Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Archaic`
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1647
Joined: 2002-10-01 01:19am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by Archaic` »

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/162941,br ... ernet.aspx
Conroy reveals plans to censor the internet
By Ry Crozier, Brett Winterford, Ben Grubb
Dec 15, 2009 3:32 PM
Tags: conroy | internet | filter | filtering

Mandatory ISP-level filtering comes to Australia.

The Federal Government will introduce laws to make ISP-level filtering mandatory for all refused-classification material hosted overseas.

It will amend the Broadcasting Services Act next August to enforce the filter, which it expects to be operational within a year of implementation.

Grants will be made to providers that wish to further filter X18+ sites.

Announcing the measure today, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said that the legislation would require ISPs to block RC-rated material hosted on overseas servers. He said it was an "additional measure to the existing take-down regime for Australia-hosted content".

Senator Conroy justified the filter, saying that "most Australians acknowledge that there is some internet content which is not acceptable in any civilised society".

"It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material," he said.

Report released

Senator Conroy said a pilot conducted by Enex TestLabs in conjunction with Australia's largest ISPs proved that such filtering was viable.

"The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100 percent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed," he said.

Transparency?

The Government announced that the list of blocked RC content would be compiled "through a public complaints mechanism".

But these public complaints will only form a subset of the total content blocked. The Government will also add "specific internet addresses (URLs) of known child abuse material through sharing lists with highly regarded international agencies after an assessment of the rigour and accountability of classification processes used by these agencies".

The Government said it was "also introducing new transparency measures to ensure the public can have absolute confidence in the process for material being placed on the RC Content list" but is yet to release details.

It is believed the mechanism for this process will be hammered out during the consultation phase over the next few months.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/162945,is ... ilter.aspx
UPDATE: ISPs, pollies & activists speak out on internet filter
By Ry Crozier, Ben Grubb
Dec 15, 2009 3:53 PM
Tags: netfilter | conroy | efa | primus | telstra | isp | level | content | filtering | trial | legislation
Mixed support for Government announcement.

Electronic Frontiers Australia has expressed concern over the Federal Government's decision to introduce mandatory ISP-level filtering, as several ISPs indicated support contingent on further "consultation".

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy today revealed the Government's intention to introduce legislation to block "refused classification" content hosted on overseas servers.

EFA spokesman Colin Jacobs told iTnews the Federal Government's stance on just blocking child pornography was misleading.

"Refused classification is definitely more than just illegal child pornography," Jacobs said.

"It's anything that doesn't fit into the Classification Board's other ratings and that include video games aimed at adults, criminality and euthanasia and all sorts of controversial things."

"Our concern is that once there is a secret blacklist in place it is going to be very difficult for the public to know what's on it and if it will be increased in scope as time goes on."

Primus backs policy

But a participant in the controversial trials, Primus Telecommunications, backed the Government's policy "to block online child pornography".

He said that Primus would "work with the Government to further develop and implement" the policy.

"Primus Telecom believes that the introduction of an ISP filtering regime into Australia requires a balance between protecting Australians' rights of free expression and access to information with the need to improve online safety and the need to take action against the providers of objectionable content," Bhatia said in a statement.

"The scope and operation of an ISP filtering regime for on-line safety needs to be governed by a set of clear and focused policy principles, use efficient and effective processes in determining and removing prohibitions on content, and operate in a transparent and accountable manner.

"[We welcome] the chance to expand on these matters in further consultation with the Government."

Telstra's reaction

Telstra's group managing director of public policy and communications David Quilty was also supportive of the Government's intention "to legislate its approach, thereby ensuring that it applies across the industry, is clearly spelt out and is enforceable by law.

"We also welcome Senator Conroy's commitment to consult further with ISPs on the details of the Government's plans," he said.

Family First sees 'fine line'

Family First Senator Steve Fielding welcomed the release of the Enex report on this year's controversial filter trials, and also put up his hand to participate in further consultation processes.

"I believe there needs to be some sort of filtering on the Internet the same way every other medium has some level of protection," Fielding said.

"We all know there is some pretty awful stuff on the web and we need to make sure this doesn't make its way into our homes.

But he warned: "There's a fine line sometimes between filtering and censorship and it's important we get this balance right."

Coalition seeks independent audit

Shadow Communications Minister Tony Smith called for an independent audit of the Enex test results before he would add support to the mandatory filtering plan.

"Our concern with Labor's proposed mandatory filtering plan has always been that it would be both unworkable and ineffective," Smith said.

"Whilst the Coalition remains concerned that the Rudd Government's approach will simply be unmanageable, we have also said from the beginning that we were prepared to assess any credible trial results.

