Telstra, Optus to start censoring the web next month

[Lord Mayonnaise]

MOST Australian internet users will have their web access censored next month after the country's two largest internet providers agreed to voluntarily block more than 500 websites from view.

Telstra and Optus confirmed they would block access to a list of child abuse websites provided by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and more compiled by unnamed international organisations from mid-year.

But internet experts have warned that the scheme is merely a "feel-good policy" that will not stop criminals from accessing obscene material online and could block websites unfairly.

The voluntary scheme was originally proposed by the Federal Government last year as part of a wider, $9.8 million scheme to encourage internet service providers to block all Refused Classification material from users as an optional service.

The Government dropped its funding for the scheme last month due to "limited interest" from the industry, but a spokesman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said a basic voluntary filter was still on track to be introduced by Telstra, Optus and two small ISPs.

"The ACMA will compile and manage a list of URLs of child abuse content that will include the appropriate subsection of the ACMA blacklist as well as child abuse URLs that are provided by reputable international organisations (to be blocked)," the spokesman said.

System Administrators Guild of Australia board member Donna Ashelford said blocking these website addresses should not affect internet speed, but was only a "cosmetic fix" that was easily circumvented by criminals.

"The effectiveness will be trivial because you're just blocking a single website address (and) a person can get around it by changing that address with one character," she said.

"Child abuse material is more likely to be exchanged on peer-to-peer networks and private networks anyway and is a matter for law enforcement."

Electronic Frontiers Association board member Colin Jacobs also expressed concern at the scheme, saying the Government and internet providers needed to be more upfront about websites being blocked and offer an appeals process for website owners who felt URLs had been blocked unfairly.

"There is a question about where the links are coming from and I'd like to know the answer to that," Mr Jacobs said.

"We've been waiting to hear details on this from the Government. It they turn out to be zealous with the type of material that is on the list then we'd want to have a discussion about ways to introduce more transparency."

http://www.news.com.au/technology/internet-filter/telstra-optus-to-begin-censoring-web-next-month/story-fn5j66db-1226079954138

Edited June 22, 2011 by Lord Mayonnaise

[tripsis]

So at the moment, the blocked sites are limited to those with content depicting child abuse. Personally, I would have thought it better to leave the websites accessible, but with some sort of flagging system set up so that whenever someone accesses one of the sites, they could be charged, seeing as viewing child pornography is already illegal under federal law. Unfortunately, now the precedent is set for more site to be censored. This country is fucked.

[Khala]

This is the first step. On the original Australia-wide banned list, they included some wikipedia entries, some youtube channels, popular online websites, drug information and nearly all free pornographic websites - funnily enough, all the paid porn websites were kept off the list.

I hate this country, this isn't a democracy.

[Foo]

This is the first step. On the original Australia-wide banned list, they included some wikipedia entries, some youtube channels, popular online websites, drug information and nearly all free pornographic websites - funnily enough, all the paid porn websites were kept off the list.

I hate this country, this isn't a democracy.

 

Dont forget the Australian Sex Party website and a QLD Vet (orig black list)

[random]

In all reality, one less accessible view of a child being sexually exploited is a good thing, and I have no problem with those sites being banned. Nor do I care if free legal adult porn gets banned. Sadly though they will use the law to ban other websites etc as mentioned.

Australia is comparatively a fantastic place to live in my opinion, and people who have lived in war torn countries struggling and suffering would no doubt agree. I will hear of no un-Australianness in my presence!

[Blood Trance Fusion]

I'm at work at the moment so can't look into this or do much right now but this will be revoked. This will not pass lightly nor will these two hold out for long.

I hate this country, this isn't a democracy.

 

You weren't given the option to vote for this on paper but there are alternatives.

In all reality, one less accessible view of a child being sexually exploited is a good thing, and I have no problem with those sites being banned. Nor do I care if free legal adult porn gets banned.

The best option is to stop australians from viewing these sites, is it? Seeing a sexual depiction of a minor did not stop it from happening; you know what does? Getting the website taken down and perhaps tracing the origin of the media. I share your view on pornography but I value freedom above that disinterest.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Blood Trance Fusion

[Psylo]

In all reality, one less accessible view of a child being sexually exploited is a good thing, and I have no problem with those sites being banned.

