly enough.

Re:I think it went something like this

[gnoshi]

Pretty much precisely. They'll definitely get used to it, especially if it's done slowly enough.

Unfortunately, it does look that way, and it is a huge problem. Getting an politically apathetic population to get angry enough to protest about something like this is sadly very difficult.

"Legal" Notices

[skywire]

A notice does not become "legal" simply because it was issued by a state agent.

Re:"Legal" Notices

[drinkypoo]

A notice does not become "legal" simply because it was issued by a state agent.

No, it becomes legal when it makes legal claims. However, if they are false, it is unlawful. Lawful and legal are considered synonyms but they're not precisely the same thing. There's probably even fancier latin terms you could use in court.

Subjective

[Anonymous Coward]

Who decides what is suitable to view? I'd pretty much be okay with anyone viewing pretty much anything, whereas someone else would want EVERYTHING blocked because it COULD cause them offense if they ACCIDENTALLY saw it.

That "false positive" was BS

[sirwired]

That "false positive" event was BS, and the EFF should know better. Slashdot covered the story here: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/04/11/1849207/australian-networks-block-community-university-website

Basically, a community college cheaped-out on it's webhost, and it was sharing a single IP with 1,200 other sites. It is certainly not out of the realm of possibilities that one of those 1,200 was doing something naughty (malware, DDOS, spam, kiddie porn, who knows?), and CheapBastardWebhosting was apathetic when informed about it. Just like any harmful of blatantly illegal site, the next step is a block of the IP.

The block was lifted after the outcry, but I suspect that was more because the block got the webhosts attention and they then properly booted the naughty customer.

EFF, please don't Greenpeace or PETA yourselves with silly crap like this. (This wouldn't be the first time their press releases have stretched or misinterpreted facts more than a bit.)

Re:That "false positive" was BS

[Nidi62]

That "false positive" event was BS, and the EFF should know better. Slashdot covered the story here: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/04/11/1849207/australian-networks-block-community-university-website

Basically, a community college cheaped-out on it's webhost, and it was sharing a single IP with 1,200 other sites. It is certainly not out of the realm of possibilities that one of those 1,200 was doing something naughty (malware, DDOS, spam, kiddie porn, who knows?), and CheapBastardWebhosting was apathetic when informed about it. Just like any harmful of blatantly illegal site, the next step is a block of the IP.

The block was lifted after the outcry, but I suspect that was more because the block got the webhosts attention and they then properly booted the naughty customer.

EFF, please don't Greenpeace or PETA yourselves with silly crap like this. (This wouldn't be the first time their press releases have stretched or misinterpreted facts more than a bit.)

So, are you arguing then that using "an IP address does not equal a person" is not a valid defense in MAFIAA lawsuits as well? People should just not "cheap out" and get a seperate internet account, and a separate IP address, for each user in the household, including a guest account? Or maybe a better argument would be that censoring based upon IP address is ineffective and wrong because of the fact that multiple websites can use the same IP address.

Re:That "false positive" was BS

[gl4ss]

that's a false positive by unintentional association.

you can't arrest everyone on the block if someone smokes weed on the balcony...

Re:That "false positive" was BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Blocking shared IPs is not a good response and only proves governments better keep their hands off our Internet.

Here in Russia we've had even more hilarious event, when newly-created block list of sites harmful to children got an entry for a drug-related blog hosted on blogspot.com. You know, that service hosted by Google and sharing IP with other blogs and bunch of other Google services?..

Re:That "false positive" was BS

[Anonymous Coward]

When government hits 1200 sites because 1 is misbehaving, there is a problem with how the government is behaving.

Re:That "false positive" was BS

[JasterBobaMereel]

The problem is that the solution to a website offering illegal material is not to shut down the website, prosecute the owners of the website but get the ISP to block it ...?

If the material is illegal then prosecute them, if it is not then don't block it ....

Re:That "false positive" was BS

[Chelloveck]

Prosecution takes time and is costly. Worse, you might lose the case. It's much easier to put a site on the double-secret block list and not have to fool around with all that pesky "due process" stuff.

We only put bad guys on the block list. Therefore, if you're on the block list you must be a bad guy. Transparency and due process hurt the community by letting bad guys slip off the lists on technicalities.

Re:That "false positive" was BS

[countach]

Err.. what are you waffling on about? If every web site had its own IP address, we'd run out of IP addresses by dinner time. There is nothing wrong with sharing IP addresses, and you shouldn't be penalised for doing so. In fact, its darnright community minded to not take one for yourself.

