I for one am outraged!I don't believe so... (Assuming they do what they claim.)
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.
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.
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.
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.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!
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:
and combinations of the above. Where there's a will, there's is a way.
- Encryption
- Tunneling
- Anonymous proxies
- Changing protocols
- Peer-to-Peer
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.
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.
19 Extra‑territorial application
(1) Unless the contrary intention appears, this Schedule extends to acts, omissions, matters and things outside Australia.
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.
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.
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.
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.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!!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?