 

On the surface, that would be the standard response from most Australians, including myself. But an earlier post by tripsis is worth closer examination:

Personally, I would have thought it better to leave the websites accessible, but with some sort of flagging system set up so that whenever someone accesses one of the sites, they could be charged

 

Isn't this a good approach ? For Law Enforcement agencies to take a pro-active role in tracing the perpetrators and charging them accordingly. If you close the cyber door, it could well become harder for them to surf kiddo pron sites, but there will still be a way for pedophiles to satiate their perversion. It might be as simple as hoarding K-Mart catalogues of the kids swimwear specials, or as complex as Mr. P. D'oh Voyeur hiding in the bushes bordering a primary school during little-lunch.

On the flipside, keep the DSL open (that is, unchanged from now) and increase the the investigations taskforce responsible for locating, then enforcing, penalties upon perpetrators.

As the stale, old cliche* goes, "You can catch more files with honey than with vinegar"

*With apologies to the dipterist & apiology communities for scientific inaccuracies

[qualia]

i don't suppose anyone knows which of the "smaller isp's" will be included?

or if the same filtering applies to isp's using optus/telstra's network?

certainly there would be a case for some sort of class action against this?

certainly if there's no mention of mandatory filtering in the original contracts.

if i find my isp's opted in for this i'm out, censorship doesn't fly with me at all,,

[Distracted]

I would have thought it better to leave the websites accessible, but with some sort of flagging system set up so that whenever someone accesses one of the sites, they could be charged, seeing as viewing child pornography is already illegal under federal law. Unfortunately, now the precedent is set for more site to be censored. This country is fucked.

 

That's the whole point. If we did it that way most of our judges and high ranking police officers as well as ministers would be caught and jailed but this way they can still get around the filter and rule over us in peace.

[cactuscarl]

I'll bet they are just trying to pacify everybody as no normal person will argue with stopping child porn sites but when its all said and done that's not all that'll be blocked

They are so transparent!

[Distracted]

The majority is ruled by demonising the minority. We NEED as a society to use downward social comparisons in order to feel good about ourselves. The war on terror, drug addicts, pedophiles and just general criminals. The guilty ones are the ones overcome by their animalistic urges, we are the civilised who could not operate with those maniacs loose and are thus dependant on police and church ordained order. Whatever you do, you must not remember you are only an animal.

[Sheather]

As the stale, old cliche* goes, "You can catch more files with honey than with vinegar"

I found it amusing when I discovered that the opposite is, in fact, true.

Psylo Dread and Tripsis, I think you have a nice idea there, and a flagging system could probably work quite well at catching a few of the perpetrators, but what of those who surf through proxies? ISPs can't ban all the proxy sites, nor monitor all proxy users, there's nothing illegal about them, and what of TOR? Probably the greatest source and it's completely untrackable.

Also - 4chan. Having been there for some time I've seen that on odd occasion child pornography shows up, the moderators crack down on it as fast as they can but it could still spread through a site like that, would that be banned or tracked? If tracked, what of users like myself, who have unknowingly opened a thumbnail and seen, technically this would be counted as downloading the material. Would I be charged, for such a thing?

It's a nice idea though, that is all I can think of for its flaws right now.

Distracted, of course, we must always remember that we are different and special and better than everything else on this earth.

[AndyAmine.]

Yes Sheather you would be charged, just like you could be now.

Those pictures get copied to your cache and unless you delete them with the appropriate shredding methods then technically its always on your drive waiting for recovery.

Plus those cache images can have code on them, so can gifs and all kind of other shit that only require a swipe of the mouse to be activated on a weakly protected system and 4chan is a playground for a lot of these fuckers wanting to try stuff out.

There are plenty of rogues on there too wanting to catch pedo's, so they upload filthy pictures filled with virius/trojans etc in the hope of catching them and fucking with them.

.

Most people should watch out going to 4chan, its like a dirty whore house and you can catch something real nasty real fast without the right protection.

[tripsis]

That's right, you could be charged Sheather, irrespective of whether it was an accident or not. Just like you could be charged for running someone over, whether it was an accident or not. There will always be innocent victims, that can't be helped. But better to proactively try to eradicate the problem, rather that just throw a blanket over it and pretend it doesn't exist anymore.

[Sheather]

That's right, you could be charged Sheather, irrespective of whether it was an accident or not. Just like you could be charged for running someone over, whether it was an accident or not

That's a silly comparison Tripsis. For starters, there were no victims as a result of my actions, though I have seen the image, I am not condoning, funding, etc the production of child pornography, just as pirating a song doesn't support the music industry. So though there may be innocent victims always, they aren't always the fault of the "criminal".

Yes Sheather you would be charged, just like you could be now.

No I couldn't, I perform semi-regular cache cleanups, along with writing over empty data of my drives with randomised data (white data? forget the name).

