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!

Some Of Australia's Tubes Are About To Be Filtered

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the think-of-the-koala-children dept.

The Internet 339

Slatterz writes "The first phase of Australia's controversial Internet filters were put in place today, with the Australian government announcing that six ISPs will take part in a six-week pilot. The plan reportedly includes a filter blocking a list of Government-blacklisted sites, and an optional adult content filter, and the government has said it hasn't ruled out the possibility of filtering BitTorrent traffic. The filters have been widely criticized by privacy groups and Internet users, and people have previously even taken to the streets to protest. While Christian groups support the plan, others say filters could slow down Internet speeds, that they don't work, and that the plan amounts to censorship of the Internet. At this stage the filters are only a pilot, and Australia's largest ISP, Telstra, is not taking part. But if the $125.8 million being spent by the Australian Government on cyber-safety is any indication, it's a sign of things to come."

cancel ×

339 comments

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

first post (-1, Offtopic)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824019)

haha you [filtered]!!!1!

Re:first post (1)

grantek (979387) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824077)

I know what a secure proxy is, you insensitive clod!

Re:first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824085)

Skynet is operaConnection reset by peer

You know... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824039)

...for descendants from a bunch of hard asses and convicts, you guys are some of the biggest nanny-State pussies out there. What gives?

Re:You know... (0, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824083)

Well, you're almost right. See, the English are a bunch of pussies and they run the country by suppressing the Irish (who made up most the convicts you mention).

Re:You know... (5, Informative)

Starayo (989319) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824185)

I blame the Americans, for their culture of inactivity they brought over here back in the war.

Oh, who am I kidding, we're all lazy. And our general populous is just as ignorant as the American general populous.

I have not read TFA, due to the aforementioned laziness, but I think the summary misses some of the biggest news in regard to the filter trials: every damn ISP on the list (with the exception of iPrimus) are tiny little no-name setups that likely have customers numbering in the hundreds. Two major ISPs with large customer bases, Optus and iiNet, were excluded because, I would assume, their data would reflect poorly on the filtering scheme.

These "real world" trials are a sham, and Conroy's a bastard.

Re:You know... (3, Informative)

kaos07 (1113443) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824599)

And one of the ISP's, Webshield, is only known because it's business model is based on already offering a "clean-feed" connection.

Just boycott the asses pleases (5, Insightful)

Mrs. Grundy (680212) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824061)

Please, if you use one of the ISPs in this program, send a very strong message and dump them as soon as the filters go live. Tell them that you are quite capable, thank you very much, of filtering your own content.

I guarantee that if this gains traction it will not stop at porn. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824115)

fail. there is very little choice for most people, and if this trial is extended, it will be to everyone.

and yes, it won't stop people visiting crazyshit.com and beating off to some weird porn.

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824741)

Very little choice? How about one of the three largest ISPs in Australia [news.com.au] ?

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824165)

Mmm... no.

1) my ISP (iinet) has repeatedly stated [slashdot.org] that it is only taking part in trial to demonstrate how badly it will fail, so I wouldn't be sending them any message they didn't already know
2) there's no way I'm joining Telstra if I have a choice! Which of the good ISPs aren't in the trial?

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824217)

Look at the list of trial participants again. The only ISP in there is Primus.

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824259)

my ISP (iinet) has repeatedly stated [slashdot.org] that it is only taking part in trial to demonstrate how badly it will fail, so I wouldn't be sending them any message they didn't already know

Apparently they don't already know that even flirting with this will lose them a lot of business, which is the message that I hope is sent to them. No buying this "No seriously guys, we're doing it IRONICALLY" crap The history lesson to ISPs and "christian groups" that should be written here is that censorship is radioactive, if you even give the IMPRESSION that you're okay with censorship you will go bankrupt.

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (1)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824407)

Most aren't in it. Only ones I've heard of are Primus and Webshield, that latter only because of this whole netfilter business(read my comment about them further down)

"The initial round of ISPs are Primus Telecommunications, Tech 2U, Webshield, OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1.

No doubt they were selected due to not being to vocal about the filter and being rather small ISPs here in Australia. Primus is probably the biggest out of the lot of them.

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (2, Interesting)

Probie (1353495) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824815)

So they are going to withhold content from there customers, and potentially slow down net traffic just to prove a point? I don't think they would be my first choice.

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (4, Interesting)

PenguSven (988769) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824227)

have you seen the list of ISPs? they're all nobodies that have fuck all customers. Primus is the only "big" one, and they're fucking tiny, and I can tell you right now, they have alterior motives - the CEO tried to do a deal with the Senator who's pushing the filtering, so that Primus would supply filtering tech.

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824235)

I guarantee that if this gains traction it will not stop at porn. Welcome back to the Middle Ages.

Censorship AND time travel?!? Is there anything a flux-capacitor CAN'T do?

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (5, Informative)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824359)

I'm with iiNet, but there's no way I'm dumping them, and here's one reason why: http://www.iinet.net.au/customers/iinews/internet-filtering.html [iinet.net.au]

To summarise it, iiNet's only going along with the trial to demonstrate the futility of filtering. They're also currently fighting a court case regarding copyright infringement to maintain their user's privacy, instead of just rolling over like most other ISPs would.

