Australia to install ISP level censorship.

[weemadando]

It is now official that as of mid January (the 20th I believe) all Australian ISPs are apparently going to need to block any pornographic, violent or other "anti-social" content.

Unlike the Howard Governments voluntary download filter, this will be compulsory censorship at the ISP level - and of a disturbing broad amount of content with very broad labels applied.

Hurrah. One more "fuck you" brought to you by the people who actually thought that electing Rudd was going to change ANYTHING.

[weemadando]

Addendum - allegedly this is going to be "age gated" but I can't wait to see how this will work out. In addition, again allegedly - news sites and personal e-mails will not be affected.

[Darth Fanboy]

Am I reading this right, are they effectively banning internet porn in Australia?

[weemadando]

Am I reading this right, are they effectively banning internet porn in Australia?

Yup. But they've promised that this will only happen if you are under 18.

And of course, they've also promised that all this age-gating and filtering will NOT cause Australia's already abysmal net speeds to drop further.

[Darth Wong]

How the fuck do they plan to define "anti-social" content? This sounds like a gateway designed to give fundies free rein to censor anything that annoys them.

[weemadando]

How the fuck do they plan to define "anti-social" content? This sounds like a gateway designed to give fundies free rein to censor anything that annoys them.

Rudd is perhaps a crazier fundie than Bush. Crazier because he doesn't wear it on his sleeve. But he is a member of the Hillsong Church. Which should tell you all you need to know.

Lets not forget to mention that Family First is growing in power. And that there seems to be a revitalisation of religion in Australia at the moment. Yay for us.

[Zablorg]

How does it know if you're under 18?

[18-Till-I-Die]

Actually i'd hate to see what any far-right political factions would do with this kind of blank check.

I mean basically they could outright censor any form of information that offends them. More so to call this an intrusive and rediculously broad level of censorship would be an understatement. Unless the definition of "anti-social" is narrowed down to a laser point, literally anything could fall under that heading, especially in the age of political correctness.

I'm somewhat curious in fact as to how they could even put this in place...from a technical standpoint. But i know fuck all about machines.

[weemadando]

How does it know if you're under 18? :?

Who knows? If its just going to be your standard age gate shit then that's complete rubbish. I'd be willing to bet that it will be an option that ISPs will have to introduce for account holders.

[Uraniun235]

This only further confirms my suspicion that Australian authorities hate the Internet.

[loomer]

I told a guy who keeps coming down to the same gaming clud as I do about this, he's about 17. I got a classic response. Basically a "Shit. I uh... Need to go home now and... Uh... Meditate."

Mind you, I have deep suspicions about this and my preferred action is 'cleanse the fundies with fire'.

[Stark]

Happy New Year, everyone.

Since Ando was too busy frothing at the mouth to provide a link, I did some research and discovered that this laughably useless system is ISP-level PROVIDER censorship. They're not retarded enough to try and censor traffic: providers of 'adult content' (sigh) have to have certain checks and controls on their shit.

It's retarded, but aside from the (doubtless huge) Australian porn industry, it isn't going to affect anyone. While they're less useless than ISP-level filtering of the entire internet (a hilariously impossible task), it's still misguided legislation that will however have pretty much zero net effect beyond irritating bloggers and such.

The implicit idea that they can 'clean up' the internet so kids can be 'safe' from 'adult content' while totally unsupervised disgusts me, of course. However, despite Ando's hyperbole, it's not some supersystem of nationwide censorship: it's basically just ISP-enforced codes of conduct for 'adult content' providers.

[Zablorg]

I'm still confused on how they are going to enforce this. I'll bet it won't be much more sophisticated than you average "over 18/leave" button. Those things were kind of a stupid idea in the first place; if a kid is setting out with a mind to watch porn, a page asking him his age is not going to stop him

[weemadando]

Happy New Year, everyone.

Since Ando was too busy frothing at the mouth to provide a link, I did some research and discovered that this laughably useless system is ISP-level PROVIDER censorship. They're not retarded enough to try and censor traffic: providers of 'adult content' (sigh) have to have certain checks and controls on their shit.

It's retarded, but aside from the (doubtless huge) Australian porn industry, it isn't going to affect anyone. While they're less useless than ISP-level filtering of the entire internet (a hilariously impossible task), it's still misguided legislation that will however have pretty much zero net effect beyond irritating bloggers and such.

The implicit idea that they can 'clean up' the internet so kids can be 'safe' from 'adult content' while totally unsupervised disgusts me, of course. However, despite Ando's hyperbole, it's not some supersystem of nationwide censorship: it's basically just ISP-enforced codes of conduct for 'adult content' providers.

Sorry, my frothing was based on a radio interview with some ACMA d-bag about the new policies and implementation.

Based on what they were saying it was sounding a lot worse that it was.

Effectively what we're getting then is a glorified version of the Howard Gov't BS filter, but now with added compulsory-ness.

[Stark]

I'm not sure actually: stuff like the Sun Herald sounds more similar to what you were hearing. It doesn't seem clear, and my ISP doesn't have any official information about it.

