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!

5 Concerns About Australia's New Net Filter

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the lovely-shade-of-black-don'tcha-think? dept.

Censorship 158

daria42 writes "As you might have heard, this month Australia gets a new Internet filter, using Interpol's blacklist of 'worst of the worst' child pornography sites. In general, it seems like most people don't object to the idea in principle, but concerns are being raised around the transparency of the scheme, which so far has no civilian oversight, unclear backing legislation and an appeals process which does not exactly inspire confidence. Why is it those who want to implement this kind of filtering never quite address these sort of concerns up-front?"

cancel ×

158 comments

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

The quick answer: (5, Insightful)

gcnaddict (841664) | about 3 years ago | (#36708178)

They're not network engineers. They just don't get it.

Have you heard most laypeople give theories on how computers and the internet work? They assume it's all magic, which probably explains why things like transparency and oversight end up being an afterthought.

Re:The quick answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708196)

the problem is there will always be a way for the false positives to block non-offensive sites and the bad guys to circumvent the filter. network security (as i tell non-technical people) is like that bugs bunny cartoon with yosemite sam and the two forts titled "we" and "them". you make your wall higher, he makes his wall higher and you both point the guns up more. it's neverending.

Bible (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708600)

the problem is there will always be a way for the false positives to block non-offensive sites ...

Child porn sites start using Biblical passages as euphemisms for certain things - "Lot's daughters" would be a wonderful search term for under age girl porn.

It'll get through the filters for a while and when it's discovered, Bible sites will be blocked and the Christian Fundies will start scaring the shit out of the politicians to remove the filters.

At least that's how it might go down.

Religion is a wonderful political weapon and it should never be put to waste.

Re:Bible (2)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 3 years ago | (#36708774)

or even better somebody will get/leak the blocklist and then arrange some sort of mirror for the content

Block List
or
Shopping List

YOU MAKE THE CALL!!

Re:Bible (3, Interesting)

leamanc (961376) | about 3 years ago | (#36708954)

I'm not sure using deceptive text would work in this case. It doesn't seem to be automated like a spam filter. It's blacklist of the "worst of the worst" sites, according to TFA.

That makes it sound like somebody at Interpol is viewing the sites, rating them, and adding the "worst of the worst" to the list manually.

Re:Bible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36709332)

It'll get through the filters for a while and when it's discovered, Bible sites will be blocked and the Christian Fundies will start scaring the shit out of the politicians to remove the filters.

Please. Being ultra-conservative and Christian can often be mutually exclusive. Australia ain't America - we don't have nearly the same blight on our social landscape as America does with their ridiculously conservative "Christian Fundies"

Re:The quick answer: (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#36708394)

I suspect that it is rather worse than that:

They aren't network engineers, true, so why did they skip all the politician-stuff that they do know how to do(legislation, process, etc.) and skip right to making demands on the network side?

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and suggest that they have no interest in there being any sort of oversight, due process, or other such inefficient meddling with their precious little plan.

Re:The quick answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708564)

It would seem to me that the lawyers probably can't dictate implementation and those who can should know better than to do it. If this is your job to impliment the filtering you simply need to say "the legislation or rule is technically infeasible to implement and just not do it" and when someone says another isp did it. you say that isn't what the legislation, rule, etc demanded and what they implemented didn't do what the legislation or rule says. It would be technically true.

Re:The quick answer: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708444)

You're assuming the lack of oversight and transparency is a bug, not a feature.

Good they "don't get it" & why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708946)

Because a VALID DNSBL can HELP them! How so? Look no further: Norton DNS -> http://nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com] & you can even see how it updates every few minutes, here -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz [norton.com]

These "noobz" you describe won't know how to work around these things, & thus, they are protected BY DEFAULT!

(It's really GOOD STUFF, & IF you're "security-conscious"? It only takes a minute to switch your system over to use them as your primary DNS... & same in your routers too!)

APK

P.S.=> Yes, there ARE relatively easy ways to "get around/past" DNSBL, but the point is, that most of these "noobz" you're describing won't know them, & it can protect them from being victimized by botnets + their C&C Servers, bognus DNS servers, maliciously coded sites, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malwares that steal folks information & monies too...

AND, yes, DNSBL's can even function to help BIG BUSINESS/The Wealthy too, as well as the "little guy/Joe Public" online!

(Because we are ALL 'consumers of the internet' big business included, & they also get abused by these things as well).

Boggles my MIND that ISP/BSP's worldwide haven't implemented DNSBL's the way Norton DNS does & why - to help stop the "malware plague" in essence, which we're ALL POSSIBLE VICTIMS OF!

... apk

Re:The quick answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36709090)

They assume it's all magic, which probably explains why things like transparency and oversight end up being an afterthought.

Funnily enough, it also appears that a non-corrupted and democratically working government are all magic to a professional politician, irrespective of this person having at least a masters degree in political sciences..

Re:The quick answer: (3, Interesting)

dov_0 (1438253) | about 3 years ago | (#36709248)

The other angle is that Australia has always had censorship. Radio and TV are censored. Video games were logically censored to keep things in line with alread excepted policy. I'm personally surprised that censorship of the Internet has taken so long. I used to run a PC repair business and every customer with children and some without were concerned about what is available on the internet and many asked me to install Net Nanny or some other similar service. Any internet filter that filters out things like child porn and bestiality will be, except for some vocal small groups, quite popular here.

As for the 'oversights' outlined by the parent, Australians trust our governments a lot more than people in the US. Up until not too many years ago all of our public utilities were government owned, we have free government run or supplemented health care, education and payments and job training for the unemployed. It is quite natural to us that there should be censorship and I think the majority if Australians would be quite happy for the government to be doing it without questioning things too much.

Re:The quick answer: (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#36709404)

Any internet filter that filters out things like child porn and bestiality will be, except for some vocal small groups, quite popular here.

It's the word "like" that should raise a flag. What, exactly, will be censored, and who decides it?

