The End of Oz Stoners?

[Indycar]

Internet filter 'technically impossible'

 

AAP December 24, 2008 09:33am

 

* Internet filter won't work - Opposition

* But Coalition happy for trial to go on

* Say question remain over its legitimacy

 

THE federal Opposition says the Government is finding it increasingly difficult to make good on its promise of an internet content filter.

 

Opposition communications spokesman Nick Minchin said today the filter was a repeat of the bungled handling of the national broadband network.

 

"Prior to the election, the now government, in opposition, made these broad-sweeping promises... to eliminate child pornography from the internet with this filter system," Senator Minchin said on ABC radio.

 

"Now they've got to make good on their promise and they're finding it much more difficult in government of course than in opposition."

 

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy yesterday released a statement distancing himself from a report released by the Internet Industry Association (IIA) that was commissioned and paid for by the former Howard government.

 

The report's findings was "not an analysis of the ALP's policy" and the government's pilot trial beginning in mid-January would provide "real world" evidence on the impact of content filtering, Senator Conroy said.

 

But Mr Minchin said the report identified serious issues with any attempt to impose a mandatory internet service provider filtering system that simply may not work, he said.

 

"It's almost technically impossible to do this," he said.

 

Senator Minchin said he didn't object to the trial proceeding, but questions remained about who would be involved, whether it would involve "live" customers, and whether they will know they're involved in the trial or not.

 

"All I'd say is the burden of proof rests now very much with Senator Conroy to establish that this is a legitimate trial," he said.

[oz360]

It is a disaster to Human Rights of Free Speech. So the Rapists and Pedophiles loose their way of getting off. Put them back on the streets. Safer Australia I think Not after all those bloody Imports from Non English Speaking Nations that think Gang Rape is Ok if it's only boys on a girl. Hmmm. Civil Riots is what a SLOWER internet will create.

 

A Solution. Post words that could be banned everywhere Governmental or Charity or Money Sponsored site that will loose advertising because they become blocked, like China and Christmas. Internet Banking Security - GONE. Or why not just encrypt illegal pages? Unless they are not encrypted to Mr Big Brother Filter.

 

I Pray God Intercede, he promised Free Choice before Man takes it away.

[Dragonfan]

Interesting to note how this is being reported overseas . . .

 

Inquirer.net

 

Uproar over Australian Internet filter

 

By Tanalee Smith

Associated Press

First Posted 10:43:00 12/28/2008

 

Filed Under: Internet, Pornography, censorship

 

SYDNEY--A proposed Internet filter dubbed the "Great Aussie Firewall" is promising to make Australia one of the strictest Internet regulators among democratic countries.

 

Consumers, civil-rights activists, engineers, Internet providers and politicians from opposition parties are among the critics of a mandatory Internet filter that would block at least 1,300 Web sites prohibited by the government--mostly child pornography, excessive violence, instructions in crime or drug use and advocacy of terrorism.

 

Hundreds protested in state capitals earlier this month.

 

"This is obviously censorship," said Justin Pearson Smith, 29, organizer of protests in Melbourne and an officer of one of a dozen Facebook groups against the filter.

 

The list of prohibited sites, which the government isn't making public, is arbitrary and not subject to legal scrutiny, Smith said, leaving it to the government or lawmakers to pursue their own online agendas.

 

"I think the money would be better spent in investing in law enforcement and targeting producers of child porn," he said.

 

Internet providers say a filter could slow browsing speeds, and many question whether it would achieve its intended goals. Illegal material such as child pornography is often traded on peer-to-peer networks or chats, which would not be covered by the filter.

 

"People don't openly post child porn, the same way you can't walk into a store in Sydney and buy a machine gun," said Geordie Guy, spokesman for Electronic Frontiers Australia, an Internet advocacy organization. "A filter of this nature only blocks material on public Web sites. But illicit material ... is traded on the black market, through secret channels."

 

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy proposed the filter earlier this year, following up on a promise of the year-old Labor Party government to make the Internet cleaner and safer.

 

"This is not an argument about free speech," he said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "We have laws about the sort of material that is acceptable across all mediums and the Internet is no different. Currently, some material is banned and we are simply seeking to use technology to ensure those bans are working."

 

Jim Wallace, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, welcomed the proposed filter as "an important safeguard for families worried about their children inadvertently coming across this material on the Net."

 

Conroy's office said a peer-to-peer filter could be considered. Most of today's filters are unable to do that, though companies are developing the technology.

 

The plan, which would have to be approved by Parliament, has two tiers. A mandatory filter would block sites on an existing blacklist determined by the Australian Communications Media Authority. An optional filter would block adult content.

 

The latter could use keywords to determine which sites to block, a technology that critics say is problematic.

 

"Filtering technology is not capable of realizing that when we say breasts we're talking about breast cancer, or when we type in sex we may be looking for sexual education," Guy said. "The filter will accidentally block things it's not meant to block."

