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!

AU Authority Moves To Censor Net Filtering Protest Site

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the shortcutting-the-udrp dept.

Censorship 225

An anonymous reader writes "On Friday the Sydney Morning Herald reported that an Internet censorship protest site had been set up under the banner 'Stephen Conroy: Minister for Fascism' and was ironically registered under the very name of the Australian Communications Minister responsible for trying to mandate the compulsory filtering scheme in federal law, stephenconroy.com.au. Within hours of the story being published, auDA, the Australian Domain Name Authority, had shut down the site, giving the owners only 3 hours to respond to a request to justify their eligibility for the domain. Normally auDA would allow several days to weeks for this process. An appeal to request an extension was denied, with no reason given. The site was quickly moved to a US domain, stephen-conroy.com in order to stay active while the dispute with auDA is resolved."

cancel ×

225 comments

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

First! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509532)

First post due to others being filtered.

As evil as it sounds... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509534)

I think this is somewhat justified. Sure, where do you draw the line but this site was registered under a false name -- that of someone in Parliament. There's always the mature way and the immature way to handle things, and in this case with the people who created the same, they took the immature route. There's a time and a place for things, this sort of thing is more suited to personal jokes between friends and groups on Facebook.

Re:As evil as it sounds... (2, Informative)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509574)

But OTOH "Stephen Conroy" is unlikely to be a unique name. And besides, as a public figure he's a fair target for satire. Then again, I'm not Australian and for all I know their laws could be quite different about that sort of thing. Sounds terribly draconian though. 3 hours to respond? Come on...

Re:As evil as it sounds... (3, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510254)

Your first point is valid. Your second point is valid. 3rd point, about not being Australian? Doesn't matter. Men the world around can recognize a douche, no matter what language the douche speaks, or what culture the douche is from. Pussies are pussies, they need to be washed from time to time, and there really isn't much variation on douches. Form follows function.

Does anyone have an email, so that we can all tell the douche he is obviously a douche?

Re:As evil as it sounds... (4, Funny)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510548)

That's it. No more slashdot posting for you today. Come back when you've gotten laid.

Re:As evil as it sounds... (4, Informative)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510356)

In Australia at least it is a requirement that you actually have a registered business to obtain a .com.au domain name for a start. The domain name must also be directly related to your own business. auDA are well within their rights, as there is no evidence to show that the protest group actually has a business called 'Stephen Conroy'.

Re:As evil as it sounds... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509614)

who created the site*

Re:As evil as it sounds... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509644)

auDA requires you have some right to the name, in this case they did, they registered the business name to go along with it. They have every right to the domain name under auDA's own policies.

Re:As evil as it sounds... (5, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509804)

auDA requires you have some right to the name, in this case they did, they registered the business name to go along with it. They have every right to the domain name under auDA's own policies.

smithm@michael:~$ whois stephenconroy.com.au
Domain Name: stephenconroy.com.au
Last Modified:17-Dec-2009 23:01:47 UTC
Registrar ID:Domain Central
Registrar Name: Domain Central
Status:pendingDelete (Client requested policy delete)

Registrant:SAPIA PTY LTD
Registrant ID: ABN 94140321240
Eligibility Type: Company

Registrant Contact ID: C032321-DC
Registrant Contact Name: Domain Manager
Registrant Contact Email: Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs

Tech Contact ID: C032321-DC
Tech Contact Name: Domain Manager
Tech Contact Email: Visit whois.ausregistry.com.au for Web based WhoIs

Its not immediately clear to me how they qualified for this name.

Re:As evil as it sounds... (1, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509754)

I'm not so certain that a mature or even polite action is called for when censorship is involved. When one's ability to speak or receive communications are limited by some kind of authority then action, even violent action, is justified. Basic freedoms are not up for debate. The needs of society bear no weight against personal freedoms and liberties. Freedom of speech is an absolute. It is hard to justify it in the most extreme circumstances. For example you may pass a law that one can not scream fire in a crowded theater and by so doing cause a lot of deaths because sometimes there really is a fire in a crowded theater.
              In the US we have been undergoing a period of sexual repression. Things like adult films and publications as well as prostitution and some really absurd laws regarding young people and sex have been all the rage for the last twenty or so years. Frankly it seems to have created a whole lot of sexually off tract individuals and generated a lot of crime as well. It may also be contributing to drug use and alcoholism as well as suicides. And you don't even want to consider the millions upon millions of dollars spent it controlling sexual communications.