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (1, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824521)

"o summarise it, iiNet's only going along with the trial to demonstrate the futility of filtering."

I'm going to punch you in the face now...

I'm doing it to prove that, one day, someone tougher than me will come along and make me pay for it, but for now I will continue punching you in the face.

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (3, Insightful)

wdef (1050680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824761)

"I'm going to collaborate with the [insert oppressive regime here] just to prove that the regime is not viable." Doesn't sound quite right, does it? A total boycott by all ISPs of this idiodicy would be far more effective. Dump iNet and all the others immediately, but be sure to email them first and tell them why.

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824683)

Your like the Jew being handed a bar of soap before having a shower.

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (5, Interesting)

twostix (1277166) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824417)

The problem we now have, and it's a hugely problematic problem, is that the government is going to use this legislation as a bargaining chip to push through it's economic stimulus plan.

Late last year I was hoping and sitting rather comfortably in the knowledge that this would never make it through the senate.

But now a few individual senators are holding the government over a barrel regarding the stimulus plan, the same senators that support the censorship (except the greens). So expect the government to sacrifice the internet giving them everything they want to gain support for their new financial endevours.

The internet in Australia doesn't have a hope I'm afraid.

I won't even mention that yet again Rudd seems to be bringing us into line with China. He really seems to have an infatuation with that country and everything they do, and I think it's got a little more to do than just being able to speak their language. It's getting to be really quite creepy.

In other words I'm waiting for the bastard to sell us out.

I voted for labour above the libs, something I'm somewhat regretting now (and not just for the internet censorship) I must say.

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (2, Interesting)

Gandalf_Greyhame (44144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824523)

I voted for labour above the libs, something I'm somewhat regretting now (and not just for the internet censorship) I must say.

So all of this is YOUR fault! BASTARD!

But seriously, most of Australia was fooled by this tourist. Personally I saw the crap that our (Labour) state governments were doing and thought, FUCK THAT! So I stuck with the Libs.

Actually, I want an alteration to be made to our voting slips. All voting slips should have a question on the bottom of it which says:

Do you watch any of the following TV shows or formats:
a) Australian Idol
b) Big Brother
c) Biggest Loser
d) Dancing with the stars
e) So you think you can dance

If they answer 'yes' to any of those, then their vote is burned and never to be counted as they have just failed a very simple intelligence test.

(NOTE: it is surprising how many of those shit shows are broadcast by channel 10)

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (2, Interesting)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824763)

Bullshit.

Firstly, when the opposition opposed the stimulus plan their approval rating dropped 4 points, they're going to show some token objection and get a few tax cuts in and cave because they don't have a choice.

Secondly, without either the greens or the liberals, it still won't pass the senate. The greens hate it, and if the libs are going to support it, then it'll happen with or without the loonies.

This may pass, but it's not going to pass as part of the economic stimulus package and it's not going to pass without the liberals(and with the liberals it'll pass not matter what anyway).

The current senate situation isn't ideal for anyone, but it's not quite that bad.

I don't like this filter, and I don't really know why Rudd is trying to do it. I haven't liked a lot of the nanny state bullshit labour has done(lots of taxes on booze and porn, very little effort to fix any of the things they were elected to fix) either.

Hopefully this is just a stunt to appease the loonies and even Rudd doesn't want this to pass, if not, it'll fail miserably, slow down the internet doing so, and hopefully they'll repeal it.

Re:Just boycott the asses pleases (1)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824893)

The internet censorship was clearly stated before the election. Yes it's hair-brained, no it won't work, but they DID tell you they were going to try.

That Rudd is trying to "bring us into line with China" is a pretty ridiculous assertion based on one single thing.

Sure is lucky the ballot boxes only require numbers anyway, it's "Labor".

Kevin (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824067)

Oh but kevin was supposed to be our savior, much the same as your Obama.

if it wasn't so outrageous it'd be funny, labour gets back into power and the first thing they do is give us a 100 billion debt and filter our internet.

Re:Kevin (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824441)

Oh but kevin was supposed to be our savior, much the same as your Obama.

Yes, but he's been "Feilding" some bigger problems.

Personally I would be happier with the very dishonest way this "for the kiddies" stuff was done by the previous government to keep Harridine happy than the stupidity of actually keeping the promise to keep Feilding happy. When single issue loonies like the Philanderers First Lesbians Last party (the very hypocritical "family first") have the deciding vote in the senate all kinds of crap gets proposed.

The disappointing thing is the government is acting on some of this crap. Since they are the only party with more than two sitting members with a clue we don't have a lot of choice.

Re:Kevin (5, Insightful)

kramulous (977841) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824457)

Fuck that is one of the most idiotic things I've read today (I won't go 'ever'). Are you that much of an opportunist? You've never alluded to this in earlier posts.

It is so dumb that you sound like one of those people who watch and believe 'Today Tonight'

Kevin caused the financial crises, eh? The coalition never had plans for filtering? This is Australia ... nobody else gives a fuck ... and I like it that way.

C'mon, you're smarter than this.

Re:Kevin (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824595)

To blame or not is irrelevant, when your the leader of a country you get the luxury of excuses. it's how he handles them that's important, and sending the country into debt isn't how you fight financial problems.

