Mandatory ISP filter still on the agenda: Gillard
- 07 January, 2011 10:34
- Comments 58
The Federal Government’s mandatory internet service provider (ISP) level filter is still on the agenda, according to the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.
Gillard said the government had “worked through” with ISPs on a system that would meet its stated policy objectives while not slowing internet speeds.
“We obviously want people to have faster internet speeds because this is the transformative technology of the future and that’s why we’re building the National Broadband Network,” she said.
“But we’ve been working with internet service providers to try and make sure that we’re not slowing speeds. People want fast internet, but we are dealing with content that is really repulsive and illegal content.”
The issue of slower internet speeds was highlighted in the results of Enex TestLab’s test pilot into mandatory ISP-level content filtering.
Gillard said the government was persisting with the filter in order to gain consistency in its classification regime across different media.
“There’s a pretty simple concept here; there are some things that we do not allow to be shown in our cinemas or on our TV screens because they’re grossly offensive and wrong, and we don’t want those things percolating throughout our society through the internet,” she said.
However, it is understood that legislation supporting the filtering project may not hit parliament until mid-2013 in time for the next election.
The timing is due to a postponement of the legislation to allow for a review of the Refused Classification category of content — which the filter is intended to block — was carried out by the Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O’Connor, for the consideration of federal and state attorneys-general.
The attorneys-general were slated to meet in November 2010 to confirm the review then consider the scope of methodology of the review in March this year, with recommendations to be presented back to the attorneys-general in early 2012.
“It may then take [the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General] a number of meetings before it reaches consensus on any recommendations from the review,” read the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy briefing documents on the timing of the filter.
“This suggests legislation for mandatory filtering may not be able to be introduced into parliament before the middle of 2013.”
The decision to push ahead with the filter also comes despite the Coalition and the Greens confirming plans to block legislation associated with the controversial project when it does finally hit parliament.
Follow Tim Lohman on Twitter: @tlohman
Follow Computerworld Australia on Twitter: @ComputerworldAu
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
-
Amazon Web Services personalizes CloudFront web hosting service
-
CeBIT 2012: Will NBN speed up freight delivery times?
-
Coalition NBN better or worse?
-
Coalition NBN better or worse?
-
CeBIT 2012: Will NBN speed up freight delivery times?
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
-
Office 2007 for Dummies
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
-
Office 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
MYOB Software for Dummies 6E Australian Edition
-
Excel 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Computers for Seniors for Dummies, 2nd Edition
-
Windows 7 for Dummies®
Comments
Mr1979
Oh piss of Gillard take your filter and shove it.
lachie
idiot govt should foad.
Der
Repeat after me, Joolya. Refused classification is not illegal.
Anonymous
GO julia.
It is about time they regulated the net and stopped the kids having easy access to the filth that is on there.
Over 80% of the net is used for illegal downloading and porn.
Imagine the outcry if there was over 80% of crime committed in the city.
The net is no different.
Adam
John do the world a favor and get off the internet completely.
Josh
Agreed adam - The beauty of the internet is that it is completely open and unrestricted. Don't you think there would be more sick people on the street if they couldnt endoulge online? Besides, there are always ways around. John - I hope you've never looked at porn - better go back to church.
Not to mention false positives. Oops, you're dutch and you searched for "Douche". I guess you wont be finding your shower.
Sam
John that is a typical pig ignorant pro filter reply its people like yourself that is destroying our country and our rights.
As Adam said get off the internet because someone could use the extra bandwidth.
Anonymous
So Adam josh and Sam does that mean you would like the internet so open you support a person right to see child porn etc.
Mr1979
If people really want crap nany need hand holding from the big bad scary its going to blow your house down internets, then joing websheild and leave the real net users alone with unfiltered net.
Simple really.
viditor
I hope that the government is setting aside a lot of money for the lawsuits that come after the secret list mistakenly censors legitimate companies like the dentist that was censored during the trial.
@john
1. This "filter" will stop less than 5% of child porn because most of it uses a different area of the internet (just as email uses a different area) than the WWW.
2. It takes days or weeks to implement a website ban, but the "bad guys" change their IP in seconds. It's like bailing with a sieve.
3. Parents will have a very false sense of security, which actually puts the kids in greater danger.
4. The ONLY thing the filter does is work as a political point for the extreme right...and not a very effective one. It's been slammed by almost every government and group on the planet.
viditor
@Mr1979
What parents need to do is put all computers in the family room and not in the kids bedrooms...
mr1979
Charles 110% agree.
