Q for our Aussie posters:'Net filters "required" for all Aus

[Count Chocula]

I read this article this morning and am curious. What do you foresee as the impact on your Web usage, and do you think it will be used as a tool for the Australian government to censor Web content they, or their lobbyists, don't want you to see?

My larger concern (conspiracy mode ON) is that, if successful, other democratic governments would attempt to force the same policies on their citizens.

[Ghost Rider]

Next time quote the fucking article.

Australians may not be able to opt out of the government's Internet filtering initiative like they were originally led to believe. Details have begun to come out about Australia's Cyber-Safety Plan, which aims to block "illegal" content from being accessed within the country, as well as pornographic material inappropriate for children. Right now, the system is in the testing stages, but network engineers are now saying that there's no way to opt out entirely from content filtering.

The Australian government first revealed its filtering initiative in 2007, which it expected to cost AUS$189 million to implement. That money would go toward imposing filtering requirements on ISPs, who would have to use the Australian Communications and Media Authority's official blacklist, which is in turn based on the country's National Classification Scheme.

Australia moved forward with its plans despite widespread public outcry and began testing the system in Tasmania in February of this year. At the time, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) said that the filters would be enabled by default and that consumers would have to request unfiltered connectivity if they wished to opt-out of the program.

Well, it turns out now that those promises were only partially true. Internode network engineer Mark Newton told Computerworld that users are able to opt out of the "additional material" blacklist—which targets content inappropriate for children—but not the main blacklist that filters what the Australian government determines is illegal content.

"That is the way the testing was formulated, the way the upcoming live trials will run, and the way the policy is framed; to believe otherwise is to believe that a government department would go to the lengths of declaring that some kind of Internet content is illegal, then allow an opt-out," Newton said. "Illegal is illegal and if there is infrastructure in place to block it, then it will be required to be blocked—end of story."

A spokesperson for the Australian Communications Minister seemed to confirm this revelation by saying that the filters would be required for all Australian citizens.

Assuming this is in fact the way the scheme is implemented in practice, it raises plenty of troubling questions. "Illegal" is a broad definition, leaving users wondering exactly what kinds of content will end up falling prey to the government's apparently mandatory filtering restrictions. Will Big Content be ringing up the Aussie government soon to have tracker sites added to the blacklist? What about sites that discuss topics like at-home bomb making, or something a little less explosive, like DVD decryption tools? And how about those sites that advise users on how to get around the filters? Will various Wikipedia pages be blocked?

Australia continues to ignore its own government-funded studies from 2006 that show ISP-level filtering to be ineffective and costly. The Australian government's disregard for those prior studies suggests that the driving force behind the current plan is more political than technical.

[weemadando]

My major concern with it, is that because it's ISP level filtering, even if you "opt out", your net speeds and pings are still going to be blown due to all the delays involved in the content checking at the ISP level.

It's just a matter of the Government wanting to look good by playing parent to the whole fucking country. My hope is that they get proved unworkable and are not implemented. But I'm sure that even if they're shown to be the cause of all the worlds famines, they'd still get implemented, because you can't let a child see boobies.

[Uraniun235]

This is just more evidence that the Australian government really hates the Internet. Someone needs to needle their representative into proposing a plan to sever the internet connection cables to halt the flow of overseas child porn and terror-propaganda. That would be really hilarious.

Also I've heard that they plan on compromising all HTTPS traffic via man-in-the-middle attacks to make sure it isn't "illegal". Hi, I'm an overseas bank, I don't think I trust any traffic coming from Australia any more. Thanks for doing business with us.

[Winston Blake]

"That is the way the testing was formulated, the way the upcoming live trials will run, and the way the policy is framed; to believe otherwise is to believe that a government department would go to the lengths of declaring that some kind of Internet content is illegal, then allow an opt-out," Newton said. "Illegal is illegal and if there is infrastructure in place to block it, then it will be required to be blocked—end of story."

OK, maybe I'm not so smart, but if you can detect someone trying to access an 'illegal site', and then decide to block them, then you had to detect that attempt in the first place. So why not simply make a record of it and charge them with whatever crime they've committed?

What would be annoying is if 'illegal site' morphs into 'site potentially aiding illegal activities'. For example, consider the style and content of this page. The last prime minister (who was in office for four consecutive terms - 11 years) outright stated that guns are 'evil' and that he 'hated' them and would do anything he could to 'further restrict them'. Thus Australia is a thoroughly firearm-phobic country. That page could easily put SDN on a blacklist as a 'Dangerous weapons site, Type 3-B' or whatever. It would make me look like a gun-humping lunatic to try to justify access to SDN while some official looks down his/her nose at me and reads the first paragraph of that page.