And yes the coalition had a filtering policy, it was free filtering software they would send you on request. a perfectly reasonable and much cheaper solution.

Re:Kevin (4, Insightful)

kramulous (977841) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824909)

He's not sending us into debt, we're already in debt! It's amazing how the coalition fed us the bullshit of historical consecutive surpluses and 'fiscal conservatism' but managed to DOUBLE the national debt to a trillion dollars in ten years.

This is after record taxation rates on the population (remember that the GST was meant to get rid of various taxes ... no wonder he promised never to move the GST to 11% ... Costello never needed to. How much after PAYG tax do you then end up paying on more taxes? Petrol? Milk? Bought a house in the last ten years? How much tax do you pay?) and a mining industry that brought in such huge amounts of cash from China and other developing nations but somehow the tax gained from that never found its way towards infrastructure or reducing the national debt.

They are all the masters of spin. Feed with one hand and rob with the other.

The filtering software was a first step that was deemed to be inadequate. They just got booted out before they could initiate secondary protocol.

Apologies for getting an Insightful mod on my previous post. It never should have.

Re:Kevin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824499)

Maybe the rest of the world saw things differently but I figured Rudd was a bad choice well before he was elected, whilst I figured Obama would be a good choice.

I certainly never saw Rudd as some kind of saviour, quite the opposite, whereas I think Obama certainly is still making a lot of positive steps as expected.

When we have elections in Britain I'll say the same about the tories, compared to Labour they look good, they sound good but the reality is they'll be awful. That's not to say Labour are good either- I'd rather see the Lib Dems in- at least their party leader is atheist and they're much more secular so wouldn't pander to all the religious do gooders that push for the kind of censorship and other general idiocy that the likes of Jacqui Smith tries to impose.

Re:Kevin (0, Flamebait)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824607)

Oh but kevin was supposed to be our savior, much the same as your Obama.

The "Obama" as savior myth was propagated by the republican party and conservative news stations to make conservatives feel good about their votes for the dumb lady and McCain. Obama never sold himself as a savior and all but the most uneducated voted for him because they felt his administration would do a better job picking up the pieces from 30 years of reckless policy.

But that's not why I wrote today. I wrote to rub it in. Obama got elected. Nah nah nah nah nah nah. Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

OK guys here's what we'll do (5, Interesting)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824071)

Everytime one of our friends or relatives asks us about a problem with their internet our response shall be,

"Oh that'd probably be the internet filter causing your drop-outs, thank Stephen Conroy"

Re:OK guys here's what we'll do (2, Interesting)

KenMcM (1293074) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824105)

I like it. Let's, however, have them thank Kevin Rudd's Labor government. They're all responsible. We don't want to make it too easy for them to make Conroy the scapegoat.

Re:OK guys here's what we'll do (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824189)

To be fair, everyone was under the assumption that filtering was going to be completely opt-in.

Re:OK guys here's what we'll do (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824905)

I think i'll apply this to Phorm in the UK, should it ever arrive.

Might not need to, though, should the EU do something right.

VPN (1)

nthitz (840462) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824091)

Just VPN your way out and huzzah!

Better to dump the ISP (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824133)

Why do complicated things with VPNs when you can simply dump the ISP? It's still possible, sends a clear signal, and if people start using VPNs en masse to get around the filtering, they'll simply filter that as well. And you want a clear signal that filtering isn't wanted before all choice is gone.

Re:Better to dump the ISP (1)

who knows my name (1247824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824555)

I'd have thought a filter would be good if you wanted to send a clear signal...

Re:Better to dump the ISP (1)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824587)

The problem is all the ISPs (except iPrimus) are absolutely tiny, so it is in fact impossible for customers to dump them "en masse" - there is no mass of customers to begin with. Even iPrimus is pretty small fry by ISP standards, really. The only large ISP that was interested in participating was iiNet, and they're not involved in this phase for some reason. Smells fishy to me; I suspect Michael Malone was intending to provide actual feedback about the filtering, and that's not what they're after.

Either that or they couldn't implement a filter that wouldn't bring a regular-sized ISP to its knees, so they had to find ISPs with less than a dozen active customers to trial it on.

Re:Better to dump the ISP (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824883)

Some of the head guys working for iiNet are former Defence Signals Directorate drones (And other 3 letter agencies). Westnet was a small upstart bought out by iiNet, the bozo running that little outfit was one of them. Never, ever, rule out the old boys network up at the top.

Thanks Labor (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824093)

For putting the country back into debt and censoring the internet.

Re:Thanks Labor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824265)

Better than Howard The Jew saving every penny while our infrastructure (eg hospitals) went down the drain.

Re:Thanks Labor (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824367)

and whats spending money you don't have going to do for our hospitals, you dim witted fool.

Whose fault is that? (5, Insightful)

dogganos (901230) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824101)

Its people's fault. Plain and simple.

Because after this tragic act of censorship, the people in the next elections, while having the opportunity to vote down the current government, most probably will not. Even if they do, they will most probably vote for another party that has most probably done something equally bad when they were government.

It's called mass amnesia, and its the reason why our democracies are in fact ""democracies"".