This quote seems on topic:

"The big problem with pornography is defining it. You can't just say it's pictures of people naked. For example, you have these primitive African tribes that exist by chasing the wildebeest on foot, and they have to go around largely naked, because, as the old tribal saying goes: "N'wam k'honi soit qui mali," which means, "If you think you can catch a wildebeest in this climate and wear clothes at the same time, then I have some beach front property in the desert region of Northern Mali that you may be interested in."

So it's not considered pornographic when National Geographic publishes color photographs of these people hunting the wildebeest naked, or pounding one rock onto another rock for some primitive reason naked, or whatever. But if National Geographic were to publish an article entitled "The Girls of the California Junior College System Hunt the Wildebeest Naked," some people would call it pornography. But others would not. And still others, such as the Spectacularly Rev. Jerry Falwell, would get upset about seeing the wildebeest naked."
-- Dave Barry

Re:The quick answer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36709630)

It is quite natural to us that there should be censorship and I think the majority if Australians would be quite happy for the government to be doing it without questioning things too much.

Hahaha. +1 funny. Clearly taking the piss.

Why indeed. (5, Insightful)

Meshach (578918) | about 3 years ago | (#36708194)

Because by flying the "We are protecting the children" flag they can be immune it criticism. Anyone who opposes is a supported of child porn.

Just like any one who opposes the massive privacy breaches in the USA is in support of the terrorists.

Grounds for lawsuit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708258)

Because by flying the "We are protecting the children" flag they can be immune it criticism. Anyone who opposes is a supported of child porn. .

So, if one is able to access the child porn with this filter in place, can they sue? This filter is supposed to protect people and if one were able to access this material for whatever reason, then that means the filter failed and I have been injured by seeing that material due to their negligence and I should be able to sue the Government on the grounds that they have explicitly stated that they are protecting me. Yes?

Re:Grounds for lawsuit? (1)

Stolovaya (1019922) | about 3 years ago | (#36708292)

Please do this.

Re:Grounds for lawsuit? (2)

jamesh (87723) | about 3 years ago | (#36708460)

I've thought about this too. I think one of the biggest fears of the implementer of such a filter is that they may then be held liable for the content they don't filter. I assume though that under the fluff, the charter of Telstra's filter is "to block sites on the Interpol 'worst of the worst' block list via a DNS filter". If you can access sites on the list without altering your DNS servers or having your DNS servers altered by malware then you may have a case. If you understand the underlying technology though, I think you'll realise they have themselves covered.

FWIW, I think that this filter is one of the best possibly outcome (ranking behind an opt in filter, or no filter at all). As long as they stick to blocking DNS records that i'm never going to use anyway and I could circumvent if I wanted to then it seems reasonable. If they had started doing deep packet inspection and modification then Telstra and I might have had a problem... if I was a Telstra customer.

There is always the danger of the "slippery slope", and it's probably quite real in this case, but Telstra is mostly a private company and customers can vote with their credit cards, and if the government mandated it then Australian's can vote with their votes. Another concern is that the big political focus over here at the moment is the carbon tax, so if the government was looking for some misdirection then a compulsory internet filter might be just the thing.

Re:Grounds for lawsuit? (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 years ago | (#36708596)

I hate to do this, but...

If you can access sites on the list without altering your DNS servers or having your DNS servers altered by malware then you may have a case

http://207.46.19.254/en-us/default.aspx [207.46.19.254] (Microsoft's main site).

...just a quick note that DNS isn't exactly all that and a bag of chips when it comes to filtering something.

DNSBL's can be "4 the GOOD" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36709044)

PRIME example thereof? Ok: Norton DNS -> http://nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com] & you can even see how it updates every few minutes, here -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz [norton.com]

* The "noobz" others in other posts here described won't know how to work around these things, & thus, they are protected BY DEFAULT!

(It's really GOOD STUFF, & IF you're "security-conscious"? It only takes a minute to switch your system over to use them as your primary DNS... & same in your routers too!)

APK

P.S.=> Yes, there ARE relatively easy ways to "get around/past" DNSBL, but, the point is this:

Most of these "noobz" you're describing won't know them, & it can protect them from being victimized by botnets + their C&C Servers, bognus DNS servers, maliciously coded sites, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malwares that steal folks information & monies too...

Additionally, yes:

DNSBL's can even function to help BIG BUSINESS/The Wealthy too, as well as the "little guy/Joe Public" online!

(Because we are ALL 'consumers of the internet' big business included, & they also get abused by these things as well).

Boggles my MIND that ISP/BSP's worldwide haven't implemented DNSBL's the way Norton DNS does & why - to help stop the "malware plague" in essence, which we're ALL POSSIBLE VICTIMS OF! ... apk

A better question (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708204)

Why aren't the authorities using their resources to actually find, arrest, and confine the people who actually produce child pornography?

Re:A better question (1)

nopainogain (1091795) | about 3 years ago | (#36708224)

they do it here. every day there's another one caught in my county. these guys are all over the peer networks sharing pictures of kids. sickos. i work for an ISP and it amazes me how they have no idea that we see everything they do.

Re:A better question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708398)

Be careful how you word things like that, you could be in deep shit for a number of reasons. :p

Re:A better question (5, Informative)

gerddie (173963) | about 3 years ago | (#36708240)

A music-industry speaker at an American Chamber of Commerce event in Stockholm waxed enthusiastic about child porn, because it serves as the perfect excuse for network censorship, and once you've got a child-porn filter, you can censor anything:

"Child pornography is great," the speaker at the podium declared enthusiastically. "It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites". The venue was a seminar organized by the American Chamber of Commerce in Stockholm on May 27, 2007, under the title "Sweden -- A Safe Haven for Pirates?". The speaker was Johan Schlüter from the Danish Anti-Piracy Group, a lobby organization for the music and film industry associations, like IFPI and others... "One day we will have a giant filter that we develop in close cooperation with IFPI and MPA. We continuously monitor the child porn on the net, to show the politicians that filtering works. Child porn is an issue they understand," Johan Schlüter said with a grin, his whole being radiating pride and enthusiasm from the podium.

