Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Australian Censorship Bypassed Before Live Trials

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the you-expect-free-choice-from-the-government? dept.

The Internet 184

newt writes "The Australian Government is planning to conduct live trials of as-yet-unspecified censorship technology. But as every geek already knows, these systems can't possibly work in the presence of VPNs and proxy servers. PC Authority clues the punters in." Maybe the ISPs secretly like encouraging SSH tunneling — and making everyone pay for the extra bandwidth used. Not really; Australia's major ISPs, as mentioned a few days ago, think it's a bad idea.

cancel ×

184 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uh. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25648213)

Ssh typically does compression and then encryption, so we might very well end up with a net savings in bandwidth.

Re:Uh. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25648457)

Except I would suspect most Australians would be vising sites located in their own country. So they would have to tunnel out, and then request the data from their own country. That's basically sending the data twice over at least one tube.

Re:Uh. (2, Interesting)

drsparkly (65767) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648891)

I currently work for an unamed large geotechnical company with HQ in Holland. Their bonehead corporate ICT network routes all traffic through a global gateway in either Holland or the US. I work in Perth, Australia. To access a server on the floor below, the packets are going 1/2 way around the world and back. And its fscking slow.

Thank god for our hosting networks ;)

Re:Uh. (2, Insightful)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649509)

I currently work for an unamed large geotechnical company with HQ in Holland. Their bonehead corporate ICT network routes all traffic through a global gateway in either Holland or the US. I work in Perth, Australia. To access a server on the floor below, the packets are going 1/2 way around the world and back. And its fscking slow. Thank god for our hosting networks ;)

I was going to say. It's nothing that a diamond head cement drill wouldn't solve. I'm just sorry you went for the easy invisible solution instead.

Nothing says "Fuck you HQ" like a bunch of cat wires dangling randomly from the ceiling.

Re:Uh. (2, Informative)

Starayo (989319) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651289)

Heh, the only sites located in Australia I visit are the occasional TV network / job site / council site. Everything else, including a large amount of sites operated by Australians, are located outside the US, because:

a) You need a registered business to have a .com.au address
b) Hosting within Australia costs a ridiculous amount of money, like anything to do with the internet in Australia

Now of course this is only speaking for myself, but the average internet user I know doesn't use many Australian sites at all, rather they use their facebook / myspace / other crappy social networking site, youtube, stuff like that.

Re:Uh. (2, Insightful)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651361)

You're probably correct, but only because of local mirroring. Anecdotally, most Australians don't even consider 'Australia' when using the internet, instead they consider it a global resource.

Re:Uh. (4, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648459)

...Until the Aussie government considers SSH, VPN's, and anonymizing proxies to be "hacking"(illegally circumventing a la DMCA) and takes steps to outlaw them.

Re:Uh. (1)

Reece400 (584378) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648637)

There's always using dial-up to connect to another country. Slow, but I know downloaded tonnes with dial up when I was kid because there was no other way... Didn't stop me one bit.

Unless of course they decide international calls are also "hacking"..

Re:Uh. (3, Insightful)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648719)

I'm an Australian myself, and it saddens me to say that you might have a point there [convictcreations.com] . Australia's legendary convict streak [davewarner.com.au] has always been counterbalanced by a lurking streak of repressive authoritarianism [wikipedia.org] of a kind which, if permitted to fully express itself, would make the UK's big brother state look tame.

Re:Uh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25649487)

Botany Bay? Botany Bay?! Oh no! We have to get out of here now. Damn!

Re:Uh. (2, Funny)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651365)

Khaaaaaan!!!

Re:Uh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25649841)

Please keep in mind that only parts of Australia (and they consider themselves the most important parts) were started up as convict settlements.
Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane were established by free men although Melbourne and Brisbane had convicts sent from Sydney once they were viable.
Most of the convicts were not career criminals, simply people who had fallen foul of the harsh laws of the time.

Re:Uh. (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#25650803)

However, most Australians slowly build up a tolerance to Iocaine powder prior to discussing open network initiatives with members of the Rudd government.

Re:Uh. (1)

Starayo (989319) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651751)

My many times great uncle was a horse thief. Horses have never liked me very much. XD

Re:Uh. (2, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648819)

.Until the Aussie government considers SSH, VPN's, and anonymizing proxies to be "hacking"(illegally circumventing a la DMCA) and takes steps to outlaw them.

