Conroy sneaks Internet filter through
Rodney 37 comments Poll
Well, it's official. The internet is dead.
At least in Australia.
While the World's attention has been squarely focused on Copenhagen, Kevin Rudd and Senator Conroy have snuck their ludicrous Internet filter through behind our backs. In 2010, Labour will introduce into Australian law "legislation requiring all service providers to ban refused classification material hosted on overseas servers".
This means, in short, that despite massive public outcry and overwhelming expert and technical evidence that it won't work, the Labour government has bowed to pressure from the Christian Family-First party (presumably for a back-room deal on their ETS) and still seems to think that web pages are pretty much the same as movies and they just assign a team to classify them all. Pages which don't met their approval will be blocked to all Australians.
Despite the pilot trial process being a spectacular failure, resulting in an 86% reduction of network speeds and over 10% of sites being blocked as false positives (including NineMSN and Conroy's own homepage), Senator Conroy has stated that the trial proved to be such a success, there could be no further argument:
"...The live trial has shown that filtering of a defined list of URLs can be done with 100 per cent accuracy and negligible impact on network performance, despite the many claims that have been touted..."
You'd honestly have to wonder what planet the guy is from. Here's a list of reputable sources who disagree with him:
This list covers pretty much all of the ISP expertise in Australia, about 99.999% of the customers and pretty much every level headed and knowledgeable commentator on the Internet.
Political action group GetUp has expressed outrage, citing already known cases of dentists and other innocent parties having their websites blocked in the original trial. Additionally, it is rightfully feared by many that this first stage of filtering is just that - the first stage. GetUp and other groups maintain that there is a real fear this filter will hand the control of the Internet over to "the moral minority".
How will it work?
The first phase of filtering will effectively be "dob in a competitor". This means, sites (or rather entire IP addresses) will be banned upon anonymous request.
As with the trial process, the public will not be privy to what sites are banned and as with the trial process, it is expected that many of the sites banned will contain perfectly legal content (including blocking opposing political views).
The legislation will be introduced in March 2010, after Rudd, Conroy and all our other "hard working" politicians enjoy a "well earned" 4 month vacation.
Rusty Lime Poll
New! Get this poll widget for your web site!
Judgement day is upon us! This seriously sucks. I'm seriously considering setting up a dedicated blog for this to document all of it's spectacular failures.
Trent Greguhn
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 05:34 AMThat would be an incredible notion Mike. I would follow that blog daily.
It's so disappointing that I'm just an observer to this and can't do anything over here in the states. I'm wishing you guys the best of luck over there.
...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Cheers. I feel kind of helpless. I think Rudd is going to lose the next election based on this stunt alone.
Laiste
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 05:38 AMThings like this happen because of the media's minisucle attention span. Because its been out of the news for a while most people aren't even thinking about it anymore, therefore, no public outcry means politicians can push their personal crusades.
Hopefully the greens will be able to stop the legislation going through.
Papa
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 05:50 AMWoh. We were just talking about 1984 in another thread!
Hopefully this will go down in flames. Are there any other countries that implemented the same type of website blocking?
...in response to this comment by Papa. I think they tried it in England - but I'm not 100% certain of that.
Joe Marco
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 06:15 AMso lame...sooo lame. It's time to get Dundee on Conroy's ass.
Un Fu**ing believable...The people who support this type of government regulation are most likely the same ones who answered in the recent R.L. poll: "Should Euthanasia Be Legalised in 1st World Nations?": "As long as it is stringently regulated, Yes" They feel that the way to a better world is to have everything that they can't make up their own minds about regulated. This type of thinking frees them from the guilt of making a decision using their own mind.
Why would any thinking person turn over their right to make up their own mind about anything, to someone they don't even know? Or to anyone else for that matter.
Me, I want more choice, not less.
F-
TVBIZ(BOB)
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 07:40 AMI personally think that the intentions are great but the way they are going about it is wrong. If it causes havoc while using the web then I am sure that it will only last until the next election and going by how Mr Rudd likes to be liked, I don't think he will wear too much bad publicity over such a major issue. He will most likely pull the idea after seeing the reactions and claim that at least he gave it ago.