Parents should stop fobbing off their kids and getting the government to do their jobs.
ISP's and governments are not babysitters.
Mike 65
@john - 12:22 pm
You ever hear of the first amendment - freedom of speech, expression and religion? Fine, we're not in the U.S., but the principle of this basic right is universal in any nation that claims to be a democracy - shame on Australia for not enshrining this right into a Constitution. If this proposal for a mandatory government Internet filter ever came up in the U.S., Canada, or any other country with constitutionally-enshrined rights, it would be laughed out of the room in the same minute that a person raised it. Australia is supposed to be a democracy, but it's acting like China.
Blake
take your filter elsewhere gillard, and while you're at it get out of parliament, you suck.... the internet should be open and free to use, not restricted crap.
Peter
"Over 80% of the net is used for illegal downloading and porn."
John, can you please provide the obviously reputable source where you pulled this info from.
Personally, I do not believe a ISP level filter is the answer here, the only stop to child porn is to stop those who are making and distributing it, rather than blocking our eyes to it in order to provide a child porn free internet.
Julia, do something REAL and take the right stance by re-directing all of that soon to be wasted funding into:
1. Greater funding for the agencies who investigate and deal with the people who make and distribute child porn.
2. A opt-in software filter with regular updates to fix the underlying issues with the software, as well as updates to its blacklist.
3. Education for the general public on how to use the internet.
As well stated by the internet industry within Australia and around the world, such a filter will cause the people who make and distribute the despicable content to go further underground through the use of international VPN's in order to browse and share their traffic (for those that don't currently already).
The mandatory ISP filter is a pipe dream by a Government with a one sided view of how the internet really works, any person who wants to look at this stuff and has the smarts to circumvent a client based filter will also have the smarts to circumvent a ISP based filter.
Do not waste my tax money.
Raymond
@ 13 And the first Amendment is in the constitution of what country?
John,John, do you have any idea! the filter that Joolya wants will require ISP's to store "the content" John boy! do you have any idea what that means, let's wild guess and say nooooooooooooo.
Well John boy it means this, Joolya and Conroy Co can and will monitor the content, and if they don't like what is being said about them, they will shut down that ISP............is that what you want John boy! and by the way you cannot stop porn being transmitted, ever heard oif the concept of photo's and fax, and mobiles phones.
Have a bex John!
Gizzt
How to bypass filter in 10 seconds:
1) Go to Google
2) Search "free web proxy" and select any result
3) Put blocked URL into proxy page
4) Press Go
I'm sick of saying why the filter is a bad idea and why Labor knows they are lying about it so I am just going to post instructions to bypass it instead.
Ozzie
@Peter, couldn't have said it better myself! There are many ways that inadvertent access to undesirable Internet content can be improved. One of the easiest would be to either use OpenDNS (or an equivalent established by the Government) and have ISPs point to those servers by default in their DHCP, which could then be overridden by individuals who don't want the filter. Technically, you could do this by a check box on your account management to make it even easier. ISPs could even advise "use these DNS servers for protected access, or these for open access" for any manual and/or fixed IP address situations. Problem solved for 99.99999% of the population.
Ralph
I'm with Ozzie. I reckon it'd be a great outcome all round for the Government to establish an Australian branch of OpenDNS (FamilyShield).
That's not to say it's perfect, either. But it's not so horribly flawed. The only issue would be to have it based in australia for speed and reliability.
Even opt-out would be harmless in this case, because it is merely a default setting.
Meanwhile, this should be their motto
http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2009/05/29/germany-delete-don’t-block-it-works-unpolitikde/
Steve0
Regardless of what they do, it will affect speeds, of which Australia already suffers greatly.
To avoid all the criticism, they should have a "Government Approved" internet filter, mandatory for ISPs to host and OFFER to their subscribers. That way, if someone wants in on this Government-approved filter as a free addon to their service, they're more than welcome.
As a parent myself, when my kids are old enough to use a computer, I wouldn't trust any government filter - given reasons mentioned above such as open web proxy and the rate at which new sites appear. I'll be implementing a whitelist on my router allowing access to only sites I specify. That way, if they ever want to visit a site, I can review it first before adding it to the list.
Far easier than trying to block everything bad... but maybe I'm crazy and want to involved in my childs upbringing.
jon
if only democracy was real. piss off julia, take your new world order and shove it up your arse you stupid whore.