 

A laboratory test of six filters for the Australian Communications Media Authority found they missed 3 percent to 12 percent of material they should have barred and wrongly blocked access to 1 percent to 8 percent of Web sites. The most accurate filters slowed browsing speeds up to 86 percent.

 

The government has invited Internet providers to participate in a live test expected to be completed by the end of June.

 

The country's largest Internet provider, Telstra BigPond, has declined, but others will take part. Provider iiNet signed on to prove the filter won't work. Managing director Michael Malone said he would collect data to show the government "how stupid it is."

 

The government has allocated 45 million Australian dollars ($30.7 million) for the filter, the largest part of a four-year, AU$128.5 million cybersafety plan, which also includes funding for investigating online child abuse, education and research.

 

One of the world's largest child-advocacy groups questions such an allocation of money.

 

"The filter may not be able to in fact protect children from the core elements of the Internet that they are actually experiencing danger in," said Holly Doel-Mackaway, an adviser with Save the Children. "The filter should be one small part of an overall comprehensive program to educate children and families about using the Internet."

 

Australia's proposal is less severe than controls in Egypt and Iran, where bloggers have been imprisoned; in North Korea, where there is virtually no Internet access; or in China, which has a pervasive filtering system.

 

Internet providers in the West have blocked content at times. In early December, several British providers blocked a Wikipedia entry about heavy metal band Scorpion. The entry included its 1976 "Virgin Killer" album cover, which has an image of a naked underage girl. The Internet Watch Foundation warned providers the image might be illegal.

 

Canada, Sweden, the United Kingdom have filters, but they are voluntary.

 

In the United States, Pennsylvania briefly imposed requirements for service providers to block child-pornography sites, but a federal court struck down the law because the filters also blocked legitimate sites.

 

In Australia, a political party named the Australian Sex Party was launched last month in large part to fight the filter, which it believes could block legal pornography, sex education, abortion information and off-color language.

 

But ethics professor Clive Hamilton, in a column on the popular Australian Web site Crikey.com, scoffed at what he called "Net libertarians," who believe freedom of speech is more important than limiting what children can access online.

 

"The Internet has dramatically changed what children can see," said the professor at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, noting that "a few extra clicks of a mouse" could open sites with photos or videos of extreme or violent sex. "Opponents of ISP filters simply refuse to acknowledge or trivialize the extent of the social problem."

 

Copyright 2008 Associated Press.

[duckyduckduck]

I wouldn't worry too much. They'll never get this up (it'll look like a filter, it might even smell like one, but in the end the result will still be a Hetty Johnston wet dream of smut and moral degradation).

 

We'll get the broadband network before we see filtering in the form of a monument to Senator Conroy.

[bloodshot_eyes]

Any news on this. I've read on another site that it started the other day and some are already having proxy errors trying to enter pot sites..

[Nooby]

Apart from crappy web speeds I wasn't aware of it, nobody wants to be part of the trial from what I gather. ;P

 

Further reading here.

 

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-repli...amp;p=-1#bottom

[BongsAway_Cherry]

the fact they are even thinking about this when there is so much more fucked up shit happening in the world is wrong. since when did we become china?

 

 

 

didn't stop china from blocking google. Of course there will always be ways to get around blocks from sites. but the mere fact that these things are even high on a to-do list for politicians sends such a fucked up and wrong message. So what if smoke pot? People are dieing from Malnutrion/obesity/alcholism/cigerettes. deal with them before you even speak to us you pricks.

 

omg.. yes yes yes and yes.. totaly agree.. ive been saying that for yrs.. im just reading though wat u have all said.. very interesting and disturbing.. good ole big brother.. got to love the control.. pftt.. bite me.. ill make up my own fukn site.. it will be a shop front.. bout yarn..and knitting..wich i know nothin about and dont care.. but ill make a secret room.. ha then we shall see.. stupid fookers..

[luciddreaming]

Apparently some Cannabis sites are blocked plus a free speech site! hipforums

What I don't get is why the fuck they are doing it. Nobody wants it. Literally nobody.

Government by the people for the people.... *pfft*

They are supposed to be our slaves ffs, making laws which we want them to. Now they're just making ones that they want to with no basis.

Fuck that....

Edited February 11, 2009 by luciddreaming

[Al Fish]

This has absolutely nothing to do with porn. And although there'll be ways around it most people won't know these and Australia's internet will be as fast as a three legged dingo trying to drag a baby Ayres Rock.

The censorship is aimed at political websites.

Top on the list is www.basicfraud.com

Al.

[Teucer]

Listen folks,

 

I wish you'd all stop assuming Australia has some concept of free-speech. We simply don't. We never have and I doubt ever will.

 

The other line I head - government for the people, by the people. You're getting your countrys mixed up. We don't have any such thing!

 

On both points you're talking about the states.

 

Be angry. Be very angry. But it doesn't change the fact we in Australia have no constituional protection of speech.

 

Sad huh.