Source: http://boingboing.net/2010/04/28/music-industry-spoke.html [boingboing.net]

Re:A better question (1)

errandum (2014454) | about 3 years ago | (#36708340)

damn, modded you down by mistake, just posting to clear

Re:A better question (4, Funny)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about 3 years ago | (#36708458)

A music-industry speaker at an American Chamber of Commerce event in Stockholm waxed enthusiastic about child porn, because it serves as the perfect excuse for network censorship, and once you've got a child-porn filter, you can censor anything:

 

The speaker has a point but it is misdirected. This censorship is really a thinly veiled attempt at shielding domestically produced child pornography from competition. Because child pornography in general is illegal, it is impossible to impose trade tariffs without raising the alarm bells. It is also well known that cheap overseas labour can out-produce more expensive Australian labour in most non-technical industries.

Australian based child pornographers were finding their margins dwindling so they used "special interest" groups to penetrate government and introduce laws to protect their business. It is obvious that anyone in support of the "Australian Net Filter" is simply disguising their interest in strengthening domestic child pornography. :)

Re:A better question (1)

genner (694963) | about 3 years ago | (#36708690)

A music-industry speaker at an American Chamber of Commerce event in Stockholm waxed enthusiastic about child porn, because it serves as the perfect excuse for network censorship, and once you've got a child-porn filter, you can censor anything:

"Child pornography is great," the speaker at the podium declared enthusiastically. "It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites". The venue was a seminar organized by the American Chamber of Commerce in Stockholm on May 27, 2007, under the title "Sweden -- A Safe Haven for Pirates?". The speaker was Johan Schlüter from the Danish Anti-Piracy Group, a lobby organization for the music and film industry associations, like IFPI and others... "One day we will have a giant filter that we develop in close cooperation with IFPI and MPA. We continuously monitor the child porn on the net, to show the politicians that filtering works. Child porn is an issue they understand," Johan Schlüter said with a grin, his whole being radiating pride and enthusiasm from the podium.

Source: http://boingboing.net/2010/04/28/music-industry-spoke.html [boingboing.net]

This is great news assuming that politicians will actually realize that the filter isn't working with child porn and therefore shouldn't be implemented anywhere else..

Re:A better question (2)

Ambvai (1106941) | about 3 years ago | (#36708874)

When do we get to start saying '"Child pornography is great." --Johan Schlüter, Danish Anti-Piracy Group' as an argument?

Re:A better question (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 3 years ago | (#36708446)

Exactly. Rather than using thoughtcrime style legislation and expanding government powers like current legislation is doing, and using laws designed to protect children to stop victimless crime (for example the man jailed for possessing -drawings- of allegedly underage girls) they should be stopping the people harming the children and going after the real crime.

Re:A better question (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 3 years ago | (#36708718)

Rather than using thoughtcrime style legislation and expanding government powers like current legislation is doing

This filter is not a legal requirement, parliment has repeatedly refused to legislate the various mandotory filters that have been proposed by both right and left wing governments since the mid-nineties. If the government were really interested in expanding their powers in this area we would have had mandatory filters over a decade ago.

Re:A better question (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708940)

Exactly. Rather than using thoughtcrime style legislation and expanding government powers like current legislation is doing, and using laws designed to protect children to stop victimless crime (for example the man jailed for possessing -drawings- of allegedly underage girls) they should be stopping the people harming the children and going after the real crime.

Virtual things aside, I used to think similarly about thought crime. A newspaper article I read described some of the stuff some guy who got busted had, and it was absolutely horrifying. To me, "porn" implies something pretty pleasant--I don't know, simple nudity for instance. Definitely not what they're going after. The stuff described sounded more like pictures of torture and abuse--not just pictures of suggestive poses or something seemingly innocuous. When the stuff is THAT bad, I think it transcends thought crime. Merely associating with child abusers and torturers by viewing their products is crime enough for me.

Re:A better question (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 3 years ago | (#36708484)

Why aren't the authorities using their resources to actually find, arrest, and confine the people who actually produce child pornography?

Along with "won't somebody think of the children?", statements like that are great for rounding up a posse to burn down the Museum of Natural History, but Telstra has no power to find, arrest, and confine people for any reason, and anything they do doesn't take resources away from "the authorities". By definition, the only thing a DNS block list is for is to stop you stumbling across the stuff on the Interpol block list accidentally. Telstra's media release may be a bit more fluffy than that of course but that's the essence of it.

Re:A better question (3, Interesting)

BitterOak (537666) | about 3 years ago | (#36708544)

Why aren't the authorities using their resources to actually find, arrest, and confine the people who actually produce child pornography?

Maybe the child pornography is being produced in a different jurisdiction than the authorities of whom you speak.

Re:A better question (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about 3 years ago | (#36708672)

Re: Why aren't the authorities using their resources to actually find, arrest, and confine the people
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/224056/federal_police_anti-porn_operations_cut_by_razor_gang/ [computerworld.com.au]
They cut $2.8 million from the Online Child Sex Exploitation Team in Australia....
I guess the filter did better with a focus group?

Re:A better question (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | about 3 years ago | (#36708820)

Because nobody cares about child pornography.
What they do care about however is silencing any dissent that challenges the viewpoints of the current regime..

Different intent (1)

BSAtHome (455370) | about 3 years ago | (#36708216)

The whole point is to prevent free information flow so that directed information (aka propaganda) can be supplied. Any filter-list that can be scrutinized would fail to allow such use.

He who controls the flow of information controls the world...

What's there to get? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708218)

If they want this kind of authority over the internet, they need to create a good frame work that will open the process up to the public.