Re:Whose fault is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824183)

I agree. Look at the US.

Re:Whose fault is that? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824279)

Its people's fault. Plain and simple.

Because after this tragic act of censorship, the people in the next elections, while having the opportunity to vote down the current government, most probably will not. Even if they do, they will most probably vote for another party that has most probably done something equally bad when they were government.

So put dogganos firmly in the category of "Everyone else is stupid so everything sucks and there's nothing we can do about it ever might as well eat worms and die" category. Do you have any suggestions, beyond realizing how stupid we all are?

Re:Whose fault is that? (1)

dogganos (901230) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824341)

Well actually this is the category I put it into. Most people are indeed stupid. People have the potential to master their fates, and if they choose not to do it and always stay like sheep, I have the right to categorize them as stupid.

My suggestion is that everybody should do what I do: I vote only for people who consistently show competence, and I try to convince my environment to vote only likewise. Democracies have been put into a lot of """"'s because people abuse their democratic rights by voting like idiots.

Re:Whose fault is that? (1)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824295)

I disagree, the people chose a government that were going to investigate an optional filter. Who was to know that it was going to change.

Then there is the Alcopop tax, to curb binge drinking in young adults. Well all pre-mixed spirits have become so expensive that said young adults are turning to post mixing there drinks, so instead of getting a controlled, albeit high amount, they are getting an uncontrolled and in most cases stronger mix, leading to an actual increase of binge drinking in young adults.

Kevin Rudd is a poser, he knew how to put on a good show, but as a leader I really do wonder what he is doing to _lead_ his party when you have halfwits like Conroy running around like a headless chook claiming that our kids are at risk and the sky is falling!!!!

Great hospitality (5, Funny)

samuraiz (1026486) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824109)

I know a lot of Chinese nationals have been immigrating to your shores lately, Australia, but this is the wrong way to make them feel at home.

Re:Great hospitality (1)

cadu (876004) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824573)

"emigrating to" or "immigrating from", please pick one or we won't be able to parse it correctly XD /me ducks as the anti-language-nazis throw bombs :)

It's begun (2, Insightful)

shungi (977531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824111)

Well - I was wondering why the net's a bit slower today... Thought it was the random fluctuations I get from time to time but no... Sigh... Sad thing is, you mention this to people here and it's oh... Well, kinda bad, but meh..

I don't understand (5, Insightful)

aerthling (796790) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824119)

I don't understand these alleged Christians' obsession with force and control. Forcing your own will upon someone else is the very antithesis of Christianity.

Re:I don't understand (5, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824153)

Wow, you're right! Shit, how did they miss this! And this is just a new phenomenon too!

Re:I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824187)

Obviously you're not a history student ;)

Yes it flies in the face of their alleged morals, but it certainly isn't out of character :(

Re:I don't understand (2, Funny)

Korbeau (913903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824225)

You're very right sir. We very much prefer nice comfy chairs.

Re:I don't understand (1)

aerthling (796790) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824281)

I apologise if my comment was overly obvious. It's only recently become apparent to me.

Re:I don't understand (3, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824291)

Forcing your own will upon someone else is the very antithesis of Christianity.

No. The sentiment "Mind your own business" is not really a strong theme in Christianity at all.

Re:I don't understand (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824329)

If you actually ask a bunch of Christians about what they think, rather than "Christian lobby groups" you will get very different answers. I'm a Christian and I am strongly opposed to this plan. Or any net filtering. Surly this is against the Australian constitution or bill or rights or something.

Of course the media lumps everyone together.

But I don't care who you are, if you are in politics I am wary of trusting you.

Re:I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824437)

On one hand, you're strongly opposed to the censorship. On the other, you actively (by definition as a "true Christian") a) discriminate and marginalise certain groups. b) let yourself be counted as a vote-buying statistic (ie. Joe is a Christian, therefore by default he _must_ back policy ABC on the basis of his theology) Why not just stand tall in your belief in Jesus, but dissociate yourself from the term "Christian"?

Re:I don't understand (1)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824553)

Why not just stand tall in your belief in Jesus, but dissociate yourself from the term "Christian"?

I think the idea is that believing in sprites and fairies and invisible men who rule from the sky requires some sense of company--or you end up awaken to the fact that your beliefs are a little nuts. I've always assumed that this is why they invented religion, to make it a group activity.

Re:I don't understand (1)

huit (1285438) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824511)

no bill of rights over here :(

Re:I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824519)

Australia does not have an American-style Bill of Rights. It does have a Constitution that grants some rights, but freedom of speech and freedom of internet access are not among them.

Re:I don't understand (1)

Gandalf_Greyhame (44144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824569)

Australia does not have a bill of rights. Our courts have interpreted our constitution to read that we have "implied rights" but there is nothing set down in black and white, unfortunately

Tor (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824131)

I'm going to venture a guess that tor [torproject.org] is going to become very popular in Australia very soon...

Though, I'm sure some teenagers will figure out how to bypass those filters even more simplistically. Good on them. Say no to a censored Internet!

Hong Kong is facing the same problem (5, Informative)

razgriz (994603) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824177)

Christian Groups in HK are trying to push web filtering on ISP to 'protect their children'. Those groups are nuts. They even think David (Michelangelo) is porn and should be banned. We will protest against it on 15 Feb. Sorry for my poor English.