Re:That "false positive" was BS

[gnoshi]

False positive or not, it does make apparent the issue that blocking is happening. That itself is something which warrants consideration, particularly about who makes the decisions, what the recourse is for those affected, how appeal and review are conducted, and how public accountability is handled.

If the block list is secret, then it is difficult to know if political material, 'morally questionable' material, etc is being blocked. That should be a cause for concern.

(By the way, I'm not anti-gun-control, anti-taxation, pro-revolution, libertarian or convinced Australia is on a long slow march to authoritarianism).

Re:That "false positive" was BS

[ras]

You sir, miss the point.

The point wasn't that government has no business blocking that site, or that there wasn't a good reason to do so, or that the web site didn't deserve to be blocked.

The point is that we are a democracy, so when our government censors something like this it must be done in a transparent and open way. What happened is that suddenly a IP address disappeared. When the ISP's were asked why it disappeared they said they were gagged. When the government departments were asked each only volunteered it had nothing to do with them. It is very unlikely all of them didn't know, they were just not saying. And now we know who ordered it to be blocked, we still don't know the specifics.

It's not just that it's a bad way to run a democracy. It's a bad way to run things in general. A whole pile of legit web sites were blocked. They weren't notified. When they noticed they didn't know why, and thus could not take steps to fix them problem. And once it was fixed they had no way of getting the block removed. This is just plain dumb. The person who thought it was a good way to do things needs to be dragged over the coals.

WTF Happened to Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did Australia become such a cesspool of tyrannical liberalism? I thought Aussies were supposed to be self-sufficient and tough as nails, but instead they've become a bunch of crying hipsters so afraid of their own shadows that they can't and won't even defend themselves against bad guys.

Re: WTF Happened to Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

We sold out to America.

Huh?

[sirwired]

I am arguing nothing of the sort. Instead, I'm arguing that if you want to have multiple users share the same IP address, you need to be prepared to find, and shut, individual users if informed of wrongdoing. If you ignore such requests, you shouldn't be surprised if you get spanked for it.

Re:Huh?

[Immerman]

So when the Chinese government informs a US ISP of the fact that they're hosting a "bad" Free Tibet website, they should immediately shut down that site for the sake of all the other sites hosted at the same IP that the Chinese government could care less about?

The world is a big place, allowing governments to shut down foreign websites they disagree with is a great way to get an internet populated by nothing but cute cat videos. For that matter there's probably a governement out there somewhere that considers cats to be symbols of evil that may promote social upheval, so those will have to go too.

I believe "collateral damage" would be better

[sirwired]

While you can't arrest everyone on the block if somebody smokes weed, if your apartment building is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, don't be surprised if you lose your landlord permit. And yes, perfectly innocent tenants get thrown out when that happens.

Re:I believe "collateral damage" would be better

[cheekyjohnson]

And... that somehow justifies this? It certainly doesn't in my mind.

I don't see the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no oversight or appeals process, and already a false positive event has resulted in some 1,200 innocent websites being blocked from Australians viewing them. Sounds ideal, right?

I can see nothing wrong with that...

Then again, I'm in Australia, maybe "someone" is blocking me from see it.

Re:I don't see the problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you.
Better to live in Afghanistan. Least you can get a pretty GIRL (as opposed to woman)

Speaking of sites

[justthinkit]

Speaking of sites. Is there a list of the sites they were temporarily blocking?

I am Australian and don't live there anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure "liberalism" in the US-sense has anything to do with it. But you have the "tyrannical" part right ok. Australia has become a control-freak country, modelled after the control-freak UK/US amalgam. Government controls *everything*. You get fined if you put your rubbish out on the wrong day. You get fined if you spit on the sidewalk. Australia is no longer free because government there is just too damn efficient at control. I now choose to live in rag-tag messed up countries, like in Southern Europe, where they couldn't control jack shit even if they wanted to.

Kangaroos running Australia

[WaffleMonster]

It always starts with "think of the children". Sad to see Australia returning to its roots as a penal colony.

why

[fazey]

Why is it that if a private organization does something they are held accountable. But if the feds, or local law enforcement do something illegal its completely okay because there is no one to blame. This is why they keep doing it... there needs to be some kind of repercussion. Put one of THEM in jail. Such one sided bullshit.

The Government will own the NBN

[Anonymous Coward]

The Government will own the NBN and be able to do what it wants, its their network. Steven Conroy is an evil manipulative conman who wants to "save the children" by blocking anything the Government doesn't agree with