Internet Filtering: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism

[chops_a_must]

Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism

I don't believe so ... (Assuming they do what they claim.)

I for one am outraged!

That's what this is all about...

Watch sexual assault cases go through the roof...

 

[white_crane]

Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism

I don't believe so ... (Assuming they do what they claim.)

From what I can tell given the complete lack of information about this, they are planning on banning all illegal/prohibited content.

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_90102

Acma reckons that all pr0n is prohibited online...

I tried to search for actual laws relating to pr0n online but nearly every reference has something to do about child pr0n.

Look at the above link, it says

"actual sexual activity, child pornography, depictions of bestiality, "

I would have thought child pr0n and bestiality would be covered under sexual activity

This only applies to content that is hosted in or provided from Australia.

 

[DJZ]

Wysiwyg you really are Ignorant to the extent to which this could be used arent you?

We live in a supposedly free country, free countries do not censor the media, and right now nothing really truthful comes from the mainstream media, its always slanted and biased. The internet is the only place you can find other view points, the Government already monitors anyone who visits muslim based website, even al jazeera, so will those be banned? Why shouldn't we be able to access information from anywhere freely anyway? Its our right isn't it?

This bill is abhorrent, and goes against everything this country stands for!

Why do people trust our government so much?

 

[steve999]

Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism

This only applies to content that is hosted in or provided from Australia.

I could be wrong but my understanding is that this applies to all sites, it's just that the acma can't currently do much about overseas sites.

Note that for R18+ the content only has to contain "intense adult themes", not necessarily naked people.

 

[white_crane]

Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism

I could be wrong but my understanding is that this applies to all sites, it's just that the acma can't currently do much about overseas sites.

Note that for R18+ the content only has to contain "intense adult themes", not necessarily naked people.

Check this link
http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310147

If you read the section 'What will ACMA do?', it basically states that if the prohibited material is hosted elsewhere, it will only be put on pr0n filters. Illegal content, on the other hand, will be pursued under the law.

Back to the original topic:
However, this is the current policy and not part of the new cyber-safety policy. Incidentally, I can't find the actual cyber-safety policy. Obviously the government doesn't want people to know about it. It's possible that they have not fully developed the policy yet, but it would seem that they are being deliberately vague about it.

 

[steve999]

Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism

Check this link
http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310147

If you read the section 'What will ACMA do?', it basically states that if the prohibited material is hosted elsewhere, it will only be put on pr0n filters. Illegal content, on the other hand, will be pursued under the law.

Back to the original topic:
However, this is the current policy and not part of the new cyber-safety policy. Incidentally, I can't find the actual cyber-safety policy. Obviously the government doesn't want people to know about it. It's possible that they have not fully developed the policy yet, but it would seem that they are being deliberately vague about it.

It is hard to tell what they actually intend to do...

I'm a bit confused about the prohibited vs illegal stuff... But back on topic , my point was that if they do go ahead with this filter that they will probably filter out all R18+ etc from overseas. So although ACMA currently only adds those sites to the pr0n filters... They would apply the pr0n filters to everybodies connection.

http://www.efa.org.au/censorship/mandatory-isp-blocking/#SS_4b

There are clear indications, including from the Senator’s vague but frequent reference to “inappropriate” material, that the clean feed might mandate the filtering of R18+ rated material. For instance, the Labor Herald carried a Q&A stating that “Labor will require ISPs to filter out R, RC and X rated material as part of a clean feed for home internet connections.”[9b]

In response to an earlier enquiry by EFA, a relevant Labor Party policy adviser stated that Labor’s system would block R18+ content hosted on overseas sites that had been the subject of a complaint and had been classified by ACMA and that the existing legislation, which does not apply to R18+ content hosted overseas, would be changed accordingly.

