Internet Censorship - Page 3

bdave351 · 19-03-2009, 12:58 PM

Australia "secret" ACMA blacklist has just been leaked.

Despite Senator Conroys claims that it would never target politics (like the abortion site) and was only about evil evil stuff...........heres a qoute from the SMH

"But about half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist."

Speaks for itself really. This 1090 long list that Conroy already wants at 10000 for the mandatory filter and god knows how many of the opt out dynamic one (200,000,000 maybe given the scope)

ch33z1l · 19-03-2009, 01:10 PM

Beat me to it dave...

Another stuff up for the government, they have blocked a QLD dentist's website because that URL used to be owned by a site selling adult videos, and to make matters worse he is on the QLD dental board.

Brent · 19-03-2009, 01:44 PM

One of the (many) problems with this is that even if you accept at face value that the intention behind this legislation is for the good of the kiddies, as opposed to a more sinister attempt at censorship for political purposes, its a government-run initiative. It thus is guaranteed that it will get stuffed up. There is nothing surer.

The original good intentions will be lost in a mire of ineptitude, poor system design, loose terms of reference & system faults. So, you'll end up with innocent sites that are inadvertently bloked, dodgy sites that sail right on through, ways to circumvent the whole thing, and an inevitable widening of scope over time. If anyone reckons that this will stop at kiddie porn sites, you'll be very much mistaken.

Lynch'd · 19-03-2009, 01:59 PM

Wow! That list is going to create a ____ storm! (as KRudd so eloquently puts it). After having a quick browse through it, it's no wonder they didn't want it going public. The list goes far beyond the realm of protecting the kids from adult material.

balthazarr · 19-03-2009, 02:29 PM

A tour operator? A dentist?

:

Just shows how insidious this ridiculous filter can be... remember people, it's a slippery slope.

The list contains entries as far back as 1 June 2007, how many of those links are still active? (I checked a few, and they've all 404'd.) The current scheme is clearly a waste of resources, let alone the all-encompassing über filter the government is trying to implement.

EDIT -
If it truly is about the kids, and not about political censorship (political free speech is about the only form of free speech recognised in Australia), why make the list secret? Sure, hide the URLs, but publish details about why each site has been blocked, and what criteria were used to determine that the site is worthy of being black listed.

bdave351 · 19-03-2009, 03:04 PM

And BETFAIR is on there as well..........

For those that dont know BETFAIR is a multi billion dollar international company that has been allowed to operate in Australia.......talk about restriction of trade as its a direct competitor to the TAB.

Under what possible angle was it blocked as illegal content?

JMO · 19-03-2009, 05:12 PM

How can I see the list?

Kamshaaft · 19-03-2009, 08:45 PM

It's mostly CP sites, so fair's fair in that regard with the ACMA fining people that publicly display the list and the CP site addresses on it, but there are still many sites that sure as all hell should NOT be on it. The fact that Totse.com (Which had a main role in being a freedom of speech, information, and opinion board with pretty much no retraints or censorship as long as no laws were broken) is on the list isn't very reassuring. It's pointless anyway, as the owner of the site moved on to other things after 20 years of Totse.com and it is no longer on the internet anyway.

Funnily enough, you can see a link to the list of banned sites on the mentally disabled offspring of some of the Totse.com community, Zoklet.net, which is hosted outside of Australia.

Kamshaaft · 19-03-2009, 08:55 PM

I'm not going to post a link to a thread with the link in it here, so just search that site for a thread with the "australisn blacklist" in the title. Make sure you spell it with the error and all.

Work Horse · 27-03-2009, 11:05 AM

Anyone watch Q&A on the ABC last night?

It would seem all the hysteria about the internet filler has been generated by misinformation. ACMA plans to block the same stuff it has been blocking from other forms of media for the last nine years. It is simply trying to bring the internet in line with print and broadcast media.

Sure you could probably get around any filter, but who wants to see sites promoting rape, incest and pedophilia?

Personally I will wave whatever rights I have to view such filth. IMHO there are so many other issues worthy of the passion displayed in this thread.

GS608 · 27-03-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Anyone watch Q&A on the ABC last night?

It would seem all the hysteria about the internet filler has been generated by misinformation. ACMA plans to block the same stuff it has been blocking from other forms of media for the last nine years. It is simply trying to bring the internet in line with print and broadcast media.

Sure you could probably get around any filter, but who wants to see sites promoting rape, incest and pedophilia?

Personally I will wave whatever rights I have to view such filth. IMHO there are so many other issues worthy of the passion displayed in this thread.

of course they're going to say that! they want everyone on their side.

do a bit of research into it and you'll find its a lot more sinister than just bringing the net into line with print and tv media

RG · 27-03-2009, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Anyone watch Q&A on the ABC last night?