I really cannot understand how everyone thinks it's the end of the world because of this at the moment? Most people are forgetting why this has been put in place. If you want to blame someone then blame the sleazy shit buckets out there who think it's their God given right to do what they please.
The internet is a public place for all to use in a manner that is safe for all people.
At least give it a go to see if any thing comes out of it.
The U.S is putting Australia inline with countries like Iran and China because of the filter but we all should know that Australia is not trying to block things that these countries dont want their countrymen to see - its trying to block things that could endanger children etc.
I say good on the Australian Government for trying to do something even though it's the wrong way.
HAS ANYONE GOT ANY BETTER IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO STOP THIS BULLSHIT CRIMINALITY ON-LINE??
Please do not say that parents should supervise their children better because that isnt going to happen. Most concerned parents supervise their children already. It's the minority of adults who are causing the problems so who should supervise them???
Trent Greguhn
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 07:52 AM...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). What do you mean by criminality online? Please be more specific.
And no, the internet is both a public and private venture. It can be chosen as a public venture at the user's discretion by participating in threads and forums, but surfing and everything else being done is entirely anonoymous. Just like we don't know your real full name Bob.
"The internet is a public place for all to use in a manner that is safe for all people. "
This isn't true. And what is safe for all people mean? If you mean not offensive then we're just going to have a sterile and boring internet. The internet is for anyone and everyone of all types. It does not discriminate and it is neutral. It is not something to be censored or regulated.
Also, there are programs and filters that can be set up on browsers for children already. It isn't the government's job. It shouldn't be. All you have is lazy parents wanting to censor anything they don't agree with because it's too much work to try and protect their children, they don't give a second thought to the rights of others. That's what the Christian Family-First Party is all about.
Janine
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 08:09 AM...in response to this comment by Mikey. A good initiative but there a slight problem - the blog would probably be blocked by the filter :-P
TVBIZ(BOB)
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 09:49 AM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Trent,
It's people like you with the attitude that the internet is a free for all - anything goes mentality that cause these types of remedies to be put in place in the first place.
Are you happy and satisfied with what happens on and via the internet or are your concerns more selfish as in "gee wiz my internet speed will get a little bit slower"?
Come on Trent - the links that they are trying to block shouldn't be a concern to the normal everyday users and lets face it, if people want to still look at particular sites (kids porn etc) then I am sure they will have a work around before long. If these people have to endure a bit of a problem trying to access these sites then so be it, it's nothing compared to what happens to children that are used for their pleasure.
Why is the internet so different from film; TV; Video games in regards to censorship or regulation? Is it not just another electronic medium for information gathering and entertainment for the masses?
As I said I don't agree with filtering but what other alternatives are there and why are so many people against trying something a little different. If it doesnt work the way it should then great at least it has been tried. Also the trouble with filtering via the home PCs is that it can be turned of very simply by anyone who is PC literate.
"surfing and everything else being done is entirely anonoymous. Just like we don't know your real full name Bob."
Believe me you are not anonymous as you would like to think Trent. Anything you do can be tracked. There is software out there that will give me personal details on anyone I wish to track. Your IP has a logg on everything you do and if your IP has your details then it can be retrieved so don't think you are invisible.
One last thing I will not use my real name in such a public place........
Trent Greguhn
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 10:20 AMBob,
"Are you happy and satisfied with what happens on and via the internet or are your concerns more selfish as in "gee wiz my internet speed will get a little bit slower"? "
Depends. I am unhappy with Youtube comments and dipictions of gore in certain areas of the internet. I am, however, happy with Rusty Lime and a great deal of other websites that I frequent. In fact, I would go out on a limb and say most internet websites aren't terrible in any way (no, run of the mill porn sites are not bad in the ethical sense.)
And how is 86% reduction of speed a "little bit slower"? If I had a 1.5 meg connection I'd be reduced to 56k speeds or less. If I had a 7 meg connection, I'd be running at a terrible speed as well. For what? Censorship of free speech?
"Come on Trent - the links that they are trying to block shouldn't be a concern to the normal everyday users"
Really? Because I thought in the original article it states --
"Political action group GetUp has expressed outrage, citing already known cases of dentists and other innocent parties having their websites blocked in the original trial."
If dentist websites are being effected this is a great concern. I'd like to see a full list of websites being censored.
"Why is the internet so different from film; TV; Video games in regards to censorship or regulation? "
I thought we were talking about censorship here? And the censorship and banning of movies, TV shows, and games is terrible. I suggest looking up a film called "This Film is Not Yet Rated" and see what the MPAA does to the rights of filmmakers. We shouldn't be censoring anything at all. The ratings system, at least here in the states, is completely abused in the film industry and as this article states, there will be abuse with this as well.
Children aren't computer illiterate. By the time they found out how to bypass it they deserve to bypass it.
I know all of that. Your ISP can be easily tracked and etc. But I have nothing to hide, so that doesn't concern me. As you said, if you filter the internet they're just going to get their fix somewhere else. This could lead to dangerous extremes.
Janine
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 10:26 AM...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). Define perfectly normal. Adult sites? This might come as a shock to you but looking at porn is actually a normal healthy activity. I don't care if you don't like it, but it should be my choice not the govs.
People should have the choice instead of just being denied period.
Rodney
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 11:46 AM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. "If dentist websites are being effected this is a great concern. I'd like to see a full list of websites being censored. "
Precisely one of the problems - we cannot see a list of banned sites because the government thinks it would blow our little minds (or at least that if we knew the stuff was out there, we'd be running to find it). It's only because a of leak that we found out they already included a dentist (because of mistaken IP identity) and sites talking about abortion (which is not illegal - it was just included to satisfy Family First, who are the real drivers of this filter).
Of course, you can be sure that phase two will start to include anything that serves up torrents, etc. Before you know it, the entire Internet will resemble using it in a restrictive workplace.
Trent Greguhn
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 02:16 PM...in response to this comment by Rodney. Precisely. The internet is de-evolving. Soon it'll just be another corporate necessity, thinking the public has no use for something like the internet.
Though the economy depends on the internet little to the knowledge of the common person. Amazon, Google, eBay. These companies need the internet, they're not just going to let it disappear. We have powerful allies on the fight for net neutrality.
If the world wide web is to end: it will be with a bang, not a whimper.
Papa
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 02:28 PM...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). "It's people like you with the attitude that the internet is a free for all"
Any government or world power who attempts to sensor information from it's people, whether it be political agendas or pornography is a government or power that does not respect and trust it's people.
In the 40s, Hitler attempted to sensor information as well as the communists in the 60s and so on and so forth. It was a different time back then. But maybe bob thinks we should burn books to sensor information? If he lived in the 30s I bet he would advocate such activity.
No information should be censored, at all. It is up to one's discretion to what he or she searches on the internet. If there is a country sick enough out there to host kidie porn and not do anything about it, than thats the problem. The government should deal with the country sick enough to allow this to happen, not limit it's own people's access to the internet. Just my take...
Rodney
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 04:20 PM...in response to this comment by Mikey. One already exists:
http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/
andrew
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 05:31 PMi guess we live in a dictatorship!!
andrew
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 08:27 PMbig brother meantality
...in response to this comment by Rodney. Excellent.
Marvin the Martian
Thursday 17th December 2009 | 01:17 PMLike the war on drugs, the war on terrorism and all the other wars, this is he illusions of security and safety.
We all know this filter doesn't work. Just look at the big firwall in China. It is a failure without publicity.
Anyone can bypass the filter with a proxy and since there is still no means of challenging the blacklist, eventually someone will take the goverment to court of this issue. There is no way that the government can get away with abritrary filtering without consiquence.
I for one will not vote for Rudd. Then again, there is no one else at the moment. Perhaps I will vote for Mr. Burns.
Janine
Thursday 17th December 2009 | 01:52 PMWho's the joker who voted number 6!?
Rodney
Thursday 17th December 2009 | 04:02 PM...in response to this comment by Janine. Family First Senator Steve Fielding
V2
Thursday 17th December 2009 | 08:29 PMAs a fundamentalist Christian
I think this is the greatest thing ever (besides the new Copenhagen agreement) that has ever happened
This Ladies and Gents is a clear and resounding pall of a bell, that signifies that we are now owned, that we all are one step away from having an ear tag, stapled to our ears.