While one can never account for the cluelessness and stupidity of so called "conservative" government, tools like SSH and general encryption are foundations of a lot of necessary infrastructure.

Re:Uh. (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651643)

Yeah they won't ever get rid of SSH I think, they'll just make us all use SSLv2 and SSHv1 :(

Re:Uh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25653523)

The Rudd government isn't conservative, it's the more liberal of the two parties (the majority conservative party is called the "Liberal" party, I know, confusing isn't it?). The reason this is being pushed is in exchange for the support of an absolutely bat-shit insane third party, the "Family First" party (i.e. astonishingly divorced-from-reality bible-thumping conservatives).

Re:Uh. (5, Insightful)

drsparkly (65767) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648829)

How many businesses rely on VPNs to connect their remote offices? How many sysadmins use SSH to remotely connect to their unix systems? If the government moved to outlaw VPNs and SSH, there is no point having an internet any more. If the government did this there would be a major backlash from the business community. It would be political suicide, if the current plan isn't already.

My internet connection is paid for by my current employer so I can (a) telecommute (VPN) (b) remote administer systems in case of problems (VPN, SSH). Its a home internet plan, so they could not simply limit this block to home internet users.

I repeat my point... if the Aussie government starts blocking every protocol that can be used to bypass their stupid filter, there is no point having an internet. Australia will be back to the stone age.

Re:Uh. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651393)

Most likely, any ban on VPN and friends wouldn't be blanket, that would be suicide, as you note. It would, instead, be a clumsy and poorly worded attempt to distinguish between "business" VPNs(++Good) and "consumer" VPNs(++ungood). It would of course be a failure, and pretty much end up failing to catch most relevant cases, while criminalizing every hobbyist who uses a Free SSH implementation.

Re:Uh. (2, Insightful)

limaxray (1292094) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651413)

They could get around that by only outlawing encryption systems that didn't have a government approved back door. Then the companies could be safe from the hackers while the government kept the population safe from the child porn. It wouldn't be the first country to pass such requirements...

Re:Uh. (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648661)

On the other hand SSH tunnels aren't amenable to caching. And no matter what, you're adding another hop.

Re:Uh. (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648947)

It only compresses if you ask it to, and frankly, the results are usually less than impressive. From the manpage:

-C Requests compression of all data (including stdin, stdout, stderr, and data for forwarded X11 and TCP connections). The compression algorithm is the same used by gzip(1), and the ``level'' can be controlled by the CompressionLevel option for protocol version 1. Compression is desirable on modem lines and other slow connections, but will only slow down things on fast networks. The default value can be set on a host-by-host basis in the configuration files; see the Compression option.

tagged typo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25648247)

Tagged typo because that semicolon should be a comma.

The old saying still holds (5, Insightful)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648281)

A wise man once said: "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

(And if you don't know who, turn in your Slashdot account by tomorrow morning.)
=Smidge=

Re:The old saying still holds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25648495)

In censored Australia, internet routes around YOU!

Re:The old saying still holds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25648557)

Oooooo...I know, I know. It was Al Gore, right?

Re:The old saying still holds (4, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648647)

A wise man once said: "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

In fact, the original quote was that "Usenet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it," although the saying is widely misquoted.

(Note how incredibly useful the uncensored usenet has become.)

Re:The old saying still holds (4, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649007)

To be fair, the Usenet was killed by the old truth that if you give the people a cheap broadcast mechanism, the first thing they'll do is try to put advertisements on it.

It has been said that prostitution is the oldest profession, but before they could be prostitutes they had to advertise their services.

Re:The old saying still holds (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648669)

> (And if you don't know who, turn in your Slashdot account by tomorrow morning.)

We're geeks, not historians... :-)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore [wikiquote.org]

Re:The old saying still holds (1)

Khemisty (1246418) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648781)

Who's John Gilmore and what has he ever done for defending freedom in the digital world?

Re:The old saying still holds (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648789)

A wise man once said: "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

Then it seems that this wise man did not forsee Cogent blackholing Sprint's traffic.

Re:The old saying still holds (1)

BrennanM3 (1397275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648895)

I know this one, this is the same guy who also said it's like a series of tubes and not a dump truck.

Re:The old saying still holds (4, Funny)

Speare (84249) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649021)

(And if you don't know who, turn in your Slashdot account by tomorrow morning.)

Translation:

(And if you don't know who, I'm too lazy to google it for you as it has slipped my mind also.)