"Now that Senator Conroy has finally produced the report, that detail needs to be assessed."

Smith said an audit of the Enex report "should occur as soon as possible."

He also said the Coalition "will consult extensively with Telstra, other ISP providers and relevant stakeholders over coming weeks, and will examine the government's proposals in detail."

Democrats slam proposal

The Democrats slammed the Government's decision to push ahead with mandatory internet censorship, branding it "a waste of taxpayers' money and a violation of their freedom".

Its national technology policy coordinator Geordie Guy also said it established "a bad precedent for Government control of information."

Guy said internet users generally were "still waiting for some sort of sensible explanation from the Senator about why this is a better idea than empowering law enforcement and supporting the choices of individual Australians."

"Those who have been able to access the [Enex] report have been disappointed with page after page of jargon and graphs," he said.

"The missing context of any assertions is horrifying. There's not even detail of how many people participated in the trial, whether they requested to do so or really under what sort of conditions."



More to come...
Much more information can be found at http://whirlpool.net.au/

Got to say, I didn't honestly think they'd go ahead with it over all the backlash they've been getting over it. If they wanted to swing young voters towards the Coalition, or minor parties like the Pirate Party and Greens, this is certainly the best way to do it, giving them all an issue they can hammer the government on repeatedly for the next however long it is until the election. Very poor politics from Labor.
Veni Vidi Castravi Illegitimos
User avatar
Resinence
Jedi Knight
Posts: 847
Joined: 2006-05-06 08:00am
Location: Australia

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by Resinence »

Meh, knew this was going to get shammed through the moment he decided he'd completely ignore any expert on the subject in favour of pandering to boomer helicopter parents. I mean "protecting children"? Conroy is too dumb to realize that todays kids are fucking prodigy's with computers compared to their parents, they will just be driven onto encrypted networks so they can browse the chans in peace. Oops shit theres my realism getting in the way of politics again.
Grants will be made to providers that wish to further filter X18+ sites.
*Replace above with "look at their porn in peace".

Clearly the internet should be MA-15+ ONLY! I mean it's an entertainment device right? Not a global information exchange system that should remain unfiltered, right conroy? Right? Oh damn there I go assuming he's not an ignorant xtian technophobe again.
“Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.” - Oscar Wilde.
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Why not save money and outsource the whole effort to the Chinese? They are after all already the world leader in comprehensive information control.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by Stark »

They'd rather waste piles of money on trying to work it out again and fail. It's been fun watching everyone with a clue tell them why it won't work; it's not just bad politics to try, it'll give the Coalition free points if they actually do it.
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by Alyeska »

A better title is Great Barrier Firewall. The Great Firewall is Chinese.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Perhaps it should be the Rabbit Proof Filter, or the Dingo Filter.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Archaic`
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1647
Joined: 2002-10-01 01:19am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by Archaic` »

Alyeska wrote:A better title is Great Barrier Firewall. The Great Firewall is Chinese.
It's intentional. Our Prime Minister is fluent in Mandarin, and has strong links to the Chinese community. The name is meant to link it to similar filtering policies in China.

Though if we're going to suggest some other amusing names for it, here's a few.

Trans-Tasman Filter
The Sub-Pacific Solution
The Rolf Harris Filter - "Tie me internet down sport"
Veni Vidi Castravi Illegitimos
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by Stark »

If only brainstorming a stupid name for an absurd folly would make it go away.

But hey, it's the best reason for everyone with a job to leave to country, so that'll help the White Australia policy. :)
User avatar
Spyder
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4465
Joined: 2002-09-03 03:23am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by Spyder »

Stark wrote:If only brainstorming a stupid name for an absurd folly would make it go away.

But hey, it's the best reason for everyone with a job to leave to country, so that'll help the White Australia policy. :)
My guess is that it'll start affecting business then get either shutdown or crippled to the extent of being completely useless. A lot of big names in IT have set up shop in Australia's main centres and with the kind of work they do it wouldn't be hard or even that expensive to move them somewhere else.
:D
User avatar
loomer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4260
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by loomer »

I swear to god, if this thing interferes in my BDSM sites, there will be hell to pay.

There's a petition/comment thingy floating around somewhere about this, open for anyone, and if I recall organized by either the government itself, part of the media, or EFA. Doubt it'll help, but hey, maybe we'll get lucky.
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
User avatar
bobalot
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 2008-05-21 06:42am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by bobalot »

I really don't know how this is going to pass.