I don't understand... (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 3 years ago | (#36708234)

Why can there not be a public list of blocked websites? And how hard is it to set up some sort of oversight that allows for an appeals process for wrongfully blocked addresses?

I know the answer is most likely "because they don't care" but still, have they even tried to come up with a reason for these shortcomings? Or is it pretty much just going to be one of those "well, if you're against this you must be for child porn, because we live in a world that has no gray area whatsoever" that is so typical in cases like these?

Re:I don't understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708266)

that introduces the gray area where a website owner will allow joe-schmo-user to submit his own content and then someone drops a kid picture in there and he gets in trouble when he was home with his wife and kids eating dinner. its hard to police it all. my suggestion would be to follow those who search certain phrases associated with locating that image and video content. i mean nobodys searching for their nephews little league soccer game video by using words like pre teen. the guy who searches with that word needs an FBI trace on his packetflow.

Re:I don't understand... (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | about 3 years ago | (#36708712)

i mean nobodys searching for their nephews little league soccer game video by using words like pre teen. the guy who searches with that word needs an FBI trace on his packetflow.

It would be a shame to get tagged for trying to track down copies of the TMNT parody Pre Teen Dirty Gene Kung Fu Kangaroos [wikipedia.org] .

So no, not even that warrants Big Brother tracking your online activities.

Re:I don't understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708978)

my suggestion would be to follow those who search certain phrases associated with locating that image and video content. i mean nobodys searching for their nephews little league soccer game video by using words like pre teen. the guy who searches with that word needs an FBI trace on his packetflow.

Way back in the dim-dark days of the internet, before it even had pictures, I remember someone wrote a filtering system that was going to filter illegal content on USENET, based on exactly your idea of filtering words no one had any legitimate reason to use.

When he trialled it at one site, It promptly blocked rec.equestrian as the 3rd most pornographic group in USENET. There happened to be a discussion of horse breeding difficulties, and anatomical injuries and deformities related to breeding that week. People have legitimate, even work related reasons to discuss these things. They don't always use clinical medical terms to discuss these sort of issues. And if they did, so would the perverts you want to block.

Re:I don't understand... (4, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 3 years ago | (#36708314)

Why can there not be a public list of blocked websites?

Because the web sites are not blocked in any effective way and such a list would just be advertising for their services.

Re:I don't understand... (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about 3 years ago | (#36708736)

Why can there not be a public list of blocked websites?

Because the web sites are not blocked in any effective way and such a list would just be advertising for their services.

If it's not effective then what's the point of even trying?

What I really don't get is if they have some list of child porn sites/torrents/IPs/ect. that need to be shut down, why can't Interpol go kick some doors in?

Personally, I think the child porn thing is just an excuse to set up the infrastructure, which can then easily be converted into a system to filter out copyright violators. If there's no transparency, then this next step can be taken behind closed doors. At the very least it gets Australians accustomed to the idea of censorship as a good thing b/c no one wants to side with child pornographers.

Re:I don't understand... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 3 years ago | (#36709576)

why can't Interpol go kick some doors in?

Interpol don't kick doors in. Local police do that. In some parts of the world the local police have other priorities.

Yes, DNSBL's can be "circumvented" but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708806)

They can still do a LOT OF GOOD, for the majority of "less technical users" online & save them from a lot of hassles. Sure, you CAN get around DNSBL by:

---

1.) Hardcoded IP addresses put into a browser address bar

2.) HOSTS file host-domain name to IP address entries

3.) Using a DNS that doesn't institute DNSBL's vs. anything

(Be it porn, illegal filesharing, or malware/botnets (though this boggles my mind anyone would be INTO being infested by this, almost as much as pedophile freaks do actually (who I think should be hung by their balls & shot at with notched bullets)).

---

Yes, & other methods too...

* However: The point is, that these kinds of lists can save those who are NOT aware of those methods, & keep them safe(r) than they are with DNS from ISP/BSP's not doing it @ all!

(In fact, in another post in this very exchange, I state how it "boggles my mind" more VALID & protective DNSBL's aren't put into place worldwide @ the DNS level for all ISP/BSP's out there & why I think it'd work "FOR THE GENERAL GOOD" -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2311948&cid=36708742 [slashdot.org] )

APK

P.S.=> In fact, I'd almost wager that doing what Norton DNS does http://nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com] would help many a problem that's internet caused/based for EVERYONE that uses it, from "Joe Public avg. user" to "big business" too (If filters vs. malware, maliciously scripted sites, known bogus DNS servers, + botnet C&C servers etc. were put into place worldwide vs. them).

I actually THINK it would cut the # of online problem caused by these things by up to 90% easily...

... apk

Re:Yes, DNSBL's can be "circumvented" but... (1)

Teun (17872) | about 3 years ago | (#36709544)

I can see you are a Norton troll.

But I can't see why anyone would want a filtering system in place they have no control over.
Political and social history makes it painfully clear such a system will sooner than later be abused for other than the original intent.

The result would be plain old censorship.

There are (for HOSTS files @ least) vs. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708742)

Known maliciously scripted sites/servers/hosts-domains & they DO have removal lists & ways to check on that too on many of them as well, vs. their databases (to see if any you are blocking should be removed). For example, I know of 17 reputable & reliable ones I use, & haul down on average 300++ sites per day to fortify my HOSTS file, & software firewall rules table with, every day (both in the forms of host-domain names & IP Addresses).

In fact - I am blatantly ASTOUNDED this has not taken place worldwide @ the DNS level, via DNSBL's being put into place to protect "Joe Public avg. internet non-geek user" from blundering into sites that ruin their systems, make them slaves of botnets, & steal their information + monies!

All I have seen, other than this child porn one out of "the land down under" (which I DO AGREE WITH, let kids be kids, & don't victimize them - life will do that on its own as it does to all of us to one degree or another eventually)?

Filters protecting "big business only"... that's bullshit to be blunt about it.