Re:The old saying still holds (2, Funny)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649277)

A wise man once said: "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

Routing around Australia as a whole is probably not the intended nor desired outcome. The rest of the Internet will be fine. Just nothing in or out of Oz.

Positive aspect (3, Insightful)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648287)

I can see a positive possibility here. Find a work-around, and when you're caught visiting "illegal sites", claim that you thought your actions were legal since there's a "foolproof" filtering system that should've properly protected you.

Disobedient (2, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648555)

you thought your actions were legal since there's a "foolproof" filtering system that should've properly protected you.

It's fool-proof, not criminal proof. Since you're reading material that's critical of the Australian government you've proven yourself a criminal.

Please come with us. *click-clack*

Even though geeks and tech savy people can bypass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25648349)

Even though geeks and tech savy people can bypass it, 95% of the population won't be able to.

The US voted out the religious right yesterday. Pitty our religious right goverment isn't due for re-election for another couple of years...

Google 'Nolan Chart' (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648621)

The US voted out the religious right yesterday. Pitty our religious right goverment isn't due for re-election for another couple of years...

It has little to do with being religious or right. The problem is statists, no matter their views on God, Gods, no Gods, or economics.

Re:Google 'Nolan Chart' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25649005)

I, for one, would love to hear you define "statists". I'm curious if you're referring to the nationalistic, some-what jingoist movements between which most common Americans would call countries, or, if you refer to the growing concern that individual states within the United States have little say in what their citizens are ruled by.

If you would happen to entertain an AC on this, it would be an interesting conversation I believe.

Re:Google 'Nolan Chart' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25649749)

... God, Gods, no Gods, or economics ...

Oh, you mean everyone and everything accused of having an invisible hand in human affairs? :-)

apropos captcha: merciful

Re:Even though geeks and tech savy people can bypa (2, Insightful)

SpiderClan (1195655) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648635)

1. http://www.google.com.au/ [google.com.au]

2. 'Australia internet filter bypass'

3. 95% of the population can bypass the filter.

Re:Even though geeks and tech savy people can bypa (3, Insightful)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649695)

Not if they block google.

Re:Even though geeks and tech savy people can bypa (2, Insightful)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653685)

Hopefully, they will. Google is mainstream enough that killing it will be one of the quickest ways to piss off the public and get this whole plan scrapped. There's an old rule that 'the best way to fight a stupid law is to enforce it to the letter.' This explains why Australia has a tonne of boneheaded laws that are never enforced.

Re:Even though geeks and tech savy people can bypa (3, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649577)

The US voted out the religious right yesterday.

Really? You might want to read up on California's newest constitutional amendment.

Re:Even though geeks and tech savy people can bypa (1)

woot account (886113) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651183)

As well as Florida and Arizona's.

Re:Even though geeks and tech savy people can bypa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25653409)

Which was supported more than 50% by Democrats.

China! (4, Funny)

vik (17857) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648407)

Won't it be embarrassing when people start routing their traffic through China to get around American and Australian internet legislation?

Vik :v)

Re:China! (2, Insightful)

ink (4325) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649491)

What American legislation? It seems that France, China, Australia, and the UK are the ones spearheading big-brother Internet censorship.

Advantages to Censorship (4, Funny)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648409)

As an Australian who fervently opposes Chairman Rudd's censorship bill...

There is one advantage I can see to all of this. Big Brother will block anything illegal and offensive to me, right? So I can download absolutely anything I DO find since it MUST be legal. After all, the censorship is perfect!

Pirate bay here I come!

Follow up (3, Funny)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648427)

So far it's working out great! Haven't had my net cut off y

Re:Follow up (0, Troll)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649273)

You're trying too hard.

Re:Follow up (1)

Samah (729132) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652235)

I think you meant that you haven't had your net cu*#tof$%@@&$%<NOCARRIER>

Re:Advantages to Censorship (2, Funny)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652941)

As an Australian who fervently opposes Fuer Rudd's censorship bill...

There, fixed that for you ;)

Re:Advantages to Censorship (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653455)

As an Australian who fervently opposes Chairman Rudd's censorship bill...