Re:As evil as it sounds... (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509848)

>I think this is somewhat justified.

No, it's not. Not in the least.

It's political speech. If there's *any* sort of speech that needs protecting, it's "controversial" political speech because mainstream political speech doesn't need protection as much. Stephen Conroy doesn't like criticism. Well, boo-hoo, cry me a river. It doesn't matter if it's "immature" or not. What's next, banning editorial cartoons that Steven doesn't like, or throwing people in prison that Steven doesn't like? He has now demonstrated that he won't stop at child pornography. This is *exactly* why Steven Conroy's "protect the children" censorship should be shouted down.

Steven Conroy is a fascist with a stick up his arse, pure and simple.

I'm in the States, and Steven Conroy makes me want to punch him.

--
BMO

Re:As evil as it sounds... (4, Interesting)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510258)

its ironic these pricks of govt people love it when they see Iranians or Iraqis protesting their own govt or saddam , they love to see NK denouncing Kim Jong.

But the second the same thing happens in western countries, oh no, we have to ban it, its evil.

Get the F out of here you stupid politico fascists , we can shit on your face all day, we have that right. The fact the politicos get their own better retirement and health benefits proves they are above the human slaves.

Eh, the SITE is a parody, the registry isn't (5, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510288)

If I act/dress like Steven Conroy goose-stepping through the streets, THAT is parody. If I create a passport with his name on it, then that is fraud.

They should have registered the site in their own name, then it would be parody and they would probably win in court (don't know aussie laws on parody but presuming they are as similar to EU/US laws as you can expect from a continent of criminals).

Mind you, the fact that the registry changed its normal procedure for this case shows that this is a real attempt at suppression of critical thoughts. Then again, everyone knows not to use local registers for anything, they are all corrupt but without the global oversight the .com.org.net have to work under.

But if you want to parody/critize, you need to know what battles to fight. Like the show "Have I Got News For You". They can only do what they do because they got lawyers watching the entire show, who decide what joke/satire is worth it and which isn't. You can make far harder satire, if you give the enemy only the satire itself to fight. Not accidental criminal/libel stuff that they can use to shut you down.

For instance, I can say that George Bush is the monkey whose brain was served in The Temple of Doom, but if I then hint "which leads him to cheat on his wife" I am opening myself up to much to attack. This side is now attacked because it faked the registry, neatly allowing the attacked to side-step addressing the charge of facism.

Just as my post may now be modden down for attacking Bush, or the criminal aussie remark, rather then the main point I am trying to make.

Re:As evil as it sounds... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30510306)

They registered the site using a name of a natural person. If Australia does have the same domain registration rules as some other countries, the natural person has always the right over the name and can challenge the any other users. Additionally, other registered names and trademarks could be protected the same way. This information could be found doing some gentle googling but I'm not currently in the mood for that.

Re:As evil as it sounds... (5, Informative)

whitehatnetizen (997645) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510316)

As much as I agree with you, you don't seem to understand that the group that registered the domain committed fraud. also in Aus, to have a .com.au domain, you need to either have a registered business/trading name related to the domain, or have the domain be your actual name. as far as I can tell, neither of these were the case and so it is fraud.

Re:As evil as it sounds... (3, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510520)

If there's *any* sort of speech that needs protecting, it's "controversial" political speech

I'm all for protecting free speech, but that does not mean we need to protect every manner of expressing that speech. You don't get to go through town on a loudspeaker at 2am without getting cited for noise ordinances just because your message happens to be "VOTE OUT OBAMA!" You don't get to spray paint your message on my garage. We already accept sensible limits on these means of expression without necessarily supporting censorship of the message, and that is rightly so.

In that same vein, I have absolutely no problem with the website saying WHATEVER it wants about Senator Conroy and his Internet filtering crap. In fact I applaud it. I do NOT think that having something to say about him entitles them to a domain name compromised entirely of his name, particularly when registering such a domain appears to be in violation of the registration rules. If they want to create an organization called No To Conroy or some such, and register notoconroy.com.au or notoconroy.org.au or what-have-you, more power to them. Keep the message out there. Just not like this.

Re:As evil as it sounds... (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509886)

They also could have run it under the website name Minister-of-Fascism too

not a US domain name (0)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509942)

.com is NOT a United States domain name. .us is the united states.

Just more clueless idiots posting fallacies.

Re:not a US domain name (3, Insightful)

trickyD1ck (1313117) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509984)

If something isn't true, it doesn't make it a fallacy.