Re:Hong Kong is facing the same problem (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824345)

Christian lobby Groups in HK are trying to push web filtering on ISP to 'protect their children'.

There fixed that for you.

Note: Not just Australia's largest... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824191)

But the 3 largest in Australia -- Optus and iiNet as well as Telstra are not taking part in these trials. How the hell are they going to get any accurate data if they're simply using 6 small ISPs? What next, they just flick on the switch for all ISPs and it it should work fine?

Apologies to Banjo Paterson (5, Funny)

mudshark (19714) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824213)

Once a jolly swagman plugged into the internets,
Under the shade of a coolibah tree,
And he sang as he watched and waited as he torrented
"Don't go deploying your filters on me".

"Deploying your filters, deploying your filters
Don't go deploying your filters on me"
And he sang as he watched and waited as he torrented,
"Don't go deploying your filters on me".

Down came the content speeding through the internets,
Up jumped the swagman and viewed it with glee,
And he sang as he shoved that content on his backup disk,
"You'll be a-wasting your filters on me".

"Wasting your filters, wasting your filters
Don't go a-wasting your filters on me"
And he sang as he shoved that content on his backup disk,
"Don't go a-wasting your filters on me".

Up rode the Conroy, mounted on his ISP,
Down came the troopers, one, two, three,
"Where's that jolly content you downloaded so illicitly?
You've been evading the filters from me."

"Evading the filters, evading the filters
You've been evading the filters from me."
"Where's that jolly content you downloaded so illicitly?
You've been evading the filters from me."

Up jumped the swagman and handed them his backup disk,
"You'll never crack my encryption", said he,
And his packets are tunneled and proxied through the internets,
"You'll never get your bloody filters on me".

"Your bloody filters, your bloody filters
You'll never get your bloody filters on me".
And his packets are tunneled and proxied through the internets,
"You'll never get your bloody filters on me".

Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson (1)

sams67 (880846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824273)

"Where's that jolly content you downloaded so illicitly?" Sheer genius!

Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson (1)

mudshark (19714) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824425)

Well, it's empathy from across the ditch. We're getting some pretty shocking ineptness [geekzone.co.nz] from our governing idiots here in NZ, too.

But at least we're not getting the fires of hell burning entire towns. Chins up, Aussies. I sincerely hope you beat this.

Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson (1)

aerthling (796790) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824315)

That was brilliant. Thankyou.

Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson (1)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824383)

And the original for anyone interested. I laughed hard, well done!

Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong,
Under the shade of a Coolibah tree,
And he sang as he watched and waited till his billy boil,
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda,
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me,
And he sang as he watched and waited till his billy boil
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

Down came a jumbuck to drink at that billabong
Up jumped the swagman and grabbed him with glee,
And he sang as he shoved that jumbuck in his tucker bag
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda,
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me,
And he sang as he shoved that jumbuck in his tucker bag
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

Up rode the squatter mounted on his thorough-bred
Down came the troopers One Two Three
Whose that jolly jumbuck you've got in your tucker bag
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

Waltzing Matilda Waltzing Matilda
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me
Whose that jolly jumbuck you've got in your tucker-bag
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

Up jumped the swagman sprang in to the billabong
You'll never catch me alive said he,
And his ghost may be heard as you pass by that billabong
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

Waltzing Matilda Waltzing Matilda
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me
And his ghost may be heard as you pass by that billabong
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me.

Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824479)

Excellent. Parody, satire & humour in general has always been one of the best ways of showing up these types of ridiculous auhoritarian practises IMHO.

Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson (1)

kramulous (977841) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824509)

Wow!

Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson (1)

kramulous (977841) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824593)

For those who WTF'ed at the above ballad, this video will give a little insight to what it means to Australians

Bledisloe? [youtube.com]

It's the only response we have to the New Zealand Haka.

Re:Apologies to Banjo Paterson (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824863)

Excellent LOL

Where's is (1)

Korbeau (913903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824233)

Yahoo Serious when you need him?!

If this is bad, what's YOUR excuse for....? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824443)

Don't like content filtering / tampering / snooping?
So what's YOUR excuse for...

Not having a PGP key of your own so people can send you secure emails / files?

Sending emails without digitally signing them (anyone can do it) and by default encrypting them to any/all recipients who will provide their keys for that purpose?

Complaining about "internet filtering" yet not even running the software to check and see whether YOUR internet / ISP is filtering / port blocking / et. al.? Last time I checked there were pretty pervasive problems with wholesale port blocking for both incoming and outgoing traffic on many ISPs. That's wholesale blocking / censoring / filtering of communications too. A "network neutral" internet provider should allow ANY protocol, on ANY port, IN or OUT without tampering with the connection (throttling, blocking, et. al.). Anything less is just accepting the encroachment of such filtering.

Willingly USING an ISP that does any kind of connection filtering / tampering?