 

[Smurf1976]

We live in a supposedly free country, free countries do not censor the media, and right now nothing really truthful comes from the mainstream media, its always slanted and biased. The internet is the only place you can find other view points, the Government already monitors anyone who visits muslim based website, even al jazeera, so will those be banned? Why shouldn't we be able to access information from anywhere freely anyway? Its our right isn't it?

This bill is abhorrent, and goes against everything this country stands for!

Precisely. What this ends up with is total government control of ALL news you hear about anything with the exception of those few events you personally see happening.

I wouldn't be surprised to see ASF blocked given that there's plenty on this site to falsely trigger a filter. Yes I'm being serious.

Likewise it isn't stretching the mind too far to consider that government would love to block any site explaining how the banking system works. I think it was Henry Ford who noted what would happen if the general public worked that one out. And if not for the internet, most who know the answer to that one would never have discovered it.

I've seen plenty of protests on everything from dams to education to factories to nightclubs. And there has always been one fudamental point there and that is freedom of speech. It's 20 years last month since the mass arrests in Salamanca Place (Hobart) over gay law reform, something the Council has long since accepted as the wrong thing to have done. But now we're proposing outright censorship of practically everything. Not what I'd call progress in a so-called free society.

 

[theasxgorilla]

Re: Australia heads further towards totalitarianism

Letsee...

• Cost goes up (user has to pay for this somehow)
• Latency goes up (gotta inspect traffic to see if it's naughty or nice)
• Risk of false positives goes up (www.coleSEXpress.com.au is a good example)
• The internet is more than WWW

There are a heap of ways of avoiding this 'mandatory filtering' including:

• Encryption
• Tunneling
• Anonymous proxies
• Changing protocols
• Peer-to-Peer

and combinations of the above. Where there's a will, there's is a way.

It's just like the war on drugs, or the war on terror, or reds under the bed; might have sounded plausible at the time but history shows just how naieve we really were at the time.

m.

Exactly. People will find ways around it. Its a waste of money. Of course the Internet has been like a great big fat maturity test for governments and corporate interests all over the world...could they actually resist the temptation to get their hands on it and take control of it in some way.

Well done Australia, you scored an F...FAIL.

 

[steve999]

Some further information I found, which could imply that even MA15+ content might be blocked for all users.

Read the following and see what you think:
http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310554/isp-level_internet_content_filtering_trial-report.pdf

Under Chapter 2 - Compilation of Test Data, they refer to the 3 categories of URLs used in the test: illegal, inappropriate & innocuous. Category 1 is the illegal set that will be blocked for all users.

The Category 1 index of URLs was created from the ACMA prohibited content list. In accordance with Schedule 5 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, this list contains URLS that link to internet content hosted outside Australia for ACMA is satisfied is prohibited or potentially prohibited. Prohibited and potentially prohibited content is defined in clauses 20 and 21 of Schedule 7 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and may include content in the range MA15+ to RC.

(Also note the quality of the grammar in the above quote

Schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act is here
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/sch7.html

Clauses 20 & 21 refer to what is prohibited and Clause 19 says that this also applies to content outside of Australia.

19 Extra‑territorial application

(1) Unless the contrary intention appears, this Schedule extends to acts, omissions, matters and things outside Australia.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Is it not disturbing that websites/ISP know your location and surfing visits via an IP address.Jeez the cookie implants are bad enough .

 

[mayk]

Will I be in minority to support this bill. Seeing by the outrage on this forum, it seems so, but ASF is hardly a proper sample of population. A skewed one at best.

I, for one, will support this law and will probably like it to be implemented in other countries as well.

1984, Anyone! The theory of control is as old as the first formal government. People are too dangerous to be left on their own (in theory...). Control by Religion/Law/Morality has been the norm.

Having said that, I do not like the tracking and secret spying of individuals over the Internet. It should only be made possible via court order, which is not the case right now (in US at least). Our lovely Google also keeps a record of whatever you search and share this information with USA authorities.

And anyone interested will find out that a major Internet usage policy law is been in the works in the USA, which will probably shape the Internet into a controlled form of media. Enjoy the liberty while it lasts.