Brad
First let me say that I am vehemently opposed to ISP level filtering. Personally I do not see the need for any censorship - and believe that if illegal things are being published on the internet, then the people perpetrating those crimes should be punished to the full extent of the law. I do not believe that censoring them and pretending they don't exist benefits society in any way.
I do however understand that segments our community feel the need to control that which they are afraid of. So I propose that the government should spend their money developing a "family friendly" modem/router. This should be easy enough to do given the great open framework like DD-WRT, or I am sure one of the consumer router companies would love to have a government sponsored product. The purchase of the modem could be subsidised by the government - due to economies of scale I could not see this method costing any more to implement than ISP level filtering.
This has many advantages
- to the end user it is effectively the same as ISP level filtering, removes any of the drawbacks by using software filters.
- any impact on speed will only be to those who choose to have filtering in place, and will also be spread across multiple modems rather than aggregated at the ISP.
- the user interface could allow for multiple filtering levels, rather than a one size fits all approach.
- reporting and monitoring can be done at an individual household level, allowing parents to monitor their children's internet activity, without privacy or 'big brother' concerns.
"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."
-- Mark Twain
Anonymous
So all these comments do not want the filter in the name of free speech and the ability for an open net.
Tell that to the kids whos picts will be traded over the net while they are being abused in the name of free speech.
The net has given more access to things like this and since the so called crusaders of the freedom of the net will not do anything about it the government will.
You guys are suppose to be so smart then fix it so there is no need for the net to be regulated.
Oh thats right those pedos and weirdos are just as entitled to ply there trade in the name of freedom of the net as eveyone else is.
Sanx
@John Stephen? Stephen Conroy? Is that really you?
Liam
@John
"Tell that to the kids whos picts will be traded over the net while they are being abused in the name of free speech."
Can you please tell those same kids that instead of doing something about their situation, you covered your eyes and pretended the problem doesn't exist. Because that is what the filter is. It doesn't stop pedos or weirdos, just makes people feel like they are doing something about the problem.
As previous posts have stated, the best way to tackle the problem is to better fund law enforcement agencies and allow them to track down the people responsible.
Why does our government cut law enforcement funding, and then spend tax payers money on a solution that simply does not work?
Joe
@Liam -- Well said. It is amazing to me that some people are unable to grasp those concepts.
@John -- Critical thinking is obviously not one of your strong points. Try arguing less; you will lose the respect of those around you less rapidly.
Peter
Nice Trolling John.
You have come to an article where a considerable amount of the general public are not going to understand the details of what the filter is unless they have a direct interest in it (those with either strong opinions for, or strong opinions against). Then, more specifically, the article is on the net and being hosted on a computer side, hence... mostly technically minded people which would have a slant against the filter.
Then, post a view which is the opposite to those without a valid argument at all (see random quoting of statistics and child porn...).
Perfect place for it to occur, however I call troll.
Bris
John (4),
How about you take responsibility for your own kids and supervise them while they are on the net. I am so tired of this do-gooder nanny regime.
Julia, I didn't vote for you at this election because this was on the agenda. When will you and Conroy get it...WE DON'T WANT THE FILTER !!
Mathew
I agree with Bris.
Julia, this was one of the reasons that you very nearly lost the election.
Y U NO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE?
Adam
Hey john when your rights have been taken away by the government please don't complain to us.
Have you ever heard of the Streisand effect if not look it up.
Speaking of Streisand your about as popular as a ham sandwich at a Jewish picnic.
You want our right been taken away and you come up with some pitiful statics that majority of net users are porn mongers.
Just because you cannot control yourself on the internet don't inflict you problems on the rest of Australia.
Like I have said before get off the internet your not worthy of even having an internet connection if you wanted it to be crippled to death.
Mandy
John when you say
"Oh thats right those pedos and weirdos are just as entitled to ply there trade in the name of freedom of the net as eveyone else is."
You couldn't be more wrong, no they are not free to ply their trade, the Government is not going to stop them with a filter they are out there and plying their trade, the filter is just going to make it so we don't see their trade.
Its all ready illegal to ply that trade in most countries of the world, enforcing that would be a better solution than hiding it.
Howard
John and Julia, if these Pedo's starting sending their stuff via Australia Post would you then support censorship of my mail ?
If they started talking dirty on the phone would you start censoring my phone calls?
I'm not a Pedo, but don't punish me, because the exist, punish them, find them and lock them up don't just attempt to sort of hide them.