Without knowing the exact wording of the initiative, it may mean the police don't need to bother to justifying criminal charges. Instead the onus would be put on citizens to justify access to harmless, yet politically undesirable / mildly embarrassing sites.

[thejester]

Don't be stupid. For starters owning guns is still legal in Australia; secondly it's a fucking sci-fi site, give the government some fucking credit.

[Vendetta]

Don't be stupid. For starters owning guns is still legal in Australia; secondly it's a fucking sci-fi site, give the government some fucking credit.

You realise that you're requesting the government be given credit on an issue where they're apparently determined to implement a badly thought out, poorly designed, widely unpopular system of dubious actual utility?

[Xon]

My major concern with it, is that because it's ISP level filtering, even if you "opt out", your net speeds and pings are still going to be blown due to all the delays involved in the content checking at the ISP level.

Http/https filtering is utterly worthless and trivial to bypass.

It's just a matter of the Government wanting to look good by playing parent to the whole fucking country. My hope is that they get proved unworkable and are not implemented. But I'm sure that even if they're shown to be the cause of all the worlds famines, they'd still get implemented, because you can't let a child see boobies.

Given the piss-all amount they are planning on spending to impelment, this is going to fail. And baddly.. The "solution" they are going for is not cheap and is not scalable.

[Broomstick]

Don't be stupid. For starters owning guns is still legal in Australia; secondly it's a fucking sci-fi site, give the government some fucking credit.

Right - it's a sci-fi site with hefty discussions on gun ownership by crazy gun-toting Americans, Finns, and assorted others. Some stupid bureaucrat is going to hate it.

[thejester]

Don't be stupid. For starters owning guns is still legal in Australia; secondly it's a fucking sci-fi site, give the government some fucking credit.

Right - it's a sci-fi site with hefty discussions on gun ownership by crazy gun-toting Americans, Finns, and assorted others. Some stupid bureaucrat is going to hate it.

I don't why I have to fucking repeat it, but gun ownership in Australia is legal. Why 'some stupid bureaucrat' would actually give a fuck about someone maybe commenting on a site about that something that is not a crime is beyond me. So why don't we calm down about something that will be a complete non-issue?

[Solauren]

Don't be stupid. For starters owning guns is still legal in Australia; secondly it's a fucking sci-fi site, give the government some fucking credit.

Right - it's a sci-fi site with hefty discussions on gun ownership by crazy gun-toting Americans, Finns, and assorted others. Some stupid bureaucrat is going to hate it.

I don't why I have to fucking repeat it, but gun ownership in Australia is legal. Why 'some stupid bureaucrat' would actually give a fuck about someone maybe commenting on a site about that something that is not a crime is beyond me. So why don't we calm down about something that will be a complete non-issue?

TheJester; I work for the government in Canada, and I've had the 'honor' of meeting government officials from across the country, and even a few from other countries. You could say I've had experience with government officials and bureaucracts, elected, hired, and appointed.

You are, completely, utterly, and categorically WRONG.

I have found, for every good official, there is an asshole looking to flex his self-precieved power, and that is more then willing to do it. If they don't like something, despite it's legality, practicallity, or benefit, they can, and many do, go out of their way to block, impede or otherwise hinder it.

For example, I've seen multi-million dollar software projects scrapped (and when I mean scrapped, I mean as in all copies and source code destroyed) because someone didn't like the color scheme, or didn't like the company the base software was marketed by, or some other assine reason.

i.e "I don't like the icon that comes with the software package. Cancel it."
"But sir, we've spent $15 million dollars developing it!"
"Cancel it. I've decided we're going with this program instead."
"But sir, that program costs twice as much!"
"I know, but I like the icons better."

That's all it takes.

All you'd need is one parent complaining to the right asshole, and BAM, that website is blocked. 30 seconds to block it, then weeks, months, or years of red tape, and who knows how much money, to get it unblocked.

Because someone decided the website was inappropriate because it mentioned a word they personally found offensive.

So, get your head out of your ass, or better yet, stick it further up, and don't try to discuss subjects you don't know anything about.

[Stark]

Yeah, what they're 'planning' is absurd. It's just a political stunt - however disasterous the very EXISTENCE of this stunt is. Who are they pandering to? How much money is wasted? Why is cabinet so cripplingly poorly informed?

[loomer]

I actually did some reading on this a while back. Lemme quote from it.

"The ACMA released a report regarding the results of this test. They were underwhelming, with:
• The most accurate filters suffering from significant slowdown.
• All filters were unable to adequately block selected material, with 2-13% rate of failure to block banned materials and 1.3-7.8% rate of wrongly blocking access to legal materials.
• Five of the filters had a slowdown ranging from 21-86%, with only one having a reasonable level of 2%.
• One of these five filters caused a 22% slowdown even when NOT active."