Willingly USING webmail systems and similar ones where your private communications are left out on some 3rd party server, especially ones where they don't facilitate end to end message signing / encryption / access purely over HTTPS, et. al.? Sites like yahoo, hotmail insert ads into every message you send by modifying YOUR content / message. Sites like google/gmail snoop on the contents of all your email and basically sell that information to advertisers to profile you and intrude on you with ads. If you don't want your content to be modified, filtered, sold, snooped then make sure they cannot either understand or alter your communications and the problems will be mostly solved!

Willingly using software like SKYPE or MSN Messenger or Yahoo Messenger all of which go to great efforts to be able to be able to route your communications through THEIR servers and not offer any meaningful true verifiable end-to-end content encryption such that not even the service provider can intercept / filter your communications.
Most of the IM software that is "popular" indeed does all sorts of content filtering based on keywords, blocking URLs it doesn't want you to share, et. al. Content tampering / filtering of a private communication should be the end user's option, not the service provider's! There are alternatives out there that use open source software, publically documented protocols, and which offer true encryption / privacy support like SIP, JABBER, et. al.

Running a site that doesn't use HTTPS as its PRIMARY mode of communication, i.e. don't even ALLOW HTTP except as a deprecated option to satisfy very old cell phone browsers or such that aren't capable of SSL?
Using HTTPS, although they could block sites based only on the domain name, they couldn't easily look at or filter / tamper with the content of the communications themselves -- NebuAd insertion or whatever simply wouldn't be possible. Also one wouldn't reveal anything more than the domain name / IP address being contacted for HTTP, so even the rest of the accessed URL would be secure. Enabling HTTPS is a trivial change to almost any web site, and compatible with most any browser platform. Why don't we provide this as sysadmins and demand it as users. Why
am I not on https://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] now? In the old days the CPU performance cost for the crypto was somewhat of a factor for fairly high traffic sites, but now that CPUs/Network processors are much more capable, I very much doubt it would be a significant impediment for ANY site to offer. Is the privacy and security of your users not worth another 3% of your CPU load or whatever? Certificate cost? Ok, self sign (it's better than plain HTTP!), or use a public / free CA or whatever.

As others have said, it more customers demanded full open unmodified internet access from their ISP, it would be offered by more ISPs and ones that want to tamper with your data (NebuAd, DNS hijacking, content snooping / altering) or whatever either wouldn't dare or wouldn't be able to easily do so for technical reasons.

Similarly if people would just walk away from services / applications that undermine the user's privacy by snooping on their content and serving up adware and spyware and instead use open standards based protocols / open source software, we'd have much better privacy, security, and would not have to worry so much about spyware / adware / malware.

Providers (4, Insightful)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824249)

Webshield [webshield.com.au] is one of the providers participating, here is some of the feed back from their site

David from South Australia I would like to say that; I am so happy using Webshield because I don't have to worry about what the children are doing, passwords or anything. I was constantly keeping tabs on things before, but now I know Webshield is doing it for me.

Angie from South Australia Before I used Webshield, I would constantly be checking my children on the internet, worried and anxious about what they might 'accidently' find. But now with Webshield, I can leave them to their homework, etc and not stress."

Julie from Queensland With 2 boys approaching teenage years and a husband who works late into the night at times, we (and I say âweâ(TM) on behalf of my husband as well) are glad for the peace of mind webshield provides. With pornography and all that it leads too, sweeping through families â" even strong families â" as it is channelled right into our houses, wreaking absolute heartache and havoc, we can only be glad for protection.

Those three quotes are quite probably the most disturbing potential outcomes from such a system.

The brutal truth of the matter is that what ever you can _easily_ find on the web via http is far less dangerous than Predators lurking on Friend face or Instant Messaging, which cannot be filtered. (You could block them entirely, but could you imagine the uproar of Millions of people then!). And wanting to block "Unwanted Material" this screams scope creep in a big way.

I am an Australian, and the B/S the Dis-Honourable Senator Conroy continues to feed us is quite alarming. I have met the man in person and witnessed first hand his obvious technical ineptness.

I for one will be fighting tooth and nail to inform everyone I know and I am already geared up at home to "circumvent" any filter.

Re:Providers (2, Insightful)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824653)

Chances are, they are not real quotes.

I hope so. I really do.

Re:Providers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824887)

What do these paranoid parents this is going to happen if their kids see a bit of porn? Will they turn into were-children, raping and eating everything in their path?

New Law (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824285)

Topless mothers required to wear lampshades while breastfeeding.

Tying the Tube Tyer's Up? (5, Insightful)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824303)

There must be some way to bypass the tube tying that these folks in the governments around the world are doing. Yes, sure there are snoop blockers and other web sites that enable encrypted bypassing of restrictions but State based Freedom Limiting Terrorists have figured out that firewalls exist. I'm wondering about legal means to assault these State Based Terrorists who continue to assault our freedoms including our freedoms of communication.

Sure it's likely different in each country due to the differences in laws but there must be strategies that will work across the entire planet to protect the masses Natural rights to free communications.

One idea is the open project to monitor ALL GOVERNMENT AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, STAFF and POLITICIANS and publish their movements, their activities, their lives. Millions of Little Brothers watching the members of the Big Brother control freak cult (aka members of any group that considers itself a State or Government at any level).

The purpose in part is to expose the hypocracy of these members of the governments but it's also to let them know that they are being watched.