As for protecting the kids, I've on the net for over 12 years and have never run across child porn, doubt I could find it if I were to look for it. So its not about porn its about other things you find offensive, that I might not and is not illegal.
Mr1979
Yet to be seen any logical conclusion from pro filter folks. They probably think that a Military tank is the best form of transport because its "safe" but completely ignores the running costs and other inconveniences it would undoubtedly cause.
If the filter ever gets implemented and things start to go wrong there would be an outcry from the pro filter people, and the anti filter folks would say suffer we told you so but you didn't listen so you can reap what you sow.
All I can say is thank you to the pro filter people for getting our internet costs going up reliability and security going down if it gets implemented.
Eric M
Mike65 (comment 13) is absolutely correct. Freedom of speech is the absolute cornerstone of democracy, and the principle of the U.S. First Amendment is universal, it's not just American.
As someone who moved here from Canada, which has a "freedom of speech" clause in its Constitution similar to the U.S. First Amendment, it's shocking that a country that "claims" to be a democracy is even proposing this. People here should be demanding that these rights be entrenched into the Australian constitution, so that a proposal like this couldn't even be discussed.
The U.S ambassador has already stated their position that they will do everything in their power to fight this, and if the filter does come in, they will promote technical workarounds to ensure that people can access an unfiltered Internet, same as they do in China (particularly for their own U.S. citizens living in filtering nations).
Penguin
Some of you people do know the USA are having a think about doing their own child porn filter both sides are in talks about it. Most are trying to see if they can get around the freedom of speech law. A few weeks ago they were having a debate about violence in video games isn't classified as freedom of speech. So if it gets too over the top it will be banned. I have to look that up to see how it ended.
The UK is also wants to filter all porn sites unless opted out. Some ISP already have the filter as a opt in they don't appear to be all up in arms about it.
Why are people so all must keep the internet not filtered so aggressive anyway? Aggressive nature is a sign of guilt. TV is censored and we are all still alive. Where is the I want porn on TV at 3pm group?
Reason why nanny state exists is the number of people suing the government over anything. Because apparently we should be able to sue the government because someone put their hand in the toaster because the government didn't tell them not too and want 50k. It would be possible for a victim of child porn to sue the government for not doing a filter. That's how the world is today sadly enough.
If you are so upset then keep using your vps's and proxies you keep going on about. So it wont be affecting you so why are you acting like it will? Seems strange to me.
BillOfRights
Comment 35: "Aggressive nature is a sign of guilt."
----
People who bring up this bogeyman show that they have zero understanding of basic rights. None of us support child porn. It's about the slippery slope that once you restrict one thing, it leads to other restrictions, and we suddenly turn into China.
---
---
Comment 35: if they can get around the freedom of speech "law"
--
Freedom of speech is not just a "law" in the U.S. (and Canada). It's an actual Constitutional clause, which forms the bedrock of the very existence of the nation. It might be hard for Australians, who don't have an actual written bill of rights, to understand, but no laws are ever permitted to violate anything in the Constitutional bill of rights.
Brett
@Penguin
"Aggressive nature is a sign of guilt."
What a load of rot. This is a false premise. Aggressive nature is a sign of guilt. These people are aggressive therefore these people are guilty of something. Wrong! Aggression is also a response to persecution or being wronged.
--
"The UK is also wants to filter all porn sites unless opted out."
Even the UK ISPs are telling the UK government how monumental a task that is and that it doesn't come without consequences.
--
"TV is censored and we are all still alive."
This is in no way the same thing! Do you look at a TV screen and then look at a computer screen and tell yourself, "They look kinda close enough."? A small number of highly regulated broadcast points within the governments jurisdiction as opposed to billions of uni-cast sites, outside the government's jurisdiction and unable to be regulated. This is not about illegal material here, this is about regulated material such as porn and the technical ability to actually achieve this end. You're upset that a medium that you have to search for and request material is not as regulated as a broadcast medium where you have little control of your viewing content. I mean seriously, you cannot see the insanity of your comparison here?
--
"If you are so upset then keep using your vps's and proxies you keep going on about."
Firstly, it's VPN and this is important. It demonstrates that you have no idea of what will actually happen if the filter goes in. Allow me to elaborate. It's true, using VPN's and Proxies will bypass this filter, it is essentially useless at blocking international content (its stated purpose). These techniques become virtually useless when browsing content within the country however. Now within Australia the AFP has jurisdiction over illegal content and the ACMA has jurisdiction over regulated content. So why do we really need this? The only thing this filter will be GOOD at, it blocking legal, permissible but politically offensive material. The only thing this filter will be good at is policing the Australian web for material the government doesn't want us to see.