(& I've stated this here many times the past few weeks now on posts regarding the MPAA/RIAA & even this filter (this one I agree with though, by all means, though vs. child pornography (disgusting, and WRONG!!!)))

* Especially if these filters are being paid for by tax-payer monies, from ANY government putting them into place... that makes "Joe Public" the owner, not gov't. agencies or "big business only" (who face it, runs the show out there & always has when you come right down to it (the wealthy of the planet in other words)).

However, the thing is? Even the wealthy & BIG BUSINESS would benefit by it as well, since business & gov't. DO get "victimized" by malware makers + botnet masters as well!

The same types of lists also exist for DNSBL (DNS block lists) & a great one to use vs. the types noted above?

Norton DNS -> http://nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com] & you can even see how it updates every few minutes, here -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz [norton.com]

(It's really GOOD STUFF, & IF you're "security-conscious"? It only takes a minute to switch your system over to use them as your primary DNS... & same in your routers too!)

APK

P.S.=> Thing is, I've thought about it, as to WHY THIS ISN'T BEING INSTITUTED WORLD-WIDE @ THE ISP/BSP DNS LEVEL (like Norton DNS does, filtering vs. malware & bogusly scripted sites + bogus DNS servers, as well as botnet C&C Servers too):

About the ONLY thing I can come up with as to WHY this has not been instituted @ the ISP/BSP DNS level, is this:

"It might put PC techies out of a job!"

Well, that's crap: They have PLENTY of other tasks to do during the day (even though it can be up to 85% of their day, I know, I was one in between coding & networking jobs, working for ISP's & such, & much of it was fighting off malwares).

It's like saying:

"Yes, we CAN 'cure cancer', or drive it away to almost nothing... but, that'd put doctors out of a job!"

Again, crap - because doctors, like PC-Techs, have many other "maladies to deal with" during a day's work!

... apk

UK years ahead of AUS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708244)

At least Interpol is a police organisation. Here in the UK we already have a completely unaccountable charity organisation with no government oversight that decides what to block - complete with frequent false positives, like the well-publicised Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] blacklisting.

Because They Do Not Want Oversight (5, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 3 years ago | (#36708256)

They do not address the issues of oversight and transparency because they want neither. They are using the horrifying crime of child sexual abuse as a shield to deflect objections to censorship, and it has worked. Governments the world over want more oversight and control over what their citizens do. In some cases (China) they simply implement that control to their heart's content. In others, like the USA, I am sure our own government will be watching how the public reacts intently - with an eye towards similar measures here at home.

Nothing to do with America (1)

the_raptor (652941) | about 3 years ago | (#36708480)

The censorship that is going on here in Australia would never work in America. Here in Australia we have a consistent history of censoring all forms of media. Our constitution is partially based on the US one but it only protects "political" speech, so we have always followed the British model of comprehensive censorship of non-political subjects.

Any kind of industry agreement in the US, which couldn't be "assisted" by the government like it is here in Australia, would last until one ISP figured they could make more money selling unfiltered access.

Re:Nothing to do with America (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 3 years ago | (#36708750)

Any kind of industry agreement in the US, which couldn't be "assisted" by the government like it is here in Australia, would last until one ISP figured they could make more money selling unfiltered access.

You do realise there are still plenty of unfiltered providers here in Oz, right?

Re:Nothing to do with America (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 3 years ago | (#36708822)

Oh and BTW: There is no explicit right to free speech in the Australian constitution (political or otherwise), however the high court in the erly 90's did rule that it is an implied right.

Re:Nothing to do with America (1)

skegg (666571) | about 3 years ago | (#36709470)

We still don't have some of the protections afforded to US citizens by their constitution.

Have a truecrypt volume? What would happen to you if you refused a judge's direction to hand over your password?

Re:Because They Do Not Want Oversight (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 3 years ago | (#36709636)

today it is to protect the children, they could very well have an add-on to the filter system that blocks criticism of the government or anything else they don't like...

Lots oppose on principle (3, Insightful)

tdelaney (458893) | about 3 years ago | (#36708260)

Trust me - lots of us oppose this on principle. However, there is a massive amount of fatigue regarding this issue - every objection raised to it is either ignored or labelled as "supporting child porn".

As a result, the only way we can see to oppose it is on technical and transparency grounds. It's still being ignored, but at least we're on unassailable technical footing here - the filter is useless for its stated purpose (preventing people inadvertantly finding CP) and is trivial to bypass in any case (as admitted by Optus). And because the blocklist is private, it could be easily expanded to cover anything (for those people not technically-minded or politically-minded enough to change their DNS settings).

I chose my ISP (Internode) for several reasons - one of which being Simon Hackett's oft-stated position that they will not filter anything unless required by law.

Where's the blacklist? (2)

zill (1690130) | about 3 years ago | (#36708274)

Here's the interpol stop page. [contentkeeper.com]

I can't seem to find the blacklisted domains on Telstra and Interpol's sites. Is my google-fu too weak or is the list kept secret?

If it's latter, how am I supposed check whether my site hasn't accidentally ended on the blacklist? Use an Australian proxy?

I found it deeply ironic that the list of censored sites is itself censored.

Re:Where's the blacklist? (1)

nopainogain (1091795) | about 3 years ago | (#36708290)

they arent going to publish that info because the bad guys will use it to circumvent it's protections.

Re:Where's the blacklist? (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | about 3 years ago | (#36708842)

Interpol ARE the bad guys.
This is a case of the good guys trying to get around the bad guys censorship.

Re:Where's the blacklist? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708422)

Now you understand why there is opposition to the idea and why it's a flawed design to begin with.

Re:Where's the blacklist? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 3 years ago | (#36708496)

Its kept secret so the government can discount any site that disagrees with it as containing banned material and has indoctrinated the masses and made their thoughtcrime-style legislation so broad that anyone who disagrees with it is labeled a pedo and shunned.

Sounds like a job for anonymous/lulz/whoever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36709414)

Nice secret list they have there.