[Count Chocula]

It would also put Australia into company with China, which filters all ISP content.

[Stark]

Doesn't anyone remember this exact same story flying around at the start of the year? They even had a date and all. Nothing happened. Unless and until something actually does happen, this is just a case of an extremely ignorant and damaging political stunt. Nothing I've read about the proposals suggests it's going to happen or even practical as discussed. It's just going to be really, really embarrassing for the government when they either back down again, or deploy, totally fuck the infrastructure and have to roll back and look even dumber.

[Darth Wong]

Don't be stupid. For starters owning guns is still legal in Australia; secondly it's a fucking sci-fi site, give the government some fucking credit.

Right - it's a sci-fi site with hefty discussions on gun ownership by crazy gun-toting Americans, Finns, and assorted others. Some stupid bureaucrat is going to hate it.

The kind of Australian who supported this legislation (read: social conservative) is probably going to be pro-gun, not anti-gun.

[Darth Wong]

Doesn't anyone remember this exact same story flying around at the start of the year? They even had a date and all. Nothing happened. Unless and until something actually does happen, this is just a case of an extremely ignorant and damaging political stunt. Nothing I've read about the proposals suggests it's going to happen or even practical as discussed. It's just going to be really, really embarrassing for the government when they either back down again, or deploy, totally fuck the infrastructure and have to roll back and look even dumber.

AFAIK, the Australian government has been trying to implement something like this for many years now already. The Australian government seems rather ultra-conservative.

[tim31]

We have had a change of goverment in the past year, but the Labor Party took the same line on censorship as the previous, more conservative Liberal government had. As for pro-gun in Australia, they're most likely to align themselves with the National Party, which is(was) something of a stable for rural Australia. The national party formed a coalition with the Liberals in 1996 and won government, holding it for eleven years. So essentially you had a conservative government made up of pro and anti gun politicians.

[Broomstick]

Don't be stupid. For starters owning guns is still legal in Australia; secondly it's a fucking sci-fi site, give the government some fucking credit.

Right - it's a sci-fi site with hefty discussions on gun ownership by crazy gun-toting Americans, Finns, and assorted others. Some stupid bureaucrat is going to hate it.

The kind of Australian who supported this legislation (read: social conservative) is probably going to be pro-gun, not anti-gun.

Really?

I'm so used to our social conservatives here being total pro-gun nuts* that perhaps I don't have a clear perception of Australian social conservatives.

* Which should not be taken to mean I think all US gun owners are social conservatives, or nuts.

[loomer]

There's actually a lot less outrage over firearms here in Australia. Most of the actors, dancers, singers and other assorted leftists, hedonists and fops I associate with have a healthy respect for the sport of shooting and will partake from time to time.

Of course, I live in a country city (albeit one that votes nearly exclusively Labour) so that may just be a benefit of our rural outlook.

[Lusankya]

I thought that most people were pretty satisfied with our firearms laws anyway. I mean, you have to jump through some hoops to get one, unless you own a country property, but if you want to go shooting at a shooting range, you can. The only thing you can't get a gun (legally) for is lolpersonal defence.

The only time I ever remember guns being an issue in Australian politics was the period between Port Arthur and the gun buyback scheme.

[thejester]

So, get your head out of your ass, or better yet, stick it further up, and don't try to discuss subjects you don't know anything about.

Yeah because you've presented such compelling evidence there. No-one denys that people in positions of power can be dicks, but to suggest they'll take offence at something which is neither socially taboo nor actually illegal is fucking ridiculous, your cute anecdotes notwithstanding.

[Archaic`]

It would also put Australia into company with China, which filters all ISP content.

And considering the hard-on our current Prime Minister has for China and all things Chinese, it's easy to see where he got his inspiration from.

[tim31]

Of course, I live in a country city (albeit one that votes nearly exclusively Labour) so that may just be a benefit of our rural outlook.

I grew up in Armidale, an hour north of Tamworth. If it weren't for the University of New England, it would have been overrun by rednecks, but instead, struck a balance.

[Stark]

AFAIK, the Australian government has been trying to implement something like this for many years now already. The Australian government seems rather ultra-conservative.

Oh absolutely; there's apparently (it's not in the media much that I notice) quite a powerful christian loony presence in politics these days. The idea that they even consider this sort of ridiculous crap is concerning in itself simply because it can be discussed and people don't instantly become outraged or point out the obvious flaws in the concept, but I'm pretty confident nothing is going to happen on this date either.

Fuck knows how much money they're wasting on this lead elephant.