We are told this is not what is is for but what are we to think when it's the only thing it'll be good at? Once it is in, how do you fight against it?
Penguin
Comment 36 We suddenly turn into China. Is not a decent defence. If people are really scared about government control and the "what if". What about the what if that china launches a military attack on Australia tomorrow? Should I spend my savings now and rack up a heap of debt? The what if says I'm going to be toast tomorrow.
Maybe law wasn't the correct word but still they are attempting to do it. Strange as it seems both the major parties in the USA support the filter idea.
Comment 37 They are the same thing. Internet is made up of print media and video media. Again shows you should be trying to get censorship taken off TV too. From what I could tell your argument is that TV only has x channels where as the internet as theoretical billion channels or in short internet has more then TV so should be exempt? Quick lets get more TV stations!!
Sorry for calling it vps when it was VPN. This actually helps my cause though. I'm pretty sure I could go around and ask standard normal web users what a VPN is and they would have no clue on what it is or how to use one. I've been on the internet for nearly 7 years and I have no clue on how to use one. I even spelt it wrong. But stat's say if something stops 1% of crime then its in fact a success. Which is what Labor are following. It might stop x from looking it up as his favourite illegal sites as they are now blocked.
Liam
@Penguin
"It might stop x from looking it up as his favourite illegal sites as they are now blocked."
Please remember, the filter does not apply to people attempting to get access to blocked sites. They do not need a vpn, simply follow the steps provided by GizzT in comment 17. Which of the 4 steps do you find confusing or difficult?
"Comment 37 They are the same thing. Internet is made up of print media and video media."
Internet and TV differ in some major ways. For example:
1) Availability: TV is broadcast into my home. I do not have a choice. It is in my home whether I want it or not. Internet is a service that I optionally choose to have. I can also choose to filter my internet connection within my house already.
2) Scale: There are a handful of TV stations in Australia. Very easy to censor.
Google adds over 1 million new *web sites* to its index every *day*.
Google adds over 1 billion new *web pages* to its index every *day*.
If 20 million Australians sat down and each reviewed 1 web page every 10 minutes, for 8 hours a day, then we could keep up with censoring the www. Remember that most child pornography is not traded on the www, so there would be almost no impact on the availability of child pornography.
3) Jurisdiction: TV networks are based in Australia, making them accountable to Australian laws. Most web sites are based internationally meaning they are not accountable to Australian law.
In the case of child pornography, there is no country in the world where it is legal. If you want child pornography off the internet, the existing laws must be enforced. A filter is a band aid solution. Arresting people who create child pornography is the correct way to reduce child pornography.
Every dollar we spend implementing a filter to cover our eyes, is a dollar we don't spend on arresting the terrible people at the root cause of this problem.
If you want a filtered internet, use one of the many home based internet filters.
If you want an end to child abuse and child pornography, support increasing law enforcement budgets for actually catching the sicko's who create it.
GreenB
@ Penguin (35): "Where is the I want porn on TV at 3pm group?"
--------
In the U.S., porn is available at 3 pm on cable TV pay-per-view channels. Any attempt to prohibit it would be a violation of the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech is absolute, who has the right to choose right from wrong? Some nanny-state bleeding-heart?
Penguin
Child porn isnt on www. Really explain this then? One dating website hosted in the US has people abusing children on it daily basis. Site has been running for about 5 years now.
No shut down attempts have been made on the site.
Even though its been reported to authorities in the US as well as the country that the images keep coming from.
Id like to see that site blacklisted but it is proof that child porn is on www and not always hidden in the underground internet.
Which is one of the bad arguments people came up with. I would be guessing any free webcam site would be in the same boat.
But you just tripped over your own argument. By saying it isn't really on the www. It would mean that we can atleast block the www 's. Quite easily.
Comment 39. So you are forced to watch and own a TV? You have to buy equipment to watch tv. Tv antenna a TV maybe a STB. It doesn't just appear on a wall in your house or maybe it does.
Proxies well the majority of free proxies (I have attempted to use over the years) kick you off with in 10 web page visits and strip out images. So that would be very pointless in trying to find images.
Nice comments boys...