Re:As evil as it sounds... (1)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510328)

I think this is somewhat justified. Sure, where do you draw the line but this site was registered under a false name -- that of someone in Parliament. There's always the mature way and the immature way to handle things, and in this case with the people who created the same, they took the immature route. There's a time and a place for things, this sort of thing is more suited to personal jokes between friends and groups on Facebook.

I concur. This was trivial. At times one has to comprehend such matters without pre-judging. It would help if the authour would correct his spelling mistakes. TWAT!

Re:As evil as it sounds... (1)

yobjob (942868) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510394)

It's this sort of attitude that makes me want to move to the United States. Freedom is unqualified. If someone wants to handle things the 'immature' way then that's their choice - if they're free. No compromise. You're free or you're not.

To be fair... (5, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509538)

I'm no fan of Stephen Conroy's Great Wall of Australia, but the owners of the site in question can't have any claim to legitimacy if they fraudulently use someone else's name to register it.

Re:To be fair... (3, Insightful)

nulldaemon (926551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509542)

I'm no fan of Stephen Conroy's Great Wall of Australia, but the owners of the site in question can't have any claim to legitimacy if they fraudulently use someone else's name to register it.

Normally I'd agree with you but a satire of a political figure is, imo, legitimate use of a domain.

Re:To be fair... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509564)

not in .com.au, it isn't. Have you seen the requirements to register a .com.au? Satire doesn't cut it, I'm afraid:

1. To be eligible for a domain name in the com.au 2LD, registrants must be:
a) an Australian registered company; or
b) trading under a registered business name in any Australian State or Territory; or
c) an Australian partnership or sole trader; or
d) a foreign company licensed to trade in Australia; or
e) an owner of an Australian Registered Trade Mark; or
f) an applicant for an Australian Registered Trade Mark; or
g) an association incorporated in any Australian State or Territory; or
h) an Australian commercial statutory body.

There is no

i) in it for teh funnees.

Re:To be fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509646)

As an Australian, I can confirm that nothing over here has option (i). Thanks to the media and lazy parents, we've turned into the biggest bunch of fun police around. We're known for being easy going and making racist jokes, none of which are said with malice but depending on where you go, the amount of political correctness changes. From my experiences, the further north you go, the more laid back the attitude. Queensland is a great place to live :)

Re:To be fair... (3, Insightful)

keeperofdakeys (1596273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509648)

It's not the supposed legality of the site that is the main problem in my view, it is the fact that they were not given much time before the site was pulled down. According to the site this is not very common, usually sites have a few days to respond. Coupled with the fact that the office is closed for christmas, there domain may 'expire'. The EFA has also accepted to help, which means it must not be as clear cut as mentioned above.

Re:To be fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509748)

They should never have been granted the name in the first place.
The registrar that allowed it to be registered without any proof of legitimacy has probably just very publicly endangered their license to register .com.au

The normal process is that you present proof (like a registered business name, a trademark or an ABN) of legitimacy _before_ the domain is registered.

Re:To be fair... (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509654)

Intriguing that the registration body was happy to take the money and not do the checks first though. When I transferred my last .com.au the registration crowd wouldn't accept the digitally signed and encrypted certificate from the Australian Securities and Investments Corporation on its own as proof of claim to the name... for some reason they felt a scanned image of my Driver Licence was good insurance %-) This registrar seems to accept vapour as proof. Is AuDA going to kick their butt... somehow I don't think so.

They really need to find another Stephen Conroy to act as a sole trader, or register "Stephen Conroy Commentary" as a business name, to make the problem go away.

Re:To be fair... (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509662)

D'oh! Australian Securities & Investments Commission

Re:To be fair... (0, Redundant)

twotailakitsune (1229480) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509678)

i) n it 4 da lols

There. I fixed it for you.

No worries, mate. Unless you're not a fascist. (4, Interesting)

gavron (1300111) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509712)

I was once an expert witness in a case where AuDA stole domains from someone who legitimately registered them.

AuDA is a fascist organization [organisation]. They do what they want, use their funds to hire high-powered lawyers, and out-spend those who seek to use their services within their fascist rules or even those used by the rest of the Internet world.

I think Australia is a beautiful wonderful place, and have many friends there. When they can free their government from AuDA and their Big-Content masters, it will be a better place.

Oh yeah I need a punchline to get the karma masters happy. AuDA and Australia fascists: step off.