[weemadando]

I'm not sure actually: stuff like the Sun Herald sounds more similar to what you were hearing. It doesn't seem clear, and my ISP doesn't have any official information about it.

From what discussion I heard about the technical aspects it would have to be a global content traffic filter on the ISPs - not merely content hosting restrictions.

[weemadando]

A series of articles on it.

Yes, it is a ban on "inappropriate content" as defined by fucking Family First by the sounds of things.
Yes, it will be a global TRAFFIC ban, not just a locally hosted content ban.
Yes, it will be compulsory and users will have to "opt out", thus identifying yourself as an evil commie pervert who likes free-speech and kiddie porn.

Rudd online porn-free plan questioned

Sue Dunlevy | January 02, 2008

A RUDD Government plan to censor internet pornography and violence could undermine another of its election promises - to speed up our internet access.
Kevin Rudd's online porn-free plan questioned

Kevin Rudd promised before the election to force internet service providers to supply a clean feed to households and schools free of "inappropriate" material
The Internet Industry Association has warned the downside of censoring access could be a reduction in the speed of access to websites.

Mr Rudd promised before the election to force internet service providers to supply a clean feed to households and schools free of "inappropriate" material.

Australians who want uncensored access to the web will have to contact their provider and opt out of the service.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says the clean feed will be achieved by getting the Communications and Media Authority to prepare a blacklist of unsuitable sites.

Internet Industry Association spokesman Peter Coroneos said the industry is working closely with the Government on the policy to be trialled later this year.

But he warned it could never be completely successful in blocking access to all pornographic sites, just the ones on the blacklist.

If new sites were launched that were not included on the blacklist the clean feed would not restrict access to them, he said. "You've got to be aware of the fallibility of the approach," he warned.

There were millions of pornographic websites and if all of them were included in the blacklist "there is a potential for slow downs in access to occur", he said.

"The more sites you attempt to block the greater the effect on the network performance and speed," he said.

This is because every time you type a request into your search engine it will have to be checked against all the sites on the blacklist, he said.

In Britain where a clean feed policy is being pursued, only between 200 and 1000 child pornography sites have been included on a blacklist.

But if Australia insisted on including millions of general pornography sites and others that include violence it could undermine internet users' speed of access to websites, Mr Coroneos said.

A 2005 pilot study carried out by the former Howard government found a clean feed approach could cut down speed of accessing the internet by between 18 to 78 per cent depending on what was being blocked.

The Rudd Government campaigned on a platform promising to speed up Australians' access to the worlwide web by rolling out broadband around the country.

Mr Coroneos said any clean feed policy would have to be carefully balanced.

He said households that really wanted to block out pornographic material would be better off investing in a home based filter system.

Onus on users to "unfilter" websites


Lachlan Heywood | December 31, 2007

AUSTRALIANS will be forced to contact their internet service provider to avoid having their access to the web restricted.
Children surfing the internet

The federal Government is working swiftly to give greater protection to children from online pornography and violence-related websites
The restrictions are planned by the Federal Government to give greater protection to children from online pornography and "violent" websites.

Under the plan, all internet service providers will be required to provide a "clean" feed to households and schools, free of pornography and other inappropriate material.

Any internet users who want to "opt out" of the clean feed will have to contact their ISP.

Online civil libertarians yesterday warned the freedom of the internet was at stake, while internet providers are concerned the new measures could slow the internet in Australia down to a crawl.

But Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said everything possible had to be done to shield children from violent and pornographic online material.

"We have always argued more needs to be done to protect children," he said.

Senator Conroy said the clean feed, also known as mandatory ISP filtering, would prevent users accessing prohibited content.

"We will work with the industry to get the best policy. (But) Labor is committed to introducing mandatory ISP filtering."

Senator Conroy said the Australian Communications and Media Authority would prepare a blacklist of unsuitable sites.

The adoption of mandatory ISP filtering comes on top of the former government's offer of free internet filtering software for home computers.

Chair of the internet user group Electronic Frontiers Australia, Dale Clapperton, said mandatory ISP filtering eroded internet freedom and would not improve online safety for children.

"China, Burma and Saudi Arabia and those type of oppressive countries are the only ones that have seriously looked at doing something like this," he said.

"In Australia, which is supposedly a Liberal democracy, the government is saying that the internet is so full of this material that it must protect us from it by trying to block it."

Mr Clapperton feared that parents would be lulled into a false sense of security.

"Parents should not allow their children to use the internet unsupervised," he said.

"Stuff that should be blocked will inevitably get through."

Family First Senator Steve Fielding, who has campaigned for ISP filtering, said he would be watching the Government like a hawk on the issue.

"Australian families want more (internet protection) and deserve more than they are currently getting, and this is a real test for the Rudd Government," he said.

A report by the Australia Institute in 2003 showed 84 per cent of boys and 60 per cent of girls using the internet had experienced unwanted exposure to sexual material.

Labor online strategy slammed

Galen English | January 02, 2008

opinion IT SOUNDS entirely defensible, at first. The federal Government plans to protect unwary children by blocking violence and pornography on the internet.
Labor online strategy slammed

The Rudd government's plans to protect unwary children by blocking violence and pornography on the internet is riddled with technical, financial, moral and social complexities
Yet this simple sounding initiative - barely discussed during the election - is riddled with technical, financial, moral and social complexities.

The Government's plan, overseen by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, would require internet service providers (ISPs) to block undesirable sites on computers accessed by all Australians.

A seething Dr Roger Clarke, chair of the Australian Privacy Foundation, bluntly described the proposal as "stupid and inappropriate".

He said not only was it unworkable, but it was a sinister blow to an individual's rights to use the internet without censorship.

"Not only will it not work, it is quite dangerous to let the Government censor the net and take control out of the hands of parents," Clarke said.

"It is an inappropriate thing for them to be doing. Mr Conroy is like a schoolmaster playing god with the Australian population, all because of the dominance of a moral minority."

Conroy's view is that the legislation - compared by critics to Chinese-style internet censorship - will only render unseen the most vile and extreme sites.

"Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation on the internet is like going down the Chinese road," Conroy said.

"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree."

One problem for the Government is that blocking child porn may unintentionally block acceptable sites.

The history of the internet is full of such examples; one blogger found that, due to spamware set to block ads for sex drug Cialis, he was unable to publish the word "socialist".

Another problem, according to civil libertarians, is that policing the net should be left to parents - not a big brother-style bureaucracy.

And, if it is disingenuous to compare Labor's policy to China's malevolent control over web access to its citizens, it is equally disingenuous of Rudd's Government to claim the issue simply relates to child pornography.

There are genuine concerns that the Government - backed by morals groups like Family First - will in time extend the powers outside of their intended target area.

Also of concern is that, under the Government's plan, users would be permitted to "opt out" of the scheme - and might therefore find themselves listed as possible deviants.

Service providers fear any legislation would be "the thin end of the wedge", heralding widespread censorship. Besides, what evidence is there that young children using the web are regularly stumbling across child pornography?

Sites used by paedophiles are well hidden and frequently relocated to avoid detection.

On a practical level, ISPs fear the mass blocking of sites could slow internet speeds and cost millions of dollars to implement.

Crucially, the Government has not explained how such a system would be paid for or who would monitor it.

The truth is, despite the policy having been part of Labor's manifesto since 2005, and following claims the Government is "engaged constructively with the sector", no one has the faintest idea how such a system would work.

It is expected any future filtered feeds would be based on a current voluntary UK system operated by British Telecom.

Sites identified by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) would be "blacklisted" and then blocked by the servers.

The ability for download speeds to be maintained would depend on the exact number of sites blocked - it is suspected around 2000 sites could cause problems.

A user typing in the address would be sent to an error page or possibly - as in Scandinavia - redirected to a police page.

However, ISPs fear a system based on key indicator words could rapidly clog the system.

In the UK the Internet Watch Foundation has its encrypted list of 1200 paedophile and race-hate sites updated twice a day.

Even still, it is unlikely to deter computer savvy paedophiles here from simply relocating their sites or from swapping pictures on message boards or in forums, thus rendering any filter impotent.

So far the industry, although eager not to be seen to be dragging their feet on child pornography, has been noticeably reticent in their response to Labor's plans.

Internet Industry Association spokesman Peter Coroneos was keen to emphasise the work already being done by service providers in supplying free filters.

They are likely to clarify their position after ACMA runs simulated tests on a filtered network later this year.

"We obviously want to know if this will have an impact on network performance," Coroneos said.

"At the moment we don't know what the extent of it will be, what it will cost, and whether it will set a precedent for other changes. We just don't know if it is feasible."

[Stark]

What interests me is that very little concrete information seems to be available on something that's supposed to start happening in three weeks. Sure, they wabble on about what it's 'supposed' to do, but it's so wildly impractical and contradictory that it's strange there isn't more specific information. I'm curious enough to call my ISP tomorrow and find out, actually: it's usual to hear about changes in policy months in advance, not this sort of thing.

Your quotes are like what my researched turned up: hardly any actual information. It's like they just pulled something out of their ass and expect a magic wand to make it happen.

[weemadando]

What do you expect, it's the gubmint.

From public service work I can say that most of the time we get our information on new initiatives coming into place by customer's asking us about what they just heard on John Laws show. Often several days after the new policy has started.

In this case I think that the 20th of January is a date when they were expecting it to start, but it will probably merely be when they start seriously looking at the logistics.

After all, a global traffic filtering program at the ISP level that will not impediment net speeds? I call bullshit.

Still, I can't wait to see it get implemented and have my appaling net speeds drop even further and my pings in games get YET ANOTHER FUCKING ZERO on the end.

[The_Saint]

Ah but at least Helen Coonan isn't around anymore... that on it's own should remove a decimal place Ando