@ Comment 21 - Jon: You really sum up the need for unbridled freedom of speech Jon, or perhaps the need to have some levels of control?
Many people here commenting on what other people should do, like how parents should run their families.
Demanding Joolya does not tell them how to use the net, but lecturing Aussie parents how they should use the net and run their kids...
Nothing beats a dash of hypocricy to qualify as an elite troll.
One of the best quotes here is this obtuse masterstroke of genius:
"Please remember, the filter does not apply to people attempting to get access to blocked sites"
Simply wonderful. That is like saying booze busses do not apply to people who have been drinking and are driving...
Well yes it was made to apply to them, but hey people can drive down the side streets. Fixed, let's dump all the booze busses?
Let's dump all the police as people can get around them too and still commit crimes?
Let's dump all the customs agents as people can get around their controls and still get drugs and contraband into the country...?
Let's dump all the child protection agencies and laws as children are still being abused...?
Let's dump all the border protections guys as illegals are still getting into the country?
Let's dump all the freedom of information laws as there are still secrets?
Let's dump all the freedom of speech laws globally as people are still unable to always say just what they want to anytime they feel like it...?
Let's dump all the health laws and inspectors as unhealthy stuff and living conditions still exist...?
Great proposal guys: If it is not 100% impervious and perfect, then claim it is 100% ineffective and dump it? Shall we apply this monumental logic to every facet of our society?
Better still, just state that an app that is foreseen to block people's access to blacklisted URLs is really like this:
"Please remember, the filter does not apply to people attempting to get access to blocked sites"
I do not really care if they put in the filter ot not, but the many of the comments here just prove to Joe Public that we need one.
As the saying goes, crap in your own nest and you might just sleep uncomfortably.
Liam
@Nice Comments boys.. (42)
"Simply wonderful. That is like saying booze busses do not apply to people who have been drinking and are driving..."
If a drunk driver is caught by a booze bus, they are charged with a crime, and must appear in court.
If a pedophile is caught by the internet filter, they are told they cant see the page. End of story.
I would not support booze busses if nobody was ever charged with drink driving. I don't support the filter because law enforcement is not involved, and the people doing bad things go unpunished.
"Great proposal guys: If it is not 100% impervious and perfect, then claim it is 100% ineffective and dump it? Shall we apply this monumental logic to every facet of our society?"
No, but if we want to rid our society of pedophiles, shouldn't somebody be arrested and charged?
How about this: Instead of a filter, we have a watch list.
Any user who visits pages on a watch list will have the session recorded and forwarded to law enforcement.
A secret filter is the wrong way to approach the problem. Recording evidence of a crime, and persecuting law breakers is a much better solution.
Raymond
You guys are all missing the point! has nothing to do with child porn or anything like that! Polititians are just crap people who want to control what we think and say.
The filter is all about controlling the "content" so if we all get on here and suggest that Joolya is a tart and Wayne Swan is a moron and the Pollies don't like that! they will shut that site down!
So I would suggest to all of the interested parties,get hold of as much about the legislation you can, I have it is all there...just read it, and don't be concerned with porn or whatever,think about this, if cigarettes were really bad they would make them illegal...right! and to save money on Booze Buses, they would make grog illegal...right! or am I wrong? is there another reason....ah taxes!
So if they can control what is being said across their net NBN net, and they can screw us for taxes...Pollie heaven!
Liam
@Penguin (41)
"Child porn isnt on www. Really explain this then? One dating website hosted in the US has people abusing children on it daily basis. Site has been running for about 5 years now.
No shut down attempts have been made on the site."
A client of my company operates a business that finds and shuts down phishing websites. After finding a phishing site, most are shut down within a number of hours. These sites are hosted all around the world.
It seems funny to me that this dating site you talk about has been reported and yet no take down has even been attempted!
If the government doesn't have the will power / funding to take down the site, we have a different problem.
"But you just tripped over your own argument. By saying it isn't really on the www. It would mean that we can atleast block the www 's. Quite easily."
Not quite sure what you mean by this. Human filtering of content requiring 20 million full time reviewers doesn't sound easy to me. Unless you are talking about blocking a small number of urls. In which case yes, it is (relatively) easy to block them. But wouldn't it be better to find out who is going to them, then arresting them?
A filter is simply the wrong tool for the job. There are other ways to approach the problem that are just as easy, yet more effective. Why would you choose the inferior option?
As Raymond stated, implementing a filter is not about helping/solving child pornography distribution, it is about control.
@Raymond (44)
I agree. Unfortunately, the debate is framed squarely around child pornography.
Brett
@Pengiun
I see you like to pick and chose which parts of my argument you refute. I can play it your way though.
"They are the same thing. Internet is made up of print media and video media."
Never argued this point.
--
"Again shows you should be trying to get censorship taken off TV too."
Start strawman argument. Here you assign me a position I have not taken so you can justly refute it. Nice.
--
"From what I could tell your argument is that TV only has x channels where as the internet as theoretical billion channels or in short internet has more then TV so should be exempt?"
Almost, I never stated TV should be exempt but you've almost grasped the concept. It is about effort and effect. There are BILLIONS of new webties coming online EVERY DAY. The list operates on a complaint basis, so how much of the offensive content are we really removing?
It is trivially circumvented, the government privacy office used to actually tell you HOW before Labor got in. It won't stop anyone getting to anything it is cited as doing, so why do it?
--
"Quick lets get more TV stations!!"
I know! Let's NOT regulate TV stations and instead put filters in the TVs to stop people seeing those TV stations! Then we can put an off switch for the filter in the back.
--
"Sorry for calling it vps when it was VPN. This actually helps my cause though. I'm pretty sure I .... I've been on the internet for nearly 7 years and I have no clue on how to use one."
Ok, this may seem as an attack but hey. Go ask a 13 year old high school student! These are the target people this filter is supposed to protect and I see them use techniques far more advanced than is required to by-pass the proposed filter, every day! It doesn't help your argument, it shows your lack of understanding of the technologies.
--
"I even spelt it wrong. But stat's say if something stops 1% of crime then its in fact a success. Which is what Labor are following. It might stop x from looking it up as his favourite illegal sites as they are now blocked"
If it stops 1%? I'll take that challenge!
If $12 Billion is spent on the filter and ... well it won't stop any crime. Not really. Let's say it stops 1% of Internet crime just so we run with it. Success? When $4 billion of that was diverted from the AFP Cyber Crimes Division, that would have stopped 12% of Internet cime and would have even put some of the predators you are worried about in prison. Still look like a such success? Where did you think this money was coming from?
The filter won't stop these people. It'll just make them smarter and learn how to use encryption, making them much harder to catch.
--
"Child porn isnt on www. Really explain this then? One dating website hosted in the US has people abusing children on it daily basis. Site has been running for about 5 years now.
No shut down attempts have been made on the site."
Citation please! Until then, I call falsehood! Child pronography is just as illegal in the USA as it is here.
Brett
@Nice comments boys...
"Many people here commenting on what other people should do, like how parents should run their families."
I haven't but how about I put my personal position another way. Why should I as individual have to be penalised in viewing, what is legal for me to view, because another parent want's their child to use the same Internet but doesn't want to learn how to control it at their PC or use an ISP that offers this option? (and don't scream it's not legal for me to view child porn! This covers FAR more than just child porn!) This is about Adults and Parents who chose to learn how to exercise those options being drawn down because of those that want to use the technology without wanting to learn how to use it effectivly.
So ... why should we?
--
"Well yes it was made to apply to them, but hey people can drive down the side streets. Fixed, let's dump all the booze busses?"
Actually, a more apt analogy would be to spend $12 million to close all the side streets so you are only allowed to drive down the main road where the booze busses are ... unless you can figure out how to just drive around the barricade and that doing so is NOT illegal.
--
"Let's dump all the ..."
Let's just run off on a rant on a false premise.
--
"Great proposal guys: If it is not 100% impervious and perfect, then claim it is 100% ineffective and dump it? Shall we apply this monumental logic to every facet of our society?"
Here we go with another strawman argument. Ascribe a position to your opponent that he did not take but is close enough to seem like he did take it, then refute the new position.
The correct argument here is that not only does this proposed filter not do ANY good, IT DOES HARM in many ways.
--
"I do not really care if they put in the filter ot not, but the many of the comments here just prove to Joe Public that we need one."
Actually, your irrational arguments show that not only do you want it in, you are willing to frame the debate in such a way to make you seem reasonable. What this comment really proves is that I really don't want someone like you in a position to attempt to define my moral viewpoint.
Anonymous
Why dont you anitfilter guys admitt it.
The real reason why you do not want the filter is simply becasue it will eventually affect all the illegal downloading a lot of you all do.
It has nothing to do with the freedom f the internet.