E

Re:No worries, mate. Unless you're not a fascist. (2, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510006)

I'd like to hear the details of this before I take it at face level. As much as I am opposed to Conroy and his barmy internet filters as an Australian I do also recognize that .com.au has different requirements than a .com domain, and still take stories like yours with a pinch of salt. Please back it up.

Re:To be fair... (1, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509764)

not in .com.au, it isn't. Have you seen the requirements to register a .com.au? Satire doesn't cut it, I'm afraid:

Satire and Parody are constitutional free speech issues, not something that can be restricted by a TOS.

Australia seems to have waited until 2006 to pass parody/satire exemptions into law.
http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/infosheets_pdf/g083.pdf [copyright.org.au]

Re:To be fair... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509814)

"Satire and Parody are constitutional free speech issues, not something that can be restricted by a TOS."

Not in our constitution mate, as with the UK free speech in Oz is a tradition not a commandment.

Re:To be fair... (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509890)

>Not in our constitution mate, as with the UK free speech in Oz is a tradition not a commandment.

Maybe it's about time that changed.

--
BMO

Re:To be fair... (1)

KeensMustard (655606) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510508)

Maybe it's about time that changed.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Re:To be fair... (3, Informative)

beav007 (746004) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509828)

The problem is not the domain name, it was the name used to register the domain name. Also, satire and parody are not welcome in .au domains. The domain name must be your business name, or a derivative of your business name. Anything else gets squashed. That's the rules for owning a .au address.

Re:To be fair... (1)

ColaMan (37550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510164)

That's the rules for owning a .au address.

er, a .com.au address, perhaps. .org.au/.net.au rules and regs are a bit looser.

If they'd used the .org.au address, (cough and their correct contact details cough) they'd probably would have gotten away with it, what with being an organisation against the policies of Stephen C.

Re:To be fair... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510294)

douchebusters.com.au would work for these guys then?

Who ya gonna call? DOUCHEBUSTERS!!

Re:To be fair... (1)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510172)

Free speech is nothing to do with the ability to register .com.au. Its not that they're posting this on the internet, its that .com.au domains require a related business entity tied to them for registration. No australian company number or business number = no entitlement to the .com.au domain.

Wrong, can register as a montetised website. (1)

doug20r (1436837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509906)

There are only very minimal requirements which are very easy to meet such as placing a few ads on the sited related to the name which would qualify the site as a commercial monetised website - you can't resell the site for 6 months, but this is not a real barrier. Yes, this is not what most people would expect, but this is how auDA have managed the .com.au domain space, which is now full of parked domain names.

Re:To be fair... (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509950)

Unfortunatly I have to agree with the censor on this one. However it doesn't excuse only 3hrs notice.

Re:To be fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30510300)

Hmm,

Domain Name: stephenconroy.com.au
Last Modified:17-Dec-2009 23:01:47 UTC
Registrar ID:Domain Central
Registrar Name: Domain Central
Status:pendingDelete (Client requested policy delete)

Registrant:SAPIA PTY LTD
Registrant ID: ABN 94140321240
Eligibility Type: Company

1. To be eligible for a domain name in the com.au 2LD, registrants must be:
a) an Australian registered company;

Looks like the registrant qualifies.

Re:To be fair... (3, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509666)

Normally I'd agree with you but a satire of a political figure is, imo, legitimate use of a domain.

No, it's the legitimate use of a website, specifically its content. A domain brings in a lot of other talking points, such as trademark law, trademark dilution, etc.

I think it is pretty damn good argument that if your name is not Stephen Conroy, or have a service contract with Stephen Conroy, that you cannot own the domain legally.

Of course, I absolutely despise domain name squatters, so I may be a little biased in this regard. Ownership and registry of domains has to be reworked regardless.

People get the political satire argument a little confused and immediately try to apply to it to domain names, which I just don't think is appropriate. If you make some content in the spirit of political satire and get it published at the New York Times, it is at the New York Times. If video, it could be shown on Comedy Central, or some other entertainment channel. It is still being presented through another distribution channel where it is clear that it is not being presented by the target of the political satire.

In some ways, you might even look it as being libelous and even impersonation. Would a reasonable person conclude that it was not Stephen Conroy making the statements? Would a reasonable person conclude that the Stephen Conroy, or somebody named Stephen Conroy own and condone the content of that domain? Could a reasonable person sue Stephen Conroy for the content of the domain?

The Internet is just too new right now. I don't think we have really answered these questions yet, or been forced to deal with them enough yet.

I hate censorship as much as the next person, but putting your protest in the man's name? I don't think you should do that. Get something like censorship-in-australia.com.au or something.

I may completely disagree with Stephen Conroy's politics, but I will wholeheartedly support the idea that he has the rights to own that domain and make arguments that it be turned over to him. Please note that I limit that to StephenConroy or Stephen-Conroy, etc. Not Stephen-Conroy-is-a-complete-douche.com.au.

Of course... if the protesters can find another man named Stephen Conroy and make an agreement with him that could make it a lot more interesting to me.

Re:To be fair... (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509676)

Let me fix that for you:

Satire of a political figure that we don't like is legitimate use of a domain.

What would happen if the domain in question was called "Obama: Fascist President" or some such? I mean, disregarding the obvious racism aspect for a moment.

Re:To be fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509792)

There is nothing at all racist about that... ???

Re:To be fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30510120)

Criticism or satire of Obama by anyone other than an African-American is racism. This was clearly explained, maybe you didn't get the memo? Or you're probably a racist yourself.

Re:To be fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509878)

There's nothing wrong with "Obama : Fascist President". I think that would make a great website showing all the bullshit that he's done in his career. Doh, I guess I made it into a legitimate use, 'cause I sure don't like Obama.

Re:To be fair... (1)

nulldaemon (926551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510350)

Let me fix that for you:

Satire of a political figure that we don't like is legitimate use of a domain.

What would happen if the domain in question was called "Obama: Fascist President" or some such? I mean, disregarding the obvious racism aspect for a moment.

My thinking wouldn't change (& thank you very much for you false assumption about me).

Of course I've changed my mind someone bothered to lookup auDA requirements for .com.au & personal use isn't included.

Re:To be fair... (1)

Caity (140482) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509744)

satire of a political figure is, imo, legitimate use of a domain

Sure, but satire is still not a legitimate defence for fraud.

That said, it sounds like these guys provided sufficient evidence that they had a legitimate right to those domain names under AuDA's rules (at least, according to their own press releases) to make the extreme short notice of the cancellation very very dodgy indeed.

Re:To be fair... (1)

some_guy_88 (1306769) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509562)

To get a .au address you need to have a business, proven by providing your ABN (Australia Business Number). So I guess it's fair enough that this domain is removed if they weren't following these rules but I didn't RTFA.

On the other hand, Steven Conroy is one of the countries biggest douche bags so he completely deserves all the shit he gets.

Re:To be fair... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509616)

if the website is about Stephen Conroy than it has a definate claim to legitimacy.

Otherwise it could argued that any website named after what it is about is illegitimate if it is not actually that thing.

Re:To be fair... (1)

rastilin (752802) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509750)

I'm no fan of Stephen Conroy's Great Wall of Australia, but the owners of the site in question can't have any claim to legitimacy if they fraudulently use someone else's name to register it.

That's a legitimate reason to take their domain away, not censor it. The main reason people complained about the great firewall is the fear that it might be used to silence speech the government dissaproves of. How is this not a direct example of just such a thing?

FIRST [Filtered] (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509546)

FIRST [Filtered]

The world is global now. (4, Interesting)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509570)

You can't censor in secret anymore. Either you can pull a China/North Korea/Cuba/Most of the Middle East and just outright limit, filter and forbid in the open and go full tilt enforcement while not hiding the fact you're being a douche about it, or you can go hands off and only enforce your countries top level domain. Few people in the US use a .us top level domain, though the popularity is increasing. .com is for the world and can be hosted anywhere nearly transparently. It's time Australia figures that out.

Re:The world is global now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509690)

Heard of new world order :P

Re:The world is global now. (2, Informative)

jebiester (589234) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509772)

Once Conroy's filter is up and working it won't matter where it's hosted. If the government can pressure auDA to shut down the site, it can certainly add it to the national filter so that no one in Australia can visit it.

Re:The world is global now. (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509782)

Right, but they're working on obtaining the same level of freedom as North Korea in the eyes of the world. As far as I'm concerned they're working on that goal pretty hard.

YuX0 fail it!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509578)

learn what mistakeS Projec7 somewhere

Can't wait for the Aus Firewall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509600)

These pesky political protest sites are wasting my valuable time when I could be working industriously for the greater good.

Re:Can't wait for the Aus Firewall (1)

PenguSven (988769) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509894)

The greater good.

You-turn.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509620)

"The site was quickly moved to a US domain, stephen-conroy.com in order to stay active while the dispute with auDA is resolved.""

Aren't we suppose to be moving things FROM the US in order to avoid censorship?

Domain Name Registration Requirements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509622)

Having registered some ".com.au" names previously, they are much stricter about ensuring that ".com.au" are only used for commercial purposes - you generally have to supply evidence or details (such as company registration numbers, registered business name details, etc) that confirm the commercial nature of the registration.

There are most likely also strict rules regarding usage of names, trademarks and similar items

Given this, it is highly likely that the AU domain authority have decided that the registration does not meet the .com.au requirements. I would not be surprised if they've pulled the registration because of this.

They've moved to a .com registration anyway, which doesn't have any significant commercial criteria for obtaining the registration

Re:Domain Name Registration Requirements (3, Informative)

doug20r (1436837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510196)

You are wrong about the commercial requirements. These are very minimal. Just placing some ads on their website selling Steve dolls or Steve posters etc would be enough to meet the auDA monetised website requirements.

welcome to a labor government (0)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509640)

this is what labor are all about, they are all about making everyone tow the line, there's a good worker join that union and don't you DARE try better yourself or we will label you "rich" (income of 90k and up? are you for real that's not rich) and tax the bejesus out of you.

Re:welcome to a labor government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509706)

while your attacks on politics, both labor and liberal, are absolutely correct - welcome to democracy as we know it. your assertian that 90k is not rich however is way out of line. i thought i was doing well with $60k. 90 is well above the australian median income.

Re:welcome to a labor government (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509832)

actually, you are just under average. so your not doing well, your actually slightly below the marjority of the population.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0/ [abs.gov.au]

now buy a house and have kids and tell me 90k makes you feel rich. the key problem here is what has always, and will always, be the major malfunction of labor. the second you step up above average they cut you off at the knees, and that's not good for the country in the long run.

Re:welcome to a labor government (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509918)

"the second you step up above average they cut you off at the knees"

Did I miss something? AFAIK, taxation rates have not changed under Labor....oh it's timmarthy, never mind.

Re:welcome to a labor government (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510134)

umm let me see. means testing the baby bonus (wtf, "rich" peoples babies are worth less?!), roll back of benefits to salary sacrifice, and if your working as an expat well you just got up to $55,000 more in tax. the reason -you- haven't seen it is because i bet you fit into labor's main demographic hence they don't do anything to impact you.

And i suspect you'll be eating those words anyway when the feral budget is handed down.

Re:welcome to a labor government (1)

cujo_1111 (627504) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509860)

90k may be above the median, but it is still far from rich these days

GTFO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30510106)

This is how it has always been with Australian Domain name registrars. It has nothing to do with a Labor government, the Australian domain authorities have always been complete bastards, no matter which party is in power. It has nothing to do with party politics, it's just about anal-retentive bureaucrats and very strict rules about who is allowed to register a domain.

Even businesses with a legitimate claim to a .au domain name have a difficult time registering it. It's completely different to the US, where basically anybody can register .com domain with any available name.

For what it's worth (2, Informative)

megrims (839585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509658)

You're only allowed to register .com.au domains that correspond to the names of businesses that you own, or your own name. This isn't censorship so much as rule enforcement.

Re:For what it's worth (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509680)

yes and in any other case you'd only have 3 hours to respond? this is clear cut government intervention on a topic they should keep their fucking nose OUT of, and precisely the kind of thing that should be fought.

Re:For what it's worth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509774)

this is pretty clear cut fraud in Aus. The domain rules are explicit and the only way they can possibly have the name they are using is if they are also called Stephen conroy. They should not need to give any notice at all, Stephen Conroy is a dick, but the Australian domain naming rules are some of the best in the world as they "generally" prevent a lot of abuse and cyber squatting. This is a case of 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Re:For what it's worth (2, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509840)

"this is clear cut government intervention"

No it's clear cut corporate intervention [zdnet.com.au] , unless you want to go for the standard conspiracy theory crap.

Re:For what it's worth (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510002)

The corporation itself has a GAF attitude (give a fuck). What we have here is someone in power with a stick up their arse wanting to clean house. Please, do tell me what this 'standard' conspiracy crap is? Aliens, mind rays? See, TapeCutter, I don't really understand because I've been blinded by the sheer obviousness of what has transpired. If you think there is no little boys club right up at the top looking out for its own, well, perhaps you need to learn to be a little more cynical in life. I spent more than a decade working for the Defence Signals Directorate, I have a little bit of a clue. For what it's worth, I left Australia 10 years ago - lets just say I watched the guy with the marker pen writing on the wall and took my bat and ball and went elsewhere. .com.au is littered with trash, just like everywhere else. http://humour.200ok.com.au/ [200ok.com.au] is but one of thousands of examples.

Re:For what it's worth (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510022)

Yep, your post is a geat example of standard conspiracy crap, all bluster and no evidence.

Re:For what it's worth (3, Informative)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510004)

No it's clear cut corporate intervention [zdnet.com.au] , unless you want to go for the standard conspiracy theory crap.

Considering how irritatingly slow auDA are at handling any kind of request (think a month to 6 weeks, yes I have witnessed this), I find it highly unlikely that they weren't at least prod'd into action via external forces (ie Senator Conroy or one of his cronies).

I guess it's not like they have a history of doing this... Oh right they do -> Filtering out the fury: how government tried to gag web censor critics [smh.com.au]

Hidden motives (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510244)

The OP claimed "government intervention" in this specific case not some other case and he did it without a shread of evidence, I never claimed auDA or the government were good/bad/indifferent, just that auDA did this off their own bat.

Some people don't need a prod to attempt to suck up to government OTOH they could have done it deliberately knowing many people would blame the government. I don't know their "hidden" motive and neither do you.

Re:For what it's worth (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510484)

Alright, but so what? I suppose nobody likes to see preferential treatment, especially when they're not the ones receiving it, but I don't see a particularly big deal about it. In fact, I think you could argue that it's more important and thus should be a higher priority for them to act in a case where a famous person or government officer is involved, since the potential damage to both that person and others is greater than if it was your name or mine that was misappropriated.

What I'm much more interested in is whether or not they got the decision right, and if the OP is correct that you're only allowed to register business names you own or your personal name--and I'm fairly certain that is correct--then it certainly seems to me to be the correct decision. And what's more, the people who registered the name almost certainly knew that in advance.

Did Conroy or one of his staffers put the whole thing in motion? I can almost guarantee that they did, and it is the proper thing to due if there are registration rules that have been broken and they want it corrected. Did they twist any arms for quick action? Probably not. I can't necessarily explain why, but people tend to fall all over themselves to help important, famous or otherwise powerful people, no threats or bribes needed.

NONE of this, by the way, should be construed to be anything resembling support from me for Senator Conroy or the entire Internet filtering scheme. I do NOT support it, and I applaud protest and protest sites.

Re:For what it's worth (2, Interesting)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510474)

Does some other poor unfortunate Australian sole share his name with Stephen Conroy?

Holy hell, the Aussies move fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509794)

I got it done fast, before you even saw it coming, like Australians it's all in the title it's all over go away.

Now does everyone realise (4, Insightful)

Muskstick (1522069) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509834)

...that Bob Brown is the best choice for PM, The Greens really have the only policies that make sense. Can you all imagine no Labor or Liberal bastards calling the shots and the country actually being run by someone who cares about it rather than these insane power hungry pollies with mad personal agendas to fulfill.

Re:Now does everyone realise (2, Interesting)

cujo_1111 (627504) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509874)

Do you truly think that the Greens could do better?

They have these dreams of 100% renewable energy by 2020, but without massive debt and taxation, it would be impossible.

Also, their obsession with carbon emissions and their fear of nuclear power, means that their goal is near on impossible in the short to medium term.

Re:Now does everyone realise (1)

Muskstick (1522069) | more than 4 years ago | (#30509980)

Yes I do. Removing all the ridiculous tax breaks for the rich and high polluting industries as they'd plan to do would give them all the cash they need for it. It's a moot point though as their planned target [greens.org.au] is 25% by 2020 Nuclear power I'm not so worried about but if it's possible and feasible to get all our power from renewable sources I don't think that's a bad ambition. Their other policies on Environmental and Humanitarian issues just make sense as well. Im not deluded enough to think they'd ever get in power but voting for them puts a relatively sane voice in parliament and besides, it makes me feel good about myself.

Off-topic (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510322)

But if we don't want to use carbon-fuels because they are running out, then nuclear ain't much better.

And Australia got a better chance at renewable energy then most countries because they got far more land available to put it on, and you can't import cheap coal electricity to make green energy to expensive.

Nuclear is far less economical then the nuke industry wants to make it appear. Would you trust a coal producer to tell you the truth about coal?

Re:Now does everyone realise (1)

ghostdoc (1235612) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510028)

I'm a climate skeptic though...so no Green for me.

I'm voting Pirate if we can stand anyone up for it :)

http://pirateparty.org.au/ [pirateparty.org.au]

Re:Now does everyone realise (1)

Muskstick (1522069) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510070)

Im slightly fence sitting on climate change as well, I've read good arguments both ways but that doesn't mean reducing pollution (or at least not subsiding it for ~$10 billion a year), the prevention of old growth logging, removing our reliance of fossil fuels etc isnt a good idea. Man I'm sounding like a Captain Planet theme song here but too many people seem to think a vote for the Greens is the equivalent of a donkey vote.

Re:Now does everyone realise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30510122)

Hmmm, a "climate skeptic" who would vote "Pirate" over Green - this is a synonym for "retard".

Re:Now does everyone realise (1)

bh_doc (930270) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510086)

I don't hold much faith in the Greens in this area when they pull stunts like this: http://www.nointernetcensorship.com/node/54 [nointernetcensorship.com]

Re:Now does everyone realise (1)

Muskstick (1522069) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510476)

Yeah I really don't understand their reasoning behind putting him up for the seat, I'll give him points for writing a book called "Silencing Dissent: How the Australian Government Is Controlling Public Opinion and Stifling Debate" though. At least Scott Ludlum spoke out against the plan.

Re:Now does everyone realise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30510272)

This is a freaking scary statement. If the greens were in power they would try and bring us back into the stone age. While they serve a purpose as a minority group, I hope I never live to see them in power and calling the shots. Imagine how much money BB would waste in addition to the amounts he already wastes - I seem to remember him desperately whining for people to pay the legal fees for pointless lawsuits HE filed so that he wouldn't lose his seat.

What the fuck would kdawson do if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30509968)

...The Aussie intarwebz people stopped pulling shit like this?

How would he spam Slashdot's frontpage with "news" from his beloved Australia if all that was left to post was stories such as "Aussie Man Buys iPod: Quite likes it"...?

Even CowboyNeal would put an end to it.

Don't fall for Streisand Effect Speak (1)

dmomo (256005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510026)

This is mainly a "hind-site" phenomenon. Someone idiotic tries to stop getting attention by trying to silence someone over the Internet. Because of this, it spreads like wild fire. That's because people love to mock idiocy. Often it's because a notable person or entity is trying to stifle free speech, and we love to get all up in arms about it. That's because the news is interesting in some way.

Don't let this fool you into thinking that information cannot be kept down. And don't think that it isn't happening every day in millions of ways. The Streisand Effect is a cute name for something rare. Censorship is real, and it happens. The reason you don't hear about most of it is because, well, it has been successfully censored. You can only pray that the manner of censorship is so asinine that it causes a stir. Normally it doesn't. People get paid off, killed or threatened with merit-less lawsuits.

Don't let these false phenomenon allow complacency to set in. Speak out where you can about what you think is important.

hmmm (2, Informative)

smash (1351) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510154)

Whilst I agree that the move was a bit.... bastardly (by the AU registry).... the domain does not comply with the .com.au regs and should have never been approved registration in the first place. To register a .com.au, you need to provide proof of ownership of a business name or trading name that relates to the domain name being registered (BEFORE getting the domain).

I suspect someone within the AU registry side-stepped some processes to get the domain through.

This may sound strange to americans, but over here in australia, com.au is fairly strictly regulated.

Good to see .com is still up though, I agree with the cause :)

Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30510158)

The domain WAS registered using a registered business ABN. auDA pulled the domain for an undisclosed reason and it broke none of their rules.

Very sad (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510222)

I am not be condicending. It seems all countries' rights are being eroded quickly, but Australia seems to be going quicker than most. As a US citizen, I'm thinking of just buying some cheap woodland and building a cabin. Eating squirrels and cooking over a fire would stink, but at least no one would come to put me in prison for something I didn't even know I did.

(Hi NSA/Echelon! Hope you are having a nice day. I once threw a paper cup out my car window.)

Australians not a free people (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30510246)

While this kind of thing is permitted to go on, Australians cannot consider themselves a free people. In the U.S., there are quite a few reasons we should no longer be considered a free people as well, but this example of censorship is pretty extreme. In fact, both examples are extreme... the original cause and the satirical response.

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>