There are plenty of rogues on there too wanting to catch pedo's, so they upload filthy pictures filled with virius/trojans etc in the hope of catching them and fucking with them.

Lolwhut? Could you please cite a source for me that shows that trojans and virii can be placed withing pictures and activated through viewing of them? If that really were the case then most of /b/ would be virus laden.

Most people should watch out going to 4chan, its like a dirty whore house and you can catch something real nasty real fast without the right protection.

This is only true of the board /b/ - the rest of 4chan is quite clean and civil. Don't generalise too far, there is a great deal of information and learning to be found at 4chan.

I'm not suggesting a blanket be thrown over and the situation ignored, Tripsis, I'm just pointing out a couple of flaws where I see them, if you want to set up a plan to have this dealt with then it would be better recieved if it wasn't full of holes.

[tripsis]

That's a silly comparison Tripsis. For starters, there were no victims as a result of my actions, though I have seen the image, I am not condoning, funding, etc the production of child pornography, just as pirating a song doesn't support the music industry. So though there may be innocent victims always, they aren't always the fault of the "criminal".

No, it's completely valid. My comparison isn't about the intent of the "criminal", it's about how the law works. If you have looked at child porn on your computer, whether or not it's intentional, you can be charged for it. That's the law. Likewise with running someone over.

[sapito]

But better to proactively try to eradicate the problem, rather that just throw a blanket over it and pretend it doesn't exist anymore.

 

Isnt that what they are trying to do with the 'war on drugs'? Doesnt seem to work at all really

[tripsis]

So what's the alternative sapito, turn a blind eye? Or legalise child abuse? Neither of those seem like decent options. The 'war on drugs' is a lost cause because such a massive percentage of the world's population uses drugs. Not to mention that we have legel drugs - tobacco and alcohol - that are such an intrinic part of global culture that they will never disappear. One would hope the same can't be said for child abuse. I know it will never be eradicated, it's impossible, but better to try to actually do something proactive about it rather than let it boil just under the surface of scrutiny.

[sapito]

You are jumping to more extreme examples from post to post. My reply was to your comment about viewing child porn, now you jump to child abuse. Sure they can be interconnected but trying to add more emotional weight through this jump in terminology is not necessary.

I think it may have come up in the (or one of the) pedophilia threads, there was a doco with people acknowledging their desires and some were working with psychologists to help to ensure that they didnt harm others or to minimise their external expression of their desires. A no tolerance/understanding stance and the legal issues that people may face only seems to drive it further underground. Like the war on drugs.

I think addressing the core issues rather than the expressions of these issues would be much more beneficial. Sending people straight to jail or chucking heaving fines around is gonna do SFA.

Trying to eradicate it is a pointless and an impossible endeavor IMO and the belief in the possibility of eradication will only send it further underground. Full circle FTW

[tripsis]

Child porn, child abuse, they're synonymous. You don't get child porn without child abuse. Don't delude yourself otherwise.

It's all very well for you to say something won't work, but you haven't given any viable alternatives. Addressing the core issues? What does that involve? As I said, if you care to read my post properly, I don't believe eradication is possible, but unless you are going to suggest alternatives which may be more effective, then it's better to try than do sit by idly.

[sapito]

Child porn, child abuse, they're synonymous. You don't get child porn without child abuse. Don't delude yourself otherwise.

Sorry boss I simply cant see things in the same manner that you do but in the future I'll make sure I run my delusions by you first so as to limit my own free thought. Waste of time anyway that free thought bullshiz

It's all very well for you to say something won't work, but you haven't given any viable alternatives. Addressing the core issues? What does that involve?

 

Second paragraph of my previous post. Pretty obvious what I see as alternatives.

[tripsis]

Don't get your knickers in a knot. But please do explain to me when child porn isn't child abuse.

Second paragraph of my previous post. Pretty obvious what I see as alternatives.

As stated in that other thread, I agree with that sort of counselling, but while that's going on, do you think that child porn should be allowed to continue? Or you agree that it should simply be blocked, thus allowing P2P trading in it to thrive instead?

[Sheather]

Tripsis, child pornography generally connotates child abuse, but the viewing of child pornography does not abuse children, the creation of it does. One case of abuse - and from it pornography, could result in hundreds, or thousands of crimes from people viewing said material. The viewers do not purchase it, they do not directly support the creators of it. Your comparison between hitting someone with a car is silly, because intent DOES play a role in being charged for it, even though, regardless, you broke the law. Especially if the person you hit dies, charges are completely different in such cases.