There are a lot of people in the Labor party against it, the Liberals are against it and the greens are against it. The only person supporting it is that religious nutjob Steve Fielding.
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi

"Problem is, while the Germans have had many mea culpas and quite painfully dealt with their history, the South is still hellbent on painting themselves as the real victims. It gives them a special place in the history of assholes" - Covenant

"Over three million died fighting for the emperor, but when the war was over he pretended it was not his responsibility. What kind of man does that?'' - Saburo Sakai

Join SDN on Discord
User avatar
Ford Prefect
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8254
Joined: 2005-05-16 04:08am
Location: The real number domain

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by Ford Prefect »

What interesting is how K-Rudd has basically distanced himself from the idea. Anyone with any knowledge of recent Australian politics would known that slimy deviant is absolutely desperate to have his name on anything big that happens in Australia, hence his micromanagement of various issues, his recent push on Mary MacKillop's sainthood, his posturing at Copenhagen and so on. The fact that this remains Conroy's bid makes it quite clear that he thinks it could be politically unfavourable, and is in essence is testing the waters. If it tests badly, then it will remain Conroy's bill and will sink like a stone as a result, as the political will to get it through the Senate will not exist. As it is, the Greens will basically never allow the sort of censorship that Conroy wants, and Labour has to get the Greens and Xenophon onside to get it through. Xenophon is a cockhead but he's a cockhead with integrity, so he's not likely to support it, so even on the extraordinarily off chance that the Greens vote in favour, Xenophon will not, forcing it back down.

So not only is more or less currently impossible, the political will to even make it possible doesn't exist. Which is fucking great because the entire idea is just offensive.
What is Project Zohar?

Here's to a certain mostly harmless nutcase.
User avatar
adam_grif
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2755
Joined: 2009-12-19 08:27am
Location: Tasmania, Australia

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by adam_grif »

Every time questions get raised in Question Time or what have you, Conroy ends up trying to make it sound as though the only thing he's blocking is child pornography, as opposed to everything it's actually banning, which is "anything they find to be unsavory".

Hilariously, the leaked banned site list that went up on Wiki-leaks for the trial run of the software banned 4chan.
A scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: 'What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, 'What is the tortoise standing on?'

'You're very clever, young man, very clever,' said the old lady. 'But it's turtles all the way down.'
ThomasP
Padawan Learner
Posts: 370
Joined: 2009-07-06 05:02am

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by ThomasP »

Conroy's an idiot. Last year I watched him in a debate on Nine, where several IT professionals told the man to his face that it wouldn't work and exactly why, and a 16 year old kid told him how he could get around it with under 5 minute's work.

Conroy's answer? "Think of the children."

That's right. Not any comprehension of the technical hurdles, nor the political implications of actually having a national firewall with a secret blacklist. Not one moment's thought about how easy a filter would be to circumvent, or about how pointless that made the entire idea.

Conroy's a man hung up on an idea, regardless of any real evidence backing it.
All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain...
User avatar
Lusankya
ChiCom
Posts: 4163
Joined: 2002-07-13 03:04am
Location: 人间天堂
Contact:

Re: Great Firewall of Conroy - ISP-level filtering in Australia

Post by Lusankya »

Ford Prefect wrote:What interesting is how K-Rudd has basically distanced himself from the idea. Anyone with any knowledge of recent Australian politics would known that slimy deviant is absolutely desperate to have his name on anything big that happens in Australia, hence his micromanagement of various issues, his recent push on Mary MacKillop's sainthood, his posturing at Copenhagen and so on. The fact that this remains Conroy's bid makes it quite clear that he thinks it could be politically unfavourable, and is in essence is testing the waters. If it tests badly, then it will remain Conroy's bill and will sink like a stone as a result, as the political will to get it through the Senate will not exist. As it is, the Greens will basically never allow the sort of censorship that Conroy wants, and Labour has to get the Greens and Xenophon onside to get it through. Xenophon is a cockhead but he's a cockhead with integrity, so he's not likely to support it, so even on the extraordinarily off chance that the Greens vote in favour, Xenophon will not, forcing it back down.

So not only is more or less currently impossible, the political will to even make it possible doesn't exist. Which is fucking great because the entire idea is just offensive.
As a South Australian, I just want to say that Xenophon is not a cockhead. He encourages that kind of voter who votes below the line. :P

But the only way that Xenophon could possibly be enticed to vote for the bill is if it blocks gambling websites as well, but even then, as far as I know he's of the opinion that his cause would be far better served by banning gambling websites from accepting credit cards than creating a web filter. And I honesty doubt that Xenophon would vote for a bill that he didn't think would do anything to curb gambling addiction.
"I would say that the above post is off-topic, except that I'm not sure what the topic of this thread is, and I don't think anybody else is sure either."
- Darth Wong
Free Durian - Last updated 27 Dec
"Why does it look like you are in China or something?" - havokeff
Post Reply