Freedom, starting on the internet is now gone
We are no longer in control of what we read and write. The Government are now in control
Oh
and
Hot Rod
I am guessing thats just a joke, or can you provide some evidence........Ha ha ha
Effictively, we are now under complete censorship by our government, and free will is all but gone
This will go global, just wait and see. Within a year I recon
The rise of the New World Order
Trent Greguhn
Friday 18th December 2009 | 03:41 AMHere's your proof V2,
http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339300056/ISP_Filtering_Live_Pilot_Report_low_res.pdf
Assuming you're able to read the whole thing, you should get a good idea of what's going on now.
V2
Friday 18th December 2009 | 08:52 PM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Thanks Rod
That clears everything up
Oh
Oops
That wasnt Rod was it?
Trent I dont want your crap unopenable links, or you jumping (like Jake) to Rods defence
Rod, try be a man and answer a question.... Just one
Gone all coy, or shy
Come on Rod, back it up
You talk really really loud Rod......then you run away
I am so in awe of you, not really
I think you a fool.
Seriously, as a Christian, this web filtering, is a clear indication that the government are about to excercise an unbelievable amount of control
Go read the fine print, its not just pornography
The Christian senator opposed it
Trent Greguhn
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 05:16 AM...in response to this comment by V2. Do you know have a PDF viewer V2?
That's the only reason I can think of that wouldn't allow you to open that link.
V2
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 07:26 AM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Sadly Trent
at the moment thier is a lot I dont have
Bloody kids
V2
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 07:43 AMhttp://www.stevefielding.com.au/news/details/sps_pollies_activists_speak_out_on_internet_filter/
The funny thing Trent, as a Christian this filter is beyond evil
Rod, as usual blames Christians for it
Oddly Australia has a Labor Government in office, but Rod doesnt blame the Labor Govt, No
He blames one Christian senator, a senator opposed to internet filtering
No Trent, my issue is with Rod and his silly comments
Its Rods outright lies I go after
Lets make that clear
Jake Farr-Wharton
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 08:27 AM...in response to this comment by V2. The Christian senator has been pushing for it, the independent senator has been opposed it. This system is in test, it has not been to the senate for approval.
the being
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 09:15 AM...in response to this comment by V2. The 'fuuny' thing is the Christian Family-First group has been the main pusher and that's common knowledge. Rudd is obviously seeking their approval so they will reward him later. I wonder why...
Anyone who thinks the religious parties don't have significant political influence are smoking crack.
Rodney
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 08:29 PM...in response to this comment by V2. Glad to know I have such an impact on your life, V2.
V2
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 08:44 PM...in response to this comment by the being. Evidence?
I cant find any
Rod, not only do I consider you a coward, a liar as well
Impact, nu hu, I am asking you the questions. You run and hide
Remember that Bible proof? Thought not.
Listen Mr Been.g
As a fundamentalist Christian, I believe in your right to choose, your God given right to choose.
I pray you dont prey on others
Thats it
Hey Rod, quick run and hide
Peter
Thursday 29th April 2010 | 05:00 PMShelved until the next election later this year, what does this actually mean? too hot to handle so we'll put it off until after the election, by then the public will have forgotton about it and we can bring it back after the election and say we have a mandate for it?
Why not just scrap the F******* thing, no one wants it!!
concerned and confused
Henk V
Thursday 29th April 2010 | 05:28 PMI am of the firm conviction that Internet material should meet a standard of sorts. That doesn't mean Ive started believing that my convictions can be applied.
Some stuff available on the net should never be there. We've gone over this before. People think they should have the right to access truly de-humanising material but they have the choice not to.
So what when and how would an internet be filtered. Sorry, no one can trust governments and especially independents in nasty senates to keep their snout correctly positioned in the trough.
Fielding should never have gotten in as the senate by constitution is a rotten burrough.
Marvin the Martian
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 05:03 AMWhat truely makes this worse is that anyone on a shared hosting space takes the risk of being black listed simply by sharing an IP address with a potential offender.
In addition, ISPs are already running low on IP addresses. By blocking them indefinately and having NO recourse to challenge the validity of the block, the goverment is essentially blacking out large swaths of the available IP blocks permanently.