It would seem all the hysteria about the internet filler has been generated by misinformation. ACMA plans to block the same stuff it has been blocking from other forms of media for the last nine years. It is simply trying to bring the internet in line with print and broadcast media.

Sure you could probably get around any filter, but who wants to see sites promoting rape, incest and pedophilia?

Personally I will wave whatever rights I have to view such filth. IMHO there are so many other issues worthy of the passion displayed in this thread.

Red China claims the Tiananmen Square massacres never happened too, do a google search there of that and all you will see is info about it as a tourist destination.

So just because they say something doesn't make it true.

balthazarr · 27-03-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Anyone watch Q&A on the ABC last night?

I didn't see it, so I can't comment specifically on the content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

It would seem all the hysteria about the internet filler has been generated by misinformation. ACMA plans to block the same stuff it has been blocking from other forms of media for the last nine years. It is simply trying to bring the internet in line with print and broadcast media.

If that's true - why the secrecy? As I said in an earlier post - by all means hide the URLs, but make public the reasoning behind blocking certain content.

Besides, the Internet is different to traditional broadcast media... traditional media is broadcast, sent out for all to see. You choose what you see on the internet - you click a link and the page is served.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would object to blocking child pornography, but if the list is kept secret, there is no accountability. If the government is not accountable, it can no longer be said to be a democracy.

There are reports that the filter will block sites containing information on abortion and anti-government, for example. Depending on how the filter is implemented, it might even block this thread, for even mentioning such topics as abortion, child pornography, government filters, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Sure you could probably get around any filter, but who wants to see sites promoting rape, incest and pedophilia?

I don't. And if there was some magical filter that was 100% effective, 100% accurate, had no detrimental effect on speed and there was complete transparency from the government as to what they are blocking and why then maybe I would approve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Personally I will wave whatever rights I have to view such filth. IMHO there are so many other issues worthy of the passion displayed in this thread.

How nice that YOU choose to waive YOUR rights. Maybe other's do not choose to have their rights waived.

I think that you're not seeing the bigger picture... it's not about protecting children or internet filth or even censorship. It's about the fundamentals of democracy... the government must be accountable to the people. Of course, there are areas where secrecy is warranted - defence, intelligence, etc. - but censorship is not one of them.

Work Horse · 27-03-2009, 06:35 PM

Perhaps view the show for yourselves before determining I; am being fooled, have done no research on the topic or miss the big picture.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2521164.htm

All the questions raised in this thread are answered by the minster responsible. And not in some slick spin doctored presentation. The show is live, the questions are asked by the public. I'm not saying you have to believe everything that's said. I had similar reservations to many in this thread. I am less hysterical about the issue after watching this.

balthazarr · 27-03-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Perhaps view the show for yourselves before determining I; am being fooled, have done no research on the topic or miss the big picture.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2521164.htm

All the questions raised in this thread are answered by the minster responsible. And not in some slick spin doctored presentation. The show is live, the questions are asked by the public. I'm not saying you have to believe everything that's said. I had similar reservations to many in this thread. I am less hysterical about the issue after watching this.

From the transcript available at the URL you provided:
"STEPHEN CONROY: Well, the censorship - sorry, the classifications board, actually that's its job. That's what it does and I would agree if people said that they should have the sole responsibility and that's something I'm happy to work through with ACMA because ACMA have admitted now that there's at least one mistake that they've made on the list, at least one out of the 1300 names, and I think that that's just..."

Interesting Freudian slip there from the Senator. But he's basically admitting one of the fundamental flaws of the system - mistakes. Mistakes happen, and if the list is secret and the process by which sites are added is secret, how is anyone to know?

So a dentist's site was added because the "Russian Mob" hacked his site and added banned material.

How long was the dentist's site on the list? How much did the dentist's business suffer? What would have happened if the blacklist wasn't published by wikileaks - when would the dentist's site be removed from the list?

Remember that the current system does not block content, it merely prevents Australian sites from publishing links to a blacklisted URL.

Under the new scheme, the dentist's site would be blocked. (Yes, you can bypass the filters, but I'd say 90+% of average Joes and Janes won't.)

What if your business relied on your website? In one fell swoop, ACMA can shut you down, and it's all done in secret, which means there will probably be no avenue of appeal.

At the moment, any individual can approach ACMA and ask for a URL to be added to the blacklist... so your business competitor, estranged spouse, etc. can approach ACMA, claim content on your site is offensive and ACMA is obliged to investigate... wasting taxpayer's money. The new system - who knows?

Work Horse · 29-03-2009, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I am less hysterical about the issue after watching this.

I'm guessing your not balthazarr

balthazarr · 02-04-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I'm guessing your not balthazarr

The oddity of quoting yourself aside... I wouldn't say I'm hysterical. It's a serious issue, one that goes beyond mere censorship. If people can't get that, then we as a (supposedly free) society have a problem.