 

[Aussiejeff]

I find it verrrry interestink that Minister Big Brother PURPOSELY demanded that the bustling city of Launceston in Tasmania be the location for the filtering trial. Smurf, why did you not know this? Did you protest in the streets?

Anyway, the executive summary shows that trial users reported between 2%-78% network performance degradation, averaging around 30% degradation. In LAUNCESTON, for chrissakes.

One wonders what sort of network performance degradation figures they might have seen if the trial had been done in a more representative BUSY network - like, doh, SYDNEY, or MELBOURNE or BRISBANE or PERTH or ADELAIDE or CANBERRA or DARWIN.... but, LAUNCESTON??? Gimme a break, Minister!!! Obviously, the Guvmint don't want trial figures that might alarm unsuspecting Joe Public (including Joe The Plumber). No. Instead they can claim "Degradation was as low as 2%". Total garbage.



aj

PS: I fully expect to be blacklisted after my BB rant.... oh, they're coming to take me awaaaay.....

 

[Aussiejeff]

Some further information I found, which could imply that even MA15+ content might be blocked for all users.

Read the following and see what you think:
http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310554/isp-level_internet_content_filtering_trial-report.pdf

Under Chapter 2 - Compilation of Test Data, they refer to the 3 categories of URLs used in the test: illegal, inappropriate & innocuous. Category 1 is the illegal set that will be blocked for all users.



(Also note the quality of the grammar in the above quote

Schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act is here
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/sch7.html

Clauses 20 & 21 refer to what is prohibited and Clause 19 says that this also applies to content outside of Australia.

Interesting that Schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act includes this legislation:

------------------------

112 Protection from criminal proceedings--ACMA, Classification Board and Classification Review Board

(1) For the purposes of this clause, each of the following is a protected person :

(a) the ACMA;
(b) a member or associate member of the ACMA;
(c) a member of the staff of the ACMA;
(d) a consultant engaged to assist in the performance of the ACMA's broadcasting, content and datacasting functions (as defined in the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 );
(e) an officer whose services are made available to the ACMA under paragraph 55(1)(a) of the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 ;
(f) a member or temporary member of the Classification Board;
(g) a member of staff assisting the Classification Board or Classification Review Board as mentioned in section 88A of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 ;
(h) a consultant engaged to assist in the performance of the functions of the Classification Board or the functions of the Classification Review Board;
(i) an officer whose services are made available to the Classification Board under subsection 54(3) of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 ;
(j) a member of the Classification Review Board.

(2) Criminal proceedings do not lie against a protected person for or in relation to:

(a) the collection of content or material; or
(b) the possession of content or material; or
(c) the distribution of content or material; or
(d) the delivery of content or material; or
(e) the copying of content or material; or
(f) the doing of any other thing in relation to content or material;

in connection with the exercise of a power, or the performance of a function, conferred on the ACMA, the Classification Board or the Classification Review Board by this Schedule or Schedule 5 to this Act.

-------------------

So, there you have it from the horse's ars.. errr... mouth.

If you want to collect, possess, distibute, deliver, view or copy illegal or prohibited material in Oz with total impunity, just join or work for the ACMA!!

Hilarious, since even the Police are subject to criminal proceedings for "illegal or prohibited" activities (eg: numerous cops being charged with child pr0n offences).

Actually, I was very lucky to spot that section - by the time I had scrolled through to that point in the Act I was starting to fall into a deep coma from trying to read the unbeleievable legalese gobbledy-gook. This Act affects us all and should be taught in schools. Failure to pass exams on this Act should result in expulsion from society.





aj

 

[johenmo]

It's up to parents to place on their home computers some filter to eliminate what they don't want their children to see. Though I'd hope that rather than doing that they'd have a discussion with said kids about what is appropriate and why.

Some parents don't care/watch their kids and this is what's used as the reason/excuse for this action. And what about games for Xbox/PS3/etc and videos like Hostel/Saw? When will it spread to this re violence etc?

If the rationale for this infringement of our rights is to prevent paedophiles accessing online sexual activity, I doubt it will work. They will simply find other ways to secure their prey.

Too true - including the clever young PC gurus who are in para 1. They are already using a variety of methods, as provided earlier.

 

[fimmwolf]

That's it!!

I'm gonna subscribe the milky bar kid to all the gay pr0n in the world.

 

[Aussiejeff]

Forget internet filtering.... instead, digest this gem from today's news media -


"SENATOR Barnaby Joyce has tabled a collection of hardcore pornography to illustrate how easy it is to pick it up from petrol stations and corner shops".

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24524859-5005961,00.html

Presumably an Act will now be introduced to "filter" all service stations, newsagents, corner shops etc, etc, etc for "bad" content.

Next stop - **Knock, knock** on your front door. "We have Guvmint authority to enter your home and browse all printed and electronic media contained within this dwelling. We will advise you if you will be charged for possession of any content we deem to be *bad*. Our decision will be final and indefensible".

 

[derty]

Libraries will soon be issued with a list of books to be burnt.

 

[DJZ]

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Smurf1976]

I find it verrrry interestink that Minister Big Brother PURPOSELY demanded that the bustling city of Launceston in Tasmania be the location for the filtering trial. Smurf, why did you not know this? Did you protest in the streets?

Anyway, the executive summary shows that trial users reported between 2%-78% network performance degradation, averaging around 30% degradation. In LAUNCESTON, for chrissakes.

One wonders what sort of network performance degradation figures they might have seen if the trial had been done in a more representative BUSY network - like, doh, SYDNEY, or MELBOURNE or BRISBANE or PERTH or ADELAIDE or CANBERRA or DARWIN.... but, LAUNCESTON??? Gimme a break, Minister!!!

For the exact same reason that Tasmania has been used for practically every social, political and economic experiment for the past 30 years. An island with a relatively small population nowhere near big enough to change the outcome of a Federal election or harm the national economy but still big enough to make the results valid.

It's probably not widely known outside Tasmania that the recession of the "early 1990's" lasted most of the decade in this state. As late as 1998 the public meetings on the economic crisis were still in full swing whilst the rest of the country boomed. The inevitable consequence of successive Federal governments effectively blocking just about every major investment proposed in the state, an experiment they couldn't possibly try anywhere else.

It's probably even less known that Tasmania is the only Australian state where the Australian government has used the military (thankfully only in a surveillance role) against a democratically elected state government.

Looking at most indicators, Tasmania is either outright first or outright last amongst the Australian states. It's not often that Tassie sits in the middle of anything, and if it does it tends not to be for long. Either years ahead or years behind depending on what it is.

As for the lack of protests, well let's just say the usual protesters are busily trying to revive an old issue from four decades ago so they probably didn't notice the attempt to silence us all. And of course if they succeeded in their efforts then we'd be in the dark so the internet wouldn't be something we need to worry about anyway.

(Off topic but please, get over it people! The scheme was built and it's not going to be pulled down now. You may not have noticed, but we're short on power as it is and the rest of the world has decided that renewable energy is a good thing so just live with what the people decided and leave it be. Go and protest about censorship or something instead while you still can.)

Agreed about Sydney, Melbourne etc being more significant locations although they probably do have better infrastructure so it may not necessarily produce a worse technical outcome. As for Darwin, Launceston isn't much smaller so it's a similar situation there.

 

[wallyt99]

I too am bloody outraged.... I can just imagine signing up for a new internet connection....


"Great sir...thats $49.95....and would you like to watch pr0n on the internet?"

"Why yes....I think I will take the pr0n option."

"Certainly sir. That option is $79.95, and your tendency to enjoy internet pr0n has been duly noted by the government, and anyone else we choose to sell your information to. Thankyou, and have a nice day."