First you were talking about the legalities of viewing child pornography, and then you say it's synonymous with child abuse. So if it is, then have I abused a child from seeing what I've seen? Despite all that I've already said about not supporting the creators of the material?

Do you support the enforcement of "the law" in every instance, or just those you find favourable? What is your stance on the drug trade and people trafficking? (Namely illegal immigrants and refugees)

And yeah I agree with sapito - you don't need to lend emotional weight to your arguments, how does it look from an objective standpoint?

[tripsis]

It's going to be another one of these threads, eh?

Tripsis, child pornography generally connotates child abuse, but the viewing of child pornography does not abuse children, the creation of it does. One case of abuse - and from it pornography, could result in hundreds, or thousands of crimes from people viewing said material. The viewers do not purchase it, they do not directly support the creators of it. Your comparison between hitting someone with a car is silly, because intent DOES play a role in being charged for it, even though, regardless, you broke the law. Especially if the person you hit dies, charges are completely different in such cases.]Tripsis, child pornography generally connotates child abuse, but the viewing of child pornography does not abuse children, the creation of it does. One case of abuse - and from it pornography, could result in hundreds, or thousands of crimes from people viewing said material. The viewers do not purchase it, they do not directly support the creators of it. Your comparison between hitting someone with a car is silly, because intent DOES play a role in being charged for it, even though, regardless, you broke the law. Especially if the person you hit dies, charges are completely different in such cases.

I'm sorry, but supply and demand are interlinked. If more people seek child porn, more child porn will be supplied, meaning more children will be abused. Yes, I realise that viewing child porn does not abuse children, but if you trace it back, it started with abuse. Someone has to make it, some child has to be abused.

Intent plays a role in every crime, not just running someone over. That's why courts of law have a judge and jury. If you're mastermind child porn ring leader, you'll end up with a harsher sentence than someone who accidentally viewed child porn. Likewise, if you intentionally run someone over, you'll get a murder charge, rather than a manslaughter charge. So my comparison remains valid.

First you were talking about the legalities of viewing child pornography, and then you say it's synonymous with child abuse. So if it is, then have I abused a child from seeing what I've seen? Despite all that I've already said about not supporting the creators of the material?

You've not directly abused any children by looking at child porn, but you may well have encouraged it. I agree that viewing child porn is not synonymous with child abuse, but I stand firm that to make child porn necessitates child abuse.

Do you support the enforcement of "the law" in every instance, or just those you find favourable? What is your stance on the drug trade and people trafficking? (Namely illegal immigrants and refugees)

What do you think Sheather? Do you 'support the enforcement of "the law" in every instance'? I would guess not. But I would also guess that sometimes you do support the enforcement of the law. What exactly are you trying to achieve by asking me that question?

As for my stance on the drug trade and people trafficking, the question is a little broad to answer. I'll leave it for another thread, but I'm curious what exactly you want to know and why you want to know it.

And yeah I agree with sapito - you don't need to lend emotional weight to your arguments, how does it look from an objective standpoint?

There was nothing emotionally charged about it. I merely used one term in place of another, as I see them as inextricably interlinked. Can the term 'child abuse' not be used without it being emotionally charged these days? Who made that decision - sapito?

Edited June 24, 2011 by tripsis

[Psylo]

Child porn, child abuse, they're synonymous. You don't get child porn without child abuse. Don't delude yourself otherwise.

It's all very well for you to say something won't work, but you haven't given any viable alternatives. Addressing the core issues? What does that involve? As I said, if you care to read my post properly, I don't believe eradication is possible, but unless you are going to suggest alternatives which may be more effective, then it's better to try than do sit by idly.

 

Sapito, don't take this as an arguement, I like the discussions that you folks havem but it's sad to see it degenerate into shit-fights. The article quite clearly refers to the issue as child abuse. Of course we are all reading it as 'child porn', and rightly so, but the statements were:

Telstra and Optus confirmed they would block access to a list of child abuse websites

The ACMA will compile and manage a list of URLs of child abuse content

Child abuse material is more likely to be exchanged on peer-to-peer networks

According to Wikipedia, the definition of Pornography is as follows:

the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction.

And an example given:

A pornographic model poses for pornographic photographs. A pornographic actor or porn star performs in pornographic films. In cases where limited dramatic skills are involved, a performer in pornographic films may be called a pornographic model.

On the basis that a child is not legally capable of making decisions of a sexual nature, the conclusion that tripsis eludes to is correct. Child porn is synonymous with child abuse.