Interestingly, the Honourable Minister seems to be heeding some of the outcry:

"The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has begun distancing himself from his controversial internet censorship policy in what one internet industry engineer has dubbed "the great walkback of 2009".

Senator Conroy has long said his policy would introduce compulsory ISP-level filters of the Australian Communications and Media Authority's blacklist of prohibited websites. But last night, he said the mandatory filters would be restricted to content that has been "refused classification" (RC). ..."

From: http://www.theage.com.au/news/techno...261622790.html

It's a start, I guess.

JMO · 08-04-2009, 09:46 AM

With the government announcing the fibre to home project, does anyone else think that they plan on installing the filters as part of the scheme? It will be a government owned company building it after all.

Work Horse · 08-04-2009, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by balthazarr

The oddity of quoting yourself aside... I wouldn't say I'm hysterical. It's a serious issue, one that goes beyond mere censorship. If people can't get that, then we as a (supposedly free) society have a problem.

Interestingly, the Honourable Minister seems to be heeding some of the outcry:

"The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has begun distancing himself from his controversial internet censorship policy in what one internet industry engineer has dubbed "the great walkback of 2009".

Senator Conroy has long said his policy would introduce compulsory ISP-level filters of the Australian Communications and Media Authority's blacklist of prohibited websites. But last night, he said the mandatory filters would be restricted to content that has been "refused classification" (RC). ..."

From: http://www.theage.com.au/news/techno...261622790.html

It's a start, I guess.

I defend your right to hold whatever opinion you wish balthazarr.

Personally when I am forming my opinion, where possible I go directly to the source for my information.

In this case if you listen to other commentators opinions of the government, their opinion will colour yours.

Personally, I listen to what the government says and make my own mind up.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2521164.htm
http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episo...59#watchonline

Every question raised in this thread is answered in these interviews directly by the minister himself. I'm not saying you have to believe everything he says. I'm saying form your opinion based on what is actually proposed.

It's futile discussing what a newspaper article or some third party claims the minster is or is not doing.

bdave351 · 08-04-2009, 12:10 PM

Unfortunately the Senator has given wildly different answers at different times to the same questions.

In writting, in response to questions on notice in parliment and via the ACMA.

Its been very clear to those following this the whole time that the Senator has no clear idea and is making the policy up as he goes with changes depending on who he is speaking to at the time.

Work Horse · 08-04-2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdave351

Unfortunately the Senator has given wildly different answers at different times to the same questions.

In writting, in response to questions on notice in parliment and via the ACMA.

Its been very clear to those following this the whole time that the Senator has no clear idea and is making the policy up as he goes with changes depending on who he is speaking to at the time.

Excellent bdave351, I reckon we are much better off holding the Senator accountable for what he actually says.

Do you have an example of the Senator "giving wildly different answers at different times to the same questions".

bdave351 · 08-04-2009, 01:14 PM

I can point you to a variety of different discussions on his flapping about but the single biggest discussion has been the more than 2000 page thread on whirlpool
Most current discussion being

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum...?t=1178006&p=5

Since you have a few ABC links heres a discussion on the general proposal
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2536879.htm

Some great examples of the Senators backflips being in the running of the trial and commencement dates.
His statement that it will include P2P filtering (Strangely quiet on that one now as it cant be done)
That it is never going to include political content (Already proven that it does)
That gambling wont be targeted after suggesting from a independant that he would support it initially if it blocked them (But turns out it already on the list)

Basically that it will "Almost exclusively" target content that is refused classification. The almost part is the main worry, given its abuse already.

Can I also point out that people have tested a variety of the leaked blacklists from around the world (including ours) and found almost ZERO kiddie porn content. Its not the kind of stuff that sits on the http side of the internet and we wouldnt be doing our job real well if it was left sitting there when it was discovered.

Law Enforcement funding aimed at fighting the bad things is the answer.
Not hiding it behind a filter that can be used for any purpose.
And Law Enforcement is being cut, including the few million pulled from the AFP kiddie squad. The 44million initialy earmarked for this should be given to appropriate enforcement agencies to go get the bad guys, not used to stick heads in the sand in a pointless scheme that can be abused.

Work Horse · 08-04-2009, 10:42 PM

There are no examples of the Senator, "giving wildly different answers at different times to the same questions",in your post.

The whirlpool discussion is certianly anti Senator Conroy, but that's not evidence it's opinion.

As for the Mark Newton article, again it is opinion. As Mark Newton is a lobbyist and mouth piece for ISP's I'm unsurprised by his view.

What statement on P2P, do you have a link?