Who watches the watchers? The population must be the ones who watch the watchers. This is why all public business must be in the public domain for it to be valid public business, otherwise it's just the work of "terrorists pretending to be the State"!

ps. If I vanish you'll know why.

Australia's Tubes Are About To Be Tied (1)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824395)

First, the little penguin bites Linus, and now it bites the internet!!

Idiots (1)

Mystery00 (1100379) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824397)

They should be spending that money on improving our internet instead. Doesn't seem like they want any votes in the next election.

p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824409)

like it or not, when all of you geeks become parents, either you will spend 95% of your time manually filtering your child's on-line access, buy closed-source software from some "very dependable" company or be a very bad parent.

And thinking, that 7yrs old can filter their own content is making you the last - bad parent.

yes, any censure is bad, but if you think, that there is none in today's mainstream medias, you are deadly wrong.

The Australians are only one of the first (of the "developed" countries) to go live. They will fail, as the geeks (without girlfriends, hence without children) will unite. And the gov. will make some mistake of filtering political content and the wall will fall. But after 10 yrs, others will pick it up, modify the idea, put gov. bodies (with a lot of good payed jobs for ageing geeks) to control the wall and it will stand.

I the wall will be political or not? Time will time. Possibly it will bring some "politically unideal censorships". You know what? I'd rather live in such a world, than in a world, where my 7yrs old daughter asks: "Oh daddy, what's an ENEMA and how can it enhance my backdoor fun?"

Don't get me wrong, TV with their crime channel is as bad as p0rn on the net. But hey, life is not fair (TV have their lobbiests, as do Internet companies selling p0rn these days). But why not taking it one step at a time, rather than not
    taking any steps?

But a lot of arguing shall be done first, before such a plan will be fully deployed. That's for sure (egoistic geeks, strong lobbies for internet companies on one side and excetric religios idiots and political manipulators on the other) . That's almost case for any now days ideological war: idiots VS idiots, normal people standing by and taking collateral.

Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks (4, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824477)

And I thought that censoring what my 7 year watches would be MY responsibility as a parent. Turns out you can just get the government to do it for free. Who'da thunk it ?

Just turn OFF the damn TV, parent your OWN kids, and stop spoiling the fun for the rest of us who ARE old enough and mature enough to decide what we watch.

Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks (5, Insightful)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824631)

when all of you geeks become parents, either you will spend 95% of your time manually filtering your child's on-line access, buy closed-source software from some "very dependable" company or be a very bad parent.

I can tell you first-hand (as a parent and someone from a "very dependable company") that Internet filtering is not all it's cracked up to be. The filters are simply not accurate enough to rely on for home use; there are sites out there which deliberately try and remain unfiltered. There are a LOT of ways to get around them, depending on the tech. I can tell you that none of the companies that I know of are perfect. The government's expensive testing even proved that. The only reason Internet filtering works in schools and businesses is group mentality. Students and employees start to think they're being watched and tend to avoid doing things that are inappropriate lest they be found out and others find out what they're doing.

Porn is not a problem. If you're letting a young child out onto the Internet unsupervised you're a fucking moron. You are the problem in that case. Plain and simple. Are you so fucking stupid you let them swim in a pool without watching them too? I bet it'll be the government's fault for not when they drown! Do you take them to large events (sporting ones perhaps) and let them run around where you can't see them? Oh, Uncle Sam should have protected them there too because you were too fucking lazy to!

Being a parent is not the job of the gumbiment. Being a parent is your job, and I've got some news for you shit-stick; it's a full time job. I know this because I am a parent and it never ends. It may be hard work, but it's also great fun and a real rush, knowing you're molding and shaping them into responsible little versions of you.

*end rant*

I make no apologies for flying off the rails. It sickens me to the very core that some people actually think they shouldn't have to look after their own children.

Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks (1, Redundant)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824837)

Really? It sickens me to the core that children are so mollycoddled.

Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824881)

The only reason Internet filtering works in schools and businesses is group mentality.

That is so wrong. Take websense and category based filters. From here, I can't even log in to /., let alone visit any site that isn't academic or news related if the site in question is older than 48 hours or so.

Once a filter gets large enough, it has enough data coming in to quickly block and site or service the settings would deem...inappropriate.

I mean, you can block the websense bot from categorizing your site using .htaccess - but damn do they have a lot of bots. And yes, they ignore the robots.txt file.

-Kyreas, who can't login due to a filter.

Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks (3, Insightful)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824767)

like it or not, when all of you geeks become parents, either you will spend 95% of your time manually filtering your child's on-line access, buy closed-source software from some "very dependable" company or be a very bad parent.

Why does no one ever demand actual evidence of harm from people like you? You claim that all of these dire consequences will arise from allowing your children unfettered access to information, and that we, as a society, will have to accommodate your beliefs. We've heard it before, over and over, for a large part of a generation now.

If you actually had to cite concrete, peer-reviewed, reproducible studies demonstrating the societal benefits of draconian ISP-level censorship before your position was taken seriously, it'd be amusing. Because such a requirement would leave you gasping and sputtering and waving your hands, unable to point to any evidence that children are actually harmed by media content. Yet, for some reason, people with your opinion are exempt from such requirements.