Summary Inaccurate (5, Insightful)

Techman83 (949264) | about 3 years ago | (#36708294)

Summary slightly inaccurate, this is Telstra/Optus and a few smaller operations (who already offered filtering) who are enabling voluntary filtering. There are plenty of ISPs refusing to implement the filter until it becomes legislation and will fight it with everything they can before then. This will do nothing but make many more customers go to the smaller operators who have better customer service, better pricing etc.

The other stupid part of this is that it is DNS based and the work around is to use different DNS servers. Who actually uses their ISPs DNS servers? I haven't in years!

Re:Summary Inaccurate (3, Informative)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 3 years ago | (#36708582)

Mod parent up. There is a lot of scaremongering on Slashdot about this internet filter as of late. It's almost like people think this is the same as the proposed filter introduced by the Labor party in the last election. It's not.

The Labor party's proposal was an Australian wide scheme. The Labor party's proposal would never pass the senate [greensmps.org.au] with too many people opposed to it in power. Finally most critically of all the Labor party's group dedicated to the implementation of this filter has been disbanded.

This is an implementation of a DNS blocklist by a few ISPs. Optus has been on the record that you do not need to use their DNS servers and doing so would b-pass the filters. iinet, Internode, and TPG all are not implementing this filter with iinet (Australia's third or second largest subscriber depending on how you read the numbers) is on the record as saying they will never implement a filter unless forced to by law.

Re:Summary Inaccurate (2)

bmo (77928) | about 3 years ago | (#36708732)

You seem to be missing the strategy that has been used over the past couple of decades.

Come out with something objectionable but aimed at what you want. Indeed, make sure it's objectionable. Get everyone up in arms.

Then roll it back to what you really wanted or slightly less, but an acceptable amount. This is called "compromise" but not really. Now you seem "reasonable" and your goal is achieved. Now the only thing left is to ramp it up and test the tolerance limits of everyone.

It's a cynical strategy, but it works.

--
BMO

Re:Summary Inaccurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708956)

Its "give an inch and they'll take a mile over the course of thousands of given inches."

Joe Average does not have the time, money, interest, motivation or enthusiasm to fight the same bill, simply reworded for months/years/decades. You can't give them an inch because you, I and the public can't keep up with it all. Saying "it would never pass in the senate" sounds great it theory but for how long? Can you say that "it would never pass in the senate" 6 months from now? How about a year? 2 years? 3 years? 5 years? 10?

Internet censorship scaremongering isn't irrational as long as the Great Firewall of China remains in place without a care by the international community.

why filter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708332)

if the sites are so bad why not go after the site directly instead? too easy?
guess trying to fix the problem not abuse it for something else is a good opportunity going to waste

Re:why filter? (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 3 years ago | (#36708354)

if the sites are so bad why not go after the site directly instead?

Its not like Australia can send Seal Team Six to any country in the world to take out a web server.

Re:why filter? (1)

Teun (17872) | about 3 years ago | (#36709590)

But like most nations Australia is a member of Interpol and could not only but has to request their assistance to take out a CP site.

Few nations and police forces would like to be in the news for refusing such assistance.

Because they don't have to, Citizen. (2)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 3 years ago | (#36708362)

The government is there to protect you, whether you want it or not.

Because (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708384)

Because the point of modern legislation is to make it so ambiguous that as many people as possible who aren't yet paying you are in constant fear of criminal prosecution.

Arrogance (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708390)

Arrogance might be a factor. Here in Finland the ministers responsible never really even wanted public interest groups like Electronic Frontier Finland to participate in any discussions regarding laws like internet filtering or the infamous Lex Nokia that gave companies rights to monitor their employees' message traffic headers. In Finland all this culminated in a local Internet activist who publicly criticized shortcomings in the preparations of internet filtering getting filtered, labelled a paedophile and punished. This in turn led to a court case that ended in a decision that the police had greatly abused the rights given to them.

In Finland, the ministers seem to get more and more convinced that they don't need to listen to the citizens; that's when they're not completely bought or led like the minister responsible for our new, stricter, iPRED compatible copyright law...

Re:Arrogance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36709266)

Sounds like the USA!

Surely the police forces of the world have guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708452)

I don't understand the need to "block" child porn sites. If Interpol knows about them why aren't police officers or special forces actually going after the host? If every government in the world is seriously opposed to child porn surely this would happen and if there are governments who aren't opposed they need to be educated. Seriously stop blocking them just eradicate them?

QUERY WHAT DOES ONE GET FROM A DRUNKEN SAILOR ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708466)

I have been wondering for so long I have given up hope of ever knowing !!

Misleading headline... (3, Informative)

jonwil (467024) | about 3 years ago | (#36708468)

The only ISPs to have signed up to the filter so far are the 2 big boys (Telstra and Optus).

A number of big ISPs (including the #3 provider iiNet as well as Internode and TPG) have specifically said they will not filter anything unless they are legally required to do so.

Anyone smart enough to care about the Internet filter should be smart enough to know that Tel$tra and Optarse are junk and should be avoided if alternatives are available (if you can get DSL from BigPond or Optus, you can also get DSL from better options like Internode, iiNet and others)

A modest proposal... (1)

MikeRT (947531) | about 3 years ago | (#36708510)

Opponents of this can't easily beat the media vibe it'll get. So the solution, I think, is to make it a felony to falsely block a site. Do it one better, make it so that no actual intent is required. If a government official even mistypes the domain name, they do a few years in prison. Absolutely not a single ounce of leniency for even the slightest human error.

When asked why being so harsh, just smile and say how important the filter is. Spin it as a way of assuring the public that the list really will be accurate and trustworthy, not a tool for anything more than the "obvious, legitimate need to block child pornography."

Re:A modest proposal... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 3 years ago | (#36708798)

Just one minor flaw with your plan. - The list is supplied by interpol, there are no government officials maintaining the list. The best way to fight this is with your wallet by simply moving to an unfiltered ISP such as iinet.