I'm Australian too and I'm getting increasingly annoyed with Rudd. I find the man to be less than genuine, and it doesn't stop with his pandering to China or fearlessly taking on a dictatorial line. He seems to remind me of that every time he's in the news. Like yesterday saying that Obama had fulfilled Martin Luther King's dream. Tell that to almost all the southern states - they all voted for McCain. I can't even think how I'd be feeling if I were a US secret service officer tasked with protecting the president (or family of one of these guys). How much did their life insurance just go up? That is NOT the dream MLK had. He was speaking about true equality and predjudice being a thing of the past. Way to go hijacking that dream to suck up to the president elect of the US. Idiot.

Re:Advantages to Censorship (1)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 5 years ago | (#25654047)

Not that I like Rudd but in his defence many people have said the same thing - its sort of the token sound bite you would come to expect, and is not exactly untrue - a half black man has taken the highest office in US government. While it doesn't mean that there is no more racism, its a very important milestone.

I don't like Rudd because, with this censorship stunt, and that phoney outrage over the art exhibition featuring children - he has shown himself to be a person who believes that the public needs to be 'protected' by a parental like government. I think that is a antithesis to the direction western society has been going for the last two centuries, and a view incompatible with democracy.

Re:Advantages to Censorship (2, Interesting)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653763)

Given that this whole thing looks to be a pander to Steve Fielding and Family First, I think the better solution will be to start blocking things they care about. That and downloading porn and asking them to grade it for me.

I've had just about enough of FF. Rigging Australian Idol didn't bother me, but now they're trying to shut down the web.

Not very good blocking software (4, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648411)

Any decent blocking software also blocks all the popular proxy lists and proxies too (and it constantly updated). Software that does this (like Websense [wikipedia.org] ) may not be impossible to get around, but it makes it damn hard (and I know, this is what my school uses and even with my knowledge it's still hard to find a proxy).

Re:Not very good blocking software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25648509)

SSH? VPN? It's all mentioned in the article. HTTP proxies are notoriously easy to block.

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648631)

Any decent blocking software also blocks all the popular proxy lists and proxies too

But they can't block proxy ports or they will make it very difficult to do business in Australia. How do you get secure email without a tunnel?

Re:Not very good blocking software (3, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648633)

My college uses websense, but Tor goes right through it, and with ready-packaged stuff like xB Browser [xerobank.com] and OperaTor [archetwist.com] , it's readily available for practically anyone as long as you can grab the program once (long live the sneakernet).

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648783)

I can download Tor, but when I try to use it, all I get is a "Proxy Server Refused Connection" message (using TorButton in Firefox).

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

xiphos (120466) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651729)

Look at that error message. It's not your schools filters blocking you.
(Re?)Read the TOR setup FAQ's. They are numerous and helpful.

Re:Not very good blocking software (4, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648729)

Any decent blocking software also blocks all the popular proxy lists and proxies too (and it constantly updated). Software that does this (like Websense [wikipedia.org]) may not be impossible to get around, but it makes it damn hard (and I know, this is what my school uses and even with my knowledge it's still hard to find a proxy).

Bypassing Websense:

1. Have a PC running on a high-speed Internet connection on the other side of the Websense proxy.
2. On that PC, you need to run OpenSSH and an HTTP proxy server, say at mypc.example.com. In this example, I my proxy server will be using port 8080. Run SSH on Port 443 (works every time) on this box.
3. Using PuTTY or Plink or one of the front-ends for plink, forward 8080 through an SSH connection to this PC from the inside of the Websense firewall. Putty and Plink can tunnel right through the proxy connecting to port 443 just like an HTTPS connection would do.
4. Set your browser to use the proxy on localhost at port 8080
5. Done. All Web accesses will go through the SSH proxy and all of this data will be encrypted as a result.

I will leave the details as an exercise to the reader.

Doesn't seem 'damn hard' to me at all.

Re:Not very good blocking software (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648827)

If I had "a PC running on a high-speed Internet connection on the other side of the Websense proxy" I suppose it wouldn't be.

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649641)

Well, if that's not financially feasible for you, maybe you could have a friend set one up for you. Alternatively, you may be able to accomplish what you want through a shell host provider or a co-loc or something.

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

Monkier (607445) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651191)

or a DD-WRT style router

Re:Not very good blocking software (2, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651123)

I use my dreamhost [dreamhost.com] shell at work to get around work's s filter. Especially since in the last week they really tightened down the firewall.

I suppose if you had the extra cash $10 a month for no filtering might be worth it. There are plenty of other ssh enabled hosts out there.