You are jsut afraid that first it will be porn then eventually it will be p2p etc.
Already there is talk about doing workaround the filter to bypass it.
That is just another sign of the ilegal activites a lot of you engage in.
It just reinforces the fact the internet needs to be control.
Penguin
Could the person help me with getting this dating website shut? Phishing websites I have come across I get sent atleast 5 emails a week asking for details. They only change the domain name and re-spawn a couple of days later with the exact same email only difference is the link is different.
Liam
Toast (48)
I do not download illegal content. I can't state it any simpler than that.
My argument is that the filter does more to aid the distribution of child pornography than it does to stop it.
"You are jsut afraid that first it will be porn then eventually it will be p2p etc."
The filter is (currently) only for child pornography, not regular pornography. If you have children in your house, you will probably still want a home based filter even if the proposed ISP level filter is introduced.
The problem is the proposed the black list contains child pornography sites AND other unspecified types of sites. If the unspecified types of sites are so bad, why can't they be specified? Because the definition is so vague, we have no idea what the true scope of the filter is. Legal and Illegal sites will be on the black list.
Penguin (49)
I can put you in touch with the company, but can't guarantee more than that. At a minimum, they would be able to give you advice and strategies for applying pressure to the host of the site.
"They only change the domain name and re-spawn a couple of days later with the exact same email only difference is the link is different."
This is true, its like playing a game of whack-a-mole. The problem with filtering sites like these is that the urls change hourly/daily, while the filter list is updated much less frequently. By the time the bad site makes it to the filter list, the illegal things are gone.
Recording evidence of people downloading child pornography from a watched site, then prosecuting them is the best way to stop distribution. This method does not require a filter, and has less potential privacy/corruption concerns. It would be for more palatable to the "anti-filter" crowd.
Liam
@Penguin
Hi again, here's an article showing how the DHS in the US took down sites that apparently couldn't be taken down because of jurisdiction issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html?_r=1
It appears that they only use this method on the heinous crime of copyright infringement. Crimes such as raping children are apparently not worth the time or effort.
Raymond
I worry about Toast and Penguin! they seem to lead very strange lives!
Toast, ask Crayfish about dating sites, he is a genius on them, that how he found his friends!
Just call Crayfish, he will post and reply! or you can reach him on 1800 Imbecile.
Penguin
Hi Liam Well that is most likely what has happened.
No copyright breach means wasn't worth the time.
Most of the people on the dating site that abuse their kids are from the Philippines. Not saying they are bad as a whole or anything just that's were it comes from.
The site has pretty well banned members from the Philippines from contracting everyone else.
Only way they can contract you is for you to contract them first. which takes next to no time.
So they most likely have had some enforcement agency contact them and say hey clean it up.
As it seemed strange that all of a sudden they changed the site and introduced a site waver saying "You understand that all content reflects the views and expressions of participants of the community and are not the views and expressions of the Website. We has no obligation to delete content that you may find offensive".
"This is true, its like playing a game of whack-a-mole. The problem with filtering sites like these is that the urls change hourly/daily, while the filter list is updated much less frequently. By the time the bad site makes it to the filter list, the illegal things are gone."
All it has to do is be up for 30mins and has the word get out oh its open quick go get etc. then 5mins later close.
I do admit that's all that needs to be done.
I just see it as they should at-least try if it fails admit it fails and then can it. When my isp starts its filter later on in the year or next year. if I find it fails and does all the things people say it does nothing, slow down etc then I'll change sides.
blakey
politicos,by the very definition corrupt and without morals what do they want to hide.
blakey
tor will fix it
fraps
You really make it seem so easy with your presentation
blah
Internet censorship makes me think of this speech:
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.
We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.
Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it.
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.
That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
John F. Kennedy 27th April, 1961
Internet censorship has nothing to do with child protection, and everything to do with stifling political debate. People are leaving mainstream media in droves, and looking at alternative media and news on the internet. The establishment is worried about this. Hillary Clinton mentions this.
Anyway, if governments were so concerned with the protection of children, they would have declared war on the Vatican.
Think about it.
gnome
@blah, well said, particularly some of the bits at the end!
There might be another reason that some lowlife politicians are pushing the imposition of secret Net censorship.
In some countries it seems that some media content owners have been more than generous with their cash donations to official political parties and politicians.
We can only guess at what might have been made available off the record, so the current 'unsolicited' push to institute a system of government censorship may also be the result of another cosy under-the-table political deal.
Post new comment