So... let's see that evidence, shall we?

Re:p0rn is a problem: just not for horny geeks (1)

twostix (1277166) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824907)

Just a couple of nitpics for you there old mate...

A) I have two children aged 1 and 8 and another on the way. Which makes me a parent, so no you are not special and you don't get to corner any sort of moral high ground in this debate.
B) If in your household it's possible for your seven year old daughter to come across content like you mention then your already a failure as a parent, sorry.
C) Don't push me (a real dad) and the rest of us down because you can't swim. We real parents can handle the internet in our homes, in fact of all the day to day dangers to my boys health and safety the internet rates about a 1 / 10.
D) Don't ever, ever assume to speak for 'parents' again.
E) If you can't handle having the internet in your home without the federal government getting involved, your the bad parent.

Unfortunately your predictions for the future are sadly more than likely accurate and fairly insightful.

Aussies who are Christian: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824411)

Contact the dumbasses located here:
http://www.acl.org.au/

Advise them of their dumbassery.

Needs to pass Parliament first (4, Informative)

huwr (627730) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824627)

For this to come into force properly, the Government will need to pass legislation through Parliament. While they can get it through the lower house easily, the Senate will be much harder. In the Senate the Government will need the support of either the Coalition or all the cross-benchers (Greens, Family First and Xenophon) in order to gain the majority. I know the Coalition intends to vote no and I can't see Greens supporting it, so it will fail to pass.

Active countermeasures / attacks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824689)

Now that a pilot's up and running, has anyone got any ideas about actual attacks that can be launched against these systems?

DDoS, etc?

YEEESSSS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824709)

The Aussie Slashdot spam is back, which means kdawson must be back!

How we missed him so!

For what it's worth my soon to be sent letter... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824777)

Dear Senator Conroy,

I am a member of the Western Australian Labor Party and a long time supporter of the ideals and values the Australian Labor Party and Trade Union movement promote in our country. I am writing to express my extreme concern on the mandatory Internet filtering you and your office are trialling over the next six weeks.

I understand that the decision is being considered as an option to assist parents, schools and public resources (such as libraries) to keep children away from unwanted Internet content. However, I do not believe that the planned solution will ever be appropriate for the Australian cultural climate. As a teacher, uncle and future parent I cannot stress enough the complete apathy and ignorance this policy encourages in parents of young and adolescent children in relation to the Internet. It should be the absolute responsibility of the authority figures of each household to understand, take action on and maintain any steps taken to remove perceived inappropriate content entering the household through a connection to the Internet. This policy is the antithesis of promoting an open caring relationship between parents and children in relation to online content.

Your policy discourages education and accountability because it takes the responsibility of filtering away from the parents of the household. It also discourages communication between the parent and child, not only stifling the need for dialogue but also, as shown through the lack of information given to the public by your office, the idea that information can be withheld by those "who know better" (in this case those who think they know better). Furthermore, the technical, financial and freedom of expression (as upheld through our constitution) issues are well documented and those in themselves should be more than enough to kill any further life in this poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly though-out plan.

Please understand that I do not advocate nor do I support the idea that the government cannot assist parents, schools and other public institutions from helping them with filtering their access to online content. However this policy which will continuously block any number of unnamed web sites is not aimed at targeting an individual's right to choose what they view, instead generalises values for the entire Australian population. I cannot think of anything more "un-Australian" than that.

As a Labor member and supporter of both a Labor government at both a state and federal level it is with great disappointment that if this policy is to be enacted I will do everything in my power to ensure that only members of parliament who oppose this policy will represent me in my electorate in the future. I understand that this may well end up in me needing to leave the Labor party but this issue is too important and your policy to narrow sited for me to ethically be able to support any Labor party member encouraging this policy.

I am looking forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Minor Tiny ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26824789)

For those that don't know all of those ISPs have tiny customer bases, the only one which is actually of recognisable size is Primus.

It's kind of tragic... (5, Insightful)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 5 years ago | (#26824851)

All those filters are usually erected in an attempt to 'protect the children' but so far I haven't seen any kind of hard evidence showing the children are 'damaged' from looking at porn or similar.

Actually I've seen a study showing quite clearly that porn has no negative effect on children at all. Back in 1968 porn was legalized in Denmark and porn shops popped up everywhere, especially in a section of Copenhagen called Vesterbro. About 1/3 of all shops there were porn or porn-related shops in those days. This meant that almost no matter where children looked they saw porn (dildos, explicit magazines, books, movies) and there was a lot of prostitutes in the area as well. All this happened when the children was mostly unsupervised by adults (on the way to school etc.). Now the study compared the children that grew up in this area with similar children from similar backgrounds growing up elsewhere, and looked at deviations from 'normal' when it came to crime (especially sex offenses), sexual preferences and orientation, attitude towards sexual deviations and so on. The result was quite clear: The 'porn-exposed' children had a similar life to the 'normal' children but had a more tolerant attitude towards everything sex-related, and often had more friends from the 'deviant' groups like homosexuals, transsexuals or so on.

The conclusion was therefore clear: Porn does not hurt children emotionally or sexually and it even seems to create more tolerant adults that is less likely to be ignorant of sexual themes. This is a good thing in my book.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>