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

Denis Lemire (27713) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648973)

You don't even need the HTTP proxy, only OpenSSH.

SSH has a builtin SOCKS proxy you can use...

ie) ssh -D 1024 x.x.x.x

Where x.x.x.x is your remote SSH accessible host and 1024 is whatever random port number. Then set your browser to use the socks proxy localhost:1024 and you're all set.

Re:Not very good blocking software (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649513)

Great. Now how do I get a remote host? Let me guess, I go to a proxy list that Websense blocks?

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649965)

no, you buy it from a hosting provider, or set it up on your home computer, or have a friend do the same.

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25650169)

Again, this is why all these "it's easy to bypass blocking software" arguments are a crock of shit. Sure it's easy. All you need is a host outside the firewall (i.e., in another country if you're in China or Australia) and a way to find out the address of that host THROUGH the firewall that isn't already blacklisted (or soon to be), and the technical know-how to configure your computer to use a proxy. And those requirements, right there, make it all but impossible for 99.99999% of the population to bypass the firewall.

I can't even bypass my school's websense software. And not a single reply so far has told me a way to do it without first finding a host outside the firewall whose address I can't find because, as I said in my original post, ALL THE PROXY LISTS ARE FUCKING BLOCKED!

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25650345)

What part of you don't need to use a proxy list did you not understand?

You can do SSH tunneling, for example, with an ordinary Web or 'cloud'-type host. There are like $5/month or less shell accounts or Web hosting accounts or whatever out there. There are even a few free shell hosts like nyx.nyx.net, but I don't know if they allow SSH tunneling or not.

Re:Not very good blocking software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25651375)

SSH tunneling is blocked by a decent firewall. And any serious attempt to regulate Internet access filters both web traffic and non-web ports.

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652763)

Did you read my original post? What part of 'run an SSH daemon on port 443' did you not understand?

Re:Not very good blocking software (3, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651439)

It's becoming painfully obvious you're a highschooler trying to get around some stupid proxy. You don't "go find" hosts outside the firewall. You know what they are. They're your home computer, your home router (if you run ddwrt/tomato), your shell account provider (dreamhost for me). This isn't a proxy list, this isn't a list of proxies. It's a computer with OpenSSH running on it.

Everyone HAS told you how to do it, you're just so anxious about showing your l33t skills of haxoring to the Homecoming queen you aren't listening.

Re:Not very good blocking software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25651597)

Nothing in what he said gave any indication that he's "...just so anxious about showing your l33t skills of haxoring to the Homecoming queen you aren't listening."

What you've said, however, is ample indication that you're just some douchebag anxious to feel like a big man by talking down to someone.

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651903)

You can have a friend that has a computer, running linux, using DSL or a cable modem. They create a user for you on their PC. They go to a site like "whats my IP.com" and email you the IP address. then, ssh -l -D 1024 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx then set your browser to use SOCKS on port 1024 (or whatever port).

Keep in mind that the types of filtering you are talking about is much, much different than the type that australia is talking about. Your school looks at the URL's you type, and decides weather or not to block it. (maybe they block all connections to *.competingcollege.edu)

The type of filter that AU is looking at will actually look at the picture or file, and decide if the file is banned. IE, you can put it on any web site, send it in an email, or try to download via FTP, and it will be blocked. The only way around this is encrypted tunnels. (and some of these big file filters can even work on HTTPS connections)

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

Monkier (607445) | more than 5 years ago | (#25651127)

You can also skip the 'running PC' bit, and have putty connect to the SSHD running on a dd-wrt [dd-wrt.com] style router.

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25652933)

Indeed. Of course, this means that sshd must be open on the router, and patching is not so easy on a router.

Re:Not very good blocking software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652643)

just use ultravpn, (ultravpn.fr)
seems way easier to me!

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

Slotty (562298) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653749)

Your post is bound to be filtered out by my government overlords sooner or later.

On the other hand do you have a proxy server you can lend me to filter the internet through?

Please let me know before it's too late and my internet is cut o

<THIS POST HAS BEEN TERMINATED BY THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT>

Re:Not very good blocking software (1)

Yuan-Lung (582630) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649339)

Software that does this (like Websense) may not be impossible to get around, but it makes it damn hard


I am browsing through a lolwebsense filter right now.

ssh tunnel... forward proxy port to local port... point firefox to local proxy port.... Done

oh wow, that was hard. ^_-

Re:Not very good blocking software (0, Redundant)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649605)

And how exactly am I supposed to find a server to tunnel *TO* when all the lists of SSH hosts are blocked?