Calling Them Out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708532)

What child pornography? They keep talking about these sites but where are they? On occasion you come across a few pics that clearly skirts the line, but I figure those are just setup-ups by cops looking to bust people.

Could it be that most of the so called child-porn sites are black-ops to make an excuse for censorship?

If the politicians really cared, they'd leave the websites be so they could be used to track the material back to the perpetrators!

Wait. I'm confused. (4, Insightful)

TrumpetPower! (190615) | about 3 years ago | (#36708538)

This is Interpol we're talking about, and the worst of the worst. And they've got a list of domain names they know to be serving this stuff up.

Why on Earth are they blocking access to these domains rather than busting down the doors of the sites where the servers are located?

I mean, really. It's Interpol. It's child porn. And the best tool they can think of is to set up a DNS filter?

What gives?

Cheers,

b&

Re:Wait. I'm confused. (2)

rust627 (1072296) | about 3 years ago | (#36708912)

Mod parent up

Interpol (international Police), have a list of websites that are known to be the worst of the worst child porn websites.
All DNS is in a central registry
somebody must have paid for the website to exist
follow the money trail to who owns the website and who hosts it
close down the hosting service (should not be too much problem here, International Police, and yes i know they do not have jurisdiction all around the world, but for areas they do not, they have sufficient political connections to be able to create political pressure), not just the site, the whole hosting service.
Arrest the people who are responsible for the site (Domain name owners, site hosting company).
Put the responsibility on to the ISP's that host.
If you own a bookshop and you sell pr0n, and someone comes to your shop and offers you to sell CP, you are expected to say no and report them to the local police.
So if you are an ISP and you knowingly host CP, why should the law be any different, you are an accessory (and a rather vital one).
Yes it would get messy in regards to what you can be legitimately be expected to know and not know about your customers sites, and yes some websites get hacked.
But the point is , they have a list of sites, they have also a list of who is hosting these sites, and they can trace who owns the site, so in real terms, what is the problem.
The reality is that for interpol to chase these people costs a lot of money, and apart from the occasional big news "child porn ring busted, 5,000 arrests in 6 countries" there is not much 'aren't we wonderful' PR for the politicians, where as here they can say publicly "look at what we are doing (think of the children)"

Re:Wait. I'm confused. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36709598)

If they're not actively trying to shut down the sites then you'd hope they're at least trying to find out who's trying to access those sites (on more than one occasion, not just someone accidentally stumbling across them) for investigation, but I doubt it.

You're right though, the whole situation is retarded, why are they trying to block it instead of trying to stop it at the source?

Where will it find an alternative outlet? (1)

mexfogel (876763) | about 3 years ago | (#36708540)

Basic logic here. If you take all adult porn down from the internet then magazine sales would go up. If you block all child porn then where would all those pedophiles go besides parks, book stores and schools.

This filter is great! (2)

the_raptor (652941) | about 3 years ago | (#36708558)

Anyone who is against this filter needs to see the long game. This filter is great for the following reasons:

1) It is a CP filter. Any argument in future for a government backed filter because "think of teh children!" can be defused by pointing out we already have a voluntary industry filter. This is why the US movie industry has a self-regulated rating system.

2) It is trivial to get around. Even my mum could follow directions to circumvent this filter. It isn't going to cause traffic slowdowns or require expensive VPN's to foreign countries to get around.

3) There is no issue about the list being secret because anyone who tries to visit a blocked website will get a redirect telling them that it is on the block list. If this website is innocuous this information can be spread via social media and the like and used to harass the ISP's into unfiltering it. Corporations are a lot more responsive to public complaint then government departments.

4) The law IS unclear. This is great, as it means the authorities have no real ability to force ISP's to comply with this "industry" filtering agreement. Which means they can't just block new categories of content on a whim, or increase the sophistication of the filter.

In summary people against censorship should be for this filter because it is such a house of cards AND defuses the main argument the pro-censorship people use "do you want people to be able to view child porn?". Things will go to shit if the government is actually allowed to get really involved, because both main parties here have shown no fear of incredible infringements of civil rights (here in NSW we only just got our right of association back after legislation was struck down that prevented members of criminal motorcycle gangs associating with each other).

Re:This filter is great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36709350)

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

Re:This filter is great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36709466)

Reason 2 defeats Reason 1 in this case. If the filter is trivial to get around, a government-backed filter will be supported on the grounds that the voluntary filter is ineffective (and therefore government intervention is required).

Filtering versus prosecution (3, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about 3 years ago | (#36708598)

The problem with these kinds of filtering schemes is the fact that they rely on allegations of illegality rather than on judgments which establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the website's operators are doing something illegal according to local or international law. The latter calls for the government to make its case against the website's operators in a proper venue, allowing the website's operators to mount a proper defense. At that point the government may as well seek to shutdown the website altogether, which shouldn't be a problem if those accused are truly engaging in illegal (and unethical) behavior.

Why all the fuss? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708656)

Personally, I don't really see what the fuss is all about. The government is being nice and providing you with a safety net that prevents you from being taken to _extremely dangerous to visit_ web sites (ie: you will be raided if you visit this), and yet you are all complaining!

If you have ever been to an adult web site, you probably are familiar with the fact that 90% of them, randomly pop you over to an "affiliate" web site (which IMHO, is just the same site with different CSS...). Now what I want to know is why anyone wouldn't want their ISP stopping those addresses from being resolvable in the first place. Instead you see people bitching about "oh, it should be a public list!". Really? Are you serious? You think that the police should publish all the URL's of child abuse to a publicly downloadable list? Wow, some people need a kick to the head...