Political material on the black list? If you refer to the anti-abortion site, I believe it was offensive images that got a page included. I can not believe anyone honestly believes the government was trying to influence debt about abortion. It just defies logic when you can Google any amount of information about abortion.

Gaming sites? Not on the list misinformation I think.

I have viewed the wikileaks blacklist, it appears to be mostly child porn.

I agree there are many other things the government could and should do if it was serious about combating illegal content on the internet.

flappist · 08-04-2009, 10:50 PM

Solidarity brother, maintain the rage............

futura97 · 08-04-2009, 10:58 PM

In my opinion, there is no way anyone can filter content on the internet. If you got half a brain, there are hundreds of work arounds...

But honestly, I should be able to look at sites I want to, and not have it decided to me by politicians.

<sarcasm> I'm so glad labour got into parliament</sarcasm>... Bunch of ()&^%ers

bdave351 · 09-04-2009, 01:22 AM

Work Horse,

I can only repeat that the senator has given wildly different answers and even now does NOT have a clear picture of what this 'filter' will encompass.
Its been discussed to death over those 2000 pages, and yes a anti conroy bias is there now, for a very good reason. These people had little idea who he was before this yet he has really done a bang up job of disgracing his political party.

Try http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/...rnet_Filtering for a summary of the media releases, or read hansard and compare that to what he says then. Oh and dont forget he calls everyone who doesnt support the filter a kiddie fiddler in the senate.

The Mark Newton piece is opinion yes, informed one given he is a network engineer. And remind me what ISP's gain from opposing this? If its going to work so well then they loose nothing and get some free equipment from the Govt. They oppose it because it wont work (Thats all the major ISP's except iPrimus if you want to count them as major)

And you may note the only ISPs the senator accepted for his "open and robust" trial have never been heard of by 99% of the country, already offered filter products in most cases and cater to bussiness. Even running the filter on this least testing of possible cases the esteemed senator refused to state what constitutes success in the trials.

P2P - The Senator made a statement just before Christmas....which he has since backtracked on as he really doesnt have a clue. http://www.news.com.au/technology/st...014239,00.html

Political site. The example of the abortion site is right and amongst the political and religious ones. And yes it doe defy belief - because the system works only on complaints. So even if the Govt has the best intentions the ACMA staffers have to follow the rules set them. And those rules make a huge amount of perfectly legal stuff 'refused classification' (not thats not illegal) on the net.
And why was there any need to issue take down notices to the discussion of the abortion site? http://www.somebodythinkofthechildre...tion-web-page/

Gaming site WERE on the list. Betfair, pokerstars etc. It sounds like you have seen the list and if so they and others are there.
* and that doesnt even start to get us into video gaming since massive amounts of games will be considered "refused classification" on the net and block if people complain.

Ok so you have seen the list. Have you seen the testing someone did of it? Do you really think there is any working kiddie stuff on there? No. Nil. Zip. Zilch. Nada. When something that bad is occassionally found on the http side then its up to law enforcement to REMOVE it (not filter head in sand it) and try to get those responsible. But even when the content doesnt exist anymore then the sites stay on the list. Thus the poor Brisbane dentist whos website was hacked once years ago is STILL on the list despite being competely innocous for a long time.

Your right there is many things the Govt should do that might actually work. Because even if they got the list perfect every time, it will still slow the whole net down, cost lots, protect zero kids and be able to be bypassed in under 30 seconds by a 10 year old.
Put the money where it should be, in law enforcement.

bdave351 · 09-04-2009, 01:32 AM

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/652...ductatrial.jpg

Sorry for the long rant before, but this just sums it all up so well with a chuckle at the people we elect.

Bossxr8 · 10-04-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by futura97

In my opinion, there is no way anyone can filter content on the internet. If you got half a brain, there are hundreds of work arounds...

But honestly, I should be able to look at sites I want to, and not have it decided to me by politicians.

<sarcasm> I'm so glad labour got into parliament</sarcasm>... Bunch of ()&^%ers

The Libs were the ones who came up with the internet filter idea weren't they?

bdave351 · 10-04-2009, 02:16 PM

They ran a lab trial, found it was a huge failure and ditched it.

Unfortunately RUDD doesnt accept the previous failure so is spending all our money again to run another trial with the same software/hardware......but with no set conditions prior to the trial to show whats a fail so it can be declared a success no matter what.

Work Horse · 10-04-2009, 07:46 PM

Support for the internet filter is bipartisan. Between them the two major parties represent most of the Australian population. That's not to say most Australians support a filter, but as their elected representatives do it will go ahead, that's how democracy works.

The Rudd government went to the last election promising to do it, so they have a mandate. In fact if they don't try and do it they will rightly be accused of breaking an election promise.

I'm still on the fence with the whole idea, and will wait with interest for the government trail. If others are hoping party politics will change the governments course of action they need to think of another strategy IMHO.