Re:Not very good blocking software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25650939)

With your knowledge I'd expect you could setup your own proxy.

It can "work" (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648431)

If Australia does what a lot of "secure web gateway" vendors are doing with their products - implement a man-in-the-middle attack against encrypted traffic by using a forged cert. So then Australians' choice becomes the same as employees of companies that deploy those systems - agree to being snooped on, or don't use the internet.
If Australia's government requires that PCs sold there include the root cert used to forge the other certs (again, like SWG vendors), most citizens wouldn't even notice the difference.

Re:It can "work" (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648655)

What do you mean a forged cert? Won't firefox and the like complain loudly? If worse came to worse, the companies could send you a CD with the key on them.

Re:It can "work" (2, Interesting)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648735)

He mentioned adding it to the root certs to get around that. Just persuade Microsoft to add it as a "critical automatic update" and the majority of people won't notice a thing.

Re:It can "work" (2, Funny)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648851)

Microsoft is not high on my list of companies that I regard in good stead. But the Australian Government "persuad[ing] Microsoft to add it [forged certs] as a "critical automatic update" targetted at AU users only seems a bit far-fetched--even to me.

Re:It can "work" (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653355)

Well, they've listed patches for their music DRM system as such critical updates, so it doesn't seem very out of character.

Re:It can "work" (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653909)

Well, they've listed patches for their music DRM system as such critical updates, so it doesn't seem very out of character.

Which countries were targetted for those updates? If it was not targetted on a country-by-country basis, then my argument still stands.

The painful thing is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25648441)

This was introduced by the previous government the Liberal party, and going to be implemented by the current government the Labor party. So with the two party system there is no options for voters to have a say on this.

Re:The painful thing is (2, Insightful)

ink (4325) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649575)

Yep, and the DMCA was a bi-partisan effort here in the States. Neither side cares much for digital rights.

Re:The painful thing is (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653867)

The last lot were 'looking at it,' but Howard realised that he would get hammered for it and he was too busy trying to stay in power to do any real damage, so they kept looking.

The current lot said they were looking at it too, but then they needed some help getting their economic plan through the Senate and suddenly we have a mandatory filtering plan.

First, We Take the Guns. (2, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648483)

Hrm, so 11 years after their Federal powergrab to start banning arms. Not as fast as some regimes, but fitting the pattern pretty well.

Remember what Paul Hogan says, "That's not a knife, this is a knife... that'll get you locked up for two years if you try carrying it in my country."

Australians used to be such bad-asses.

The internet is end to end (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25648771)

It's time to enforce the dumb network model. Too many network operators aren't content with just moving data around for their customers. Port filtering, bandwidth shaping, transparent proxying and filtering are all violations of the dumb network [wikipedia.org] design and the current attempts at limiting the freedom to access public information prove that leaving the dumb network model is a slippery slope.

Misunderstanding (4, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25648785)

The filter is there for people who don't want to bypass it.

The only reason there is no opt out planned for the "illegal material" filter is because a "reasonable person" should not want to opt out of it.

In other words: it's not malice, it's stupidity.

Or use OpenVPN! (4, Interesting)

toby (759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25649969)

It's LZO compressed by default - not to mention encrypted and X509 authenticated - which probably means a net reduction in bandwidth. Go visit their site. [openvpn.org] It's truly excellent open source software.

But seriously. As a practical matter, anyone stuck behind state censorship can use a friend's OpenVPN and proxy in another country.

SSH/VPN is a crap answer (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25651391)

and where do we exactly tunnel to egh ? for free ?
everybody is so quick to point out SSH/VPN but its useless unless you have an exit point

Re:SSH/VPN is a crap answer (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 5 years ago | (#25653517)

Set up some end points in the USA. Given that Barack Obama has stated that he is in favor of net neutrality, the USA is unlikely to start filtering its internet connections anytime soon. They may pass through NSA snooping gear though (but if its encrypted, even the NSA cant listen to it in real time)

Somewhat relative: (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25652975)

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
-- Adolf Hitler

Sorry for Godwin'ing this article but it is quite relative. Senator Conroy is trying to argue this like a Christian, any time someone speaks against him about the filter he just puts his fingers in his ears and says "la la la can't hear you, you're a pedophile because you oppose my filter"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>