One of the more popular arguments I've seen on this is that there is a risk that some web site might be accidentally put on this blacklist, and there is no way to verify if it's on it at all, or something similar. I honestly think that people with concerns like this should really put a little more faith into governments and police organizations. They sound as if somehow their personal website or hotmail.com or youtube or something, is going to accidentally land up on some list which is likely hand maintained and verified. In other words, if a site is on that list, it's probably because just visiting it has placed YOU on a list.

As for the people complaining in the article about not being able to query the police/ISP/etc about possible accidental sites on a list, I really don't see why them saying that they cannot reply back to you on the matter is a problem. If they could comment or reply back, people would just start calling them 24/7 trying to game the system or social engineer the person on the phone into revealing information about the list. IMHO, I think it should be a one-way process where by, if you think a site you frequent has made it onto the list, you phone them up and let them know and cross your fingers that it was, and is a mistake. I'm sure that they would quickly correct the problem. Stop treating them like devils when they are just trying to protect you from a potentially embarrassing mistake.

My $0.02 :)

is the internet the problem ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708660)

Really, how much child porn is on the internet? The largest pedo network in the world is the Catholic Church, how about spying and regulating this? The government's reputation on regulation is poor, the Wheat Marketing Boards, the Livestock export quango? Government types innately believe that they can better manage your life than you can, so this is one more way you can be monitored, for your own good. Oppose.

cp filter, OK, but obviously not about cp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36708680)

This happens in politics all the time. They bring up something that is morally wrong or questionable and then impose a law to regulate it somehow. While banning CP would be the ultimate victory, that would also mean that they would have to ban other things such as torrents, tor, p2p, and various other things and all they claim is banning the major sites that they know of. There is definitively something underneath this bill, governments don't just do things out of the kindness of their heart.

Refused Classification Content (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 3 years ago | (#36708772)

Because of this, there appears to be nothing to stop the Australian Federal Police from issuing much wider notices under the Act to ISPs, requesting they block other categories of content beyond child pornography, which are also technically illegal in Australia (‘Refused Classification’) but not blocked yet.

Awesome article. 5 concerns which are the opinion of some random guy who knows nothing about Australian law.

There is nothing illegal about Refused Classification content. NOTHING. There is no reason to block it. It is illegal to put on sale in Australian stores. It's not illegal to acquire, import, or even purchase online from another country. It is just illegal to sell in Australian stores.

My top 5 concerns about the new net filter: (4, Funny)

cyrus0101 (1750660) | about 3 years ago | (#36708880)

My top 5 concerns about the new net filter:
1) _______________everything______________.
2) _____________________________________________________
3) _______________________________is ______going________
4) _____________to ___________ be ____________________________
5) _______________ fine ____________________ .

It's not a bug, it's a feature! (1)

Whuffo (1043790) | about 3 years ago | (#36709112)

Politicians do not like web sites exposing their activities, they've been wanting to shut this down for years. By using "the four horsemen of the Internet" they've managed to convince people that making sites disappear is to "protect the children".

The big clue: the secrecy surrounding the list of blocked sites. If they know which sites source child porn then they would be using existing criminal law to deal with them. No, it's other kinds of information they want to censor.

I've got a better idea (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 3 years ago | (#36709176)

It may seem like there's no good solution. You can:
1. leave that kind of content unblocked.
2. block stuff and don't give anyone the list which causes severe suspicion and probably abuse of the filter.
3. block stuff and give out the precise filtered list, which obviously gives pervs an extensive list of illegal sites that they can visit when they get around the filter.
So it's a no win situation, right? It doesn't seem that way to me. How the hell do they just have a list sitting around? Shut the sites down. Find out who's allowing the domain registration to continue (if there is one, I guess it could be purely IP based) and find the hosting company or physical servers. "Pass the list to Australia" doesn't really seem like it would come up high on interpol's strategy list about what to do once a list of illegal sites was assembled. If it's a list of IPs or domains and they got everyone in the world to implement the filter, obviously the criminals behind it would just move IPs or domains. You don't fix the problem any other way than taking out the source.
This seems so obvious that I think it's evidence that Australia is using this as a poster boy excuse to implement a net filter whose primary purpose is not to block illegal porn.

I love our new rules. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36709180)

If it weren't for them Australia would never get mentioned on places like Slashdot. There's more to the world than the USA. Australia is one of the greatest nations on earth. We're rich and sophisticated and in fact basically 'America downunder' yet we're constantly ignored. We should do a lot more of these controversial attention-getting things.

Because they can also censor criticism (1)

PotatoHead (12771) | about 3 years ago | (#36709256)

and participate in political censoring.

see torrentfreak.com for the answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36709300)

see torrentfreak.com for the answer

Joe Public will be fine with this (1)

benengel (448238) | about 3 years ago | (#36709446)

I know a lot of people on Slashdot might think that this is the thin of the wedge and the first step on the slippery slope towards a more comprehensive censhorship scheme the likes of what labour tried to bring in recently but to be honest I think that as long as this filter remains voluntary and restricted to hardcore CP then it wont get any airplay in the wider media at all because the average member of the public will be pretty much fine with it. The real question is a) will its current authority be expanded to material beyond hardcore CP and b) if its current authority expanded would the average joe have issues with it?

a) is up for debate however I would expect that joe public will be much more concerned if there was evidence of scope creep on the filter and therefore it would get more airplay in the wider media and be shot down as it was last time http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/conroy-backs-down-on-net-filters-20100709-10381.html?autostart=1 [smh.com.au] .

The wider public has shown that they are fine with filters as long as it stays restricted to Child Porn only - anything further and governments can expect serious opposition from large sections of the community which can have repercussions for them at the ballot box which is exactly why the last aussie filter was shot down - it started to look like it was going to cost the labour party votes so they ditched it

Aren't They Criminals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36709518)

What I don't get is that they have to intentionally look at a ton of child porn sites to find out if they are child porn sites and put them on the list. Doesn't that make them criminals?

Simple Solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36709614)

As this thread is a little misleading and Australia does not have a net filter but just two ISPs Telstra and Optus do, just vote with your wