No opt-out web filtering

[saibot]

https/ssl offshore proxy servers. pretty simple solution. Would be interesting to see how the legislature would classify and block access to secure proxies as they are not a publication.

[MindExpansion]

https/ssl offshore proxy servers. pretty simple solution. Would be interesting to see how the legislature would classify and block access to secure proxies as they are not a publication.

While these might not be illegal now, if the legislation goes through it probably wouldnt be hard for them to add proxies to legislation because they may be used to get around the filters. I think the gov is too smart to waste the time or $ setting this up only to leave open such an easy and easily blocked solution.

You would actually have to know how to bury your way out manually I think.

Peace

[Torsten]

I presume you think there is a contradiction?

Consider this: An individual from the generation 70+ may have spent his/her whole life fighting for civil liberties by the means known to that person. The internet comes along and is suddenly the place where you ahve to do everything from banking to getting decent news. But at 70 it is difficult to learn new things like internet, let alone the intricacies of circumventing censorship filters. So, a person who has all his/her life fought for civil liberties and has made every reasonable effort to stay ahead suddenly finds themselves in a position where these freedoms are no longer available and the ways to fight for them beyond the understanding and control of that person.

Freedoms should be universal for those who strive for them, but don't expect them handed on a platter or even forced on you. My original comment was directly inreference to the fact that if someone can read, but choses not to then they don't deserve those freedoms. In fact, in most cases it is those who will jump on the bandwagon of curtailing freedoms.

[Chiral]

I have a friend in Dubai, and there is very very heavy censorship of the wwwank over there..a very clever way around this although slightly time consuming, is to send the info you require via an overseas friend to your e-mail. I have sent countless e-mails to this friend there so they can view topics of interest to them without having to use the net so much. Although you can't send them links obviosly but you can copy cut paste and send the info that way.

They are happy with this, and it doesn't take me much time as I'm usually reading the same material they are anyway.

Just a thought.

H.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Hunab Ku

[MindExpansion]

But how much more of a pain in the arse is that when the idea of the web is constant, instant and easily accessible information made freely available to all?

Peace

[Yeti101]

a very clever way around this although slightly time consuming, is to send the info you require via an overseas friend to your e-mail.

Well that does work, but I agree with M.E., what a pain in the arse. And you have to be comfortable with you overseas friend knowing what you are into. Entheo-info is OK, but I'm not going to get my friend overseas to send me the latest offering from my favotrite fetish site. And even if they get it to you, you potentially face legal difficulties for just having the material on your hard-drive.

accessible information made freely available to all

Well that's just it isn't it. We can't let people decide for themselves what they should be seeing. Apparently the only valid decision the public is alowed to make is to vote in a Labour government.

Bitterness aside, I'm aiming to pursue the matter with the Communications minister (as are many other people).

Overall, it's a pretty confusing mess of legislation. One thing I've noticed is that the same X rated material that would be blocked from the internet (and possibly illegal to possess) can be hired or purchased legally in the Territories, and possession is only specifically proscribed in certain areas of NT - that's my interpretation of the Attorny General's site at least http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/...sandmarkings#c2 Note that it does state (as Torsten already mentioned) that RC material, such as detailed instruction in crime etc is illegal to possess.

[apothecary]

This is just another one of many government initiatives founded on ignorance.

Obviously this only has the backing of the companies who will profit from it, the technical experts have not bothered voicing their disapproval so loudly because such a thing is rediculously difficult to implement.

You'd need a setup rivalling the so called Great Firewall of China.

Yea right, this will just end up as another CD just like Howards which concerned parents can go get and install on "compatible systems".

Hey Kevin Rudd, instead of internet policing systems, how about you bring us the computers in high schools you PROMISED.

[JDanger]

Hey Kevin Rudd, instead of internet policing systems, how about you bring us the computers in high schools you PROMISED.

No can do, man. We've got bankers to bail out. Thanks for the vote, though.

[Undergrounder]

well i got my friend who works for a national paper interested in this, so maybe there'll be a story in it... im surprised there isn't more widespread coverage of this in the mainstream news.

[Torsten]

Undergrounder - the mainstream media will be on the bandwagon to 'save our kids', so obviously they can't go against it.

In regards to getting around the censors, I thought it was funny that when i offered some chinese friends of mine to send them wikipedia pages they said that there is no need ... that most educated young chinese know how to get around the restrictions. I presume it is this imperfection of the great firewall of china that is driving much of the social change there.

[Undergrounder]

Undergrounder - the mainstream media will be on the bandwagon to 'save our kids', so obviously they can't go against it.

I wouldn't be so sure Torsten, no journo can resist an opportunity to bash the government. Bashing the government usually makes page 1, and that's where journos want to be. And they like using big phrases like "Rudd's New Moral Society" and "Nanny state" and "Censorship outranks Iran" and "First western country to censor the internet". It sells papers, especially if you can chuck in a little "Wasted taxpayer money" and "Oh my fucking God they're taking our Porn".

[ballzac]

I never realised that x-rated material is illegal to sell. Every single sex shop I have ever been to has sold it, including the well known chain-stores. It's bizarre. One time I asked at a sex shop if they had amyl nitrate, and got a lecture about how it's illegal. Funny then that it turns out everything else they sell except for dildos is illegal too.

[JDanger]

I never realised that x-rated material is illegal to sell. Every single sex shop I have ever been to has sold it, including the well known chain-stores. It's bizarre. One time I asked at a sex shop if they had amyl nitrate, and got a lecture about how it's illegal. Funny then that it turns out everything else they sell except for dildos is illegal too.

Rush, bongs and crackpipes have been sold in all the sex shops I remember being in. Maybe it's just Sydney...

[Yeti101]

Therein lies the beauty (in a conservative wanker sense) in cracking down on all of the above items - they are already illegal, so they don't need to change the law to restrict them, they just need to enforce it more strictly.

[apothecary]

There has been plenty of news coverage Undergrounder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7689964.stm

Just consider, we the geeks are the ones who will be implementing this if it comes down to it, and if you go look at any of the oz geek forums nobody is happy about this at all. No devils avocados, no apologists, nada.

[Undergrounder]

where Sina? there hasn't been a single Australian newspaper take it up. A single UK BBC article, a few computer mags, a couple of blog sights and a single "Age" article on some minister's coverup isn't plenty of news coverage.

[apothecary]

It's not just any BBC article. It's by their Australian correspondent. Which means the Aussie press is onto it.

I didn't have to look very hard to find this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/24/2399876.htm

Including about a hojillion comments (which is incidentally, something I really like about the new ABC news site), so people are obviously aware.

This is the funniest comment I saw:

Here is the problem with any internet filtering:

1. Cup your hands. That's the filter.

2. Pour water into your cupped hands. That's the internet.

3. Add blue dye. That's the naughty bits.

4. If any blue gets through, you lose.

I found it really amusing. In my search for local coverage I also came across these two older articles, as the saying goes "those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it".

From

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/02/16/1202760663247.html

"The program has clearly failed, despite over $15 million being spent in advertising to support it," Mr Conroy said.

Ah Mr Conroy, the joys of being in Opposition, in 3 years, someone will be making you look like a retarded monkey "the program has clearly failed, despite the $200 million being spent on implementing it" or similar quote from a Liberal MP in 2011. (Consider Howards one cost $85m)

and a crystal clear look into the future:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/...39281500,00.htm

Tom Wood, 16, claims to have broken the filters, which were released as part of the Howard (sic) government's Net Alert scheme earlier this month, within half an hour.

sic added by me. If there is any filter software that costs $85m to implement on the client side, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Chiral]

is it London Bridge...?

H.

[Undergrounder]

Yeah but that one ABC article you mention is an online-only blog, not by a journalist, but by a "production manager at an online media company in Brisbane. He blogs about censorship issues at Somebody Think Of The Children". That's as much the mainstream media as PC World.

I know that they're aware of it, I can find a few articles near the start of the year about it, but since then nothing. But in light of recent comments by computer industry people, especially how poorly its testing, you would think there would be more mainstream newstories on it at the moment.

The Tom Woods thing is an old story to do with the Howard Govt's client-side filtering software they had going about a year ago. I think that was the primary reason why the client-side filter was dropped.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Undergrounder

[Torsten]

Journalists don't determine what goes into the media, editors do. And editors toe the line. Like I said, I doubt we will see much of it in mainstream media. Censorship whinges don't sell as well as pedophilia hysteria.

[baphomet]

http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=E...;aq=-1&oq=#

[apothecary]

I'm not stressing. This is simply not feasible. Conroy will be out of a job for this, hopefully.

[Undergrounder]

Journalists don't determine what goes into the media, editors do. And editors toe the line. Like I said, I doubt we will see much of it in mainstream media. Censorship whinges don't sell as well as pedophilia hysteria.

Yes true, good point, but editor's don't toe anybody's line, as you said, they sell papers. In fact they delight in attacking the Govt. And the specific paper i'm thinking of isn't the Daily Telegraph, they don't buy much into hysterical crap reporting. This is kind of a moot point since i'm thinking of a specific journalist, a specific paper and a specific bureau chief/editor.

The only thing stopping articles coming out IMO is there's no new "news" in the story. But a good journo will make the news, get a controversial comment, find a leaked memo, do a bit of research, and create the story. Given Rudd's new anti-drinking laws, alco-pops, his friendlyness with China, internet censorship and the Economics crisis, you have to wonder if we're heading down the path of socialism ourselves? At the very least Rudd seems pretty convinced of his moral outlook and is happy to remake the country in his own image. The "nanny state" thing has a bit of bite in the current climate. Throw in Rudd's own comments that China "should have nothing to fear by open digital links with the rest of the world" and there's a bit of stuff to get started. Back a pollie into a corner, get a good quote and off you go.

The trick is in the story. Sell it as a failed Rudd policy, or as part of a wider social/moral agenda and the story becomes about the Govt, and not about pedos.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Undergrounder

[Yeti101]

Some more relevant links as the story unfolds:

Filtering out the fury: how government tried to gag web censor critics (SMH) http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/bizt...4351430987.html

The latest from the Electronic Frontiers Association http://www.efa.org.au/2008/10/25/the-mark-newton-letter/

and

The Mark Newton Letter http://users.on.net/~newton/ellis-2008-10-20.pdf (you all should read this!)

[Auxin]

Journalists don't determine what goes into the media, editors do. And editors toe the line. Like I said, I doubt we will see much of it in mainstream media. Censorship whinges don't sell as well as pedophilia hysteria.

Your absolutely right.

A major problem is that the sensationalist pedophilia hysteria will only be put forth in the most ridiculously absurdly simplistic and shallow way, ie. 'those sick pedos are trading sick images somewhere on the net so we must protect the children by filtering their crud out, even if at great expense, because our children are worth it'. That sort of argument will grab headlines, will get support of people, and in the most pitifully intellectually shallow way it does make some sense- discourage and bust pedos by filtering out their crud.

Heres another perspective to consider, one that supports free speech, you can even use it for the pedophilia hysteria angle:

By putting filters in place which have a possibility of abuse (existence of actual abuse is irrelevant, the fear is enough) every hacker in oz will get to work on systems to bypass all filtering and monitoring with rapidly progressing intricacy and innovations on encryption technologies so folks can get their news, wholesome lesbian porn, and drug safety info despite any countermeasures put forth by the government. These technologies which are the inevitable result of censorship will be an unprecedented boon to pedophiles because legions of relatively law abiding hackers and programmers will be creating technologies which make censorship an impossibility and encryption strong and freely available- a haven for serious criminals too, like the online pedo porn collectors. Currently there is great freedom on the net and consequently very little wide spread need for intensive security and encryption to circumvent surveillance and as a result it is very easy to catch people who are doing things like accessing child porn websites or trading it on P2P networks. Freedom for the masses, including political rebels, people interested in drug saftey, and people into kinky but moral porn actually ensures ease in busting pedos.

Actually the fact that pedos are so easy to catch, but still rarely hunted down, just proves that the governments dont really give a rats ass about busting the pervs- in fact they need them there as boogey men to fuel draconian laws like this.

No Web Filtering = Easy to bust pedophiles!

Web Filtering = Encouragement of creating environment where nothing can be filtered.

Conclusion: This has nothing whatsoever to do with busting pedos or protecting people and everything to do with funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to friends of politicians and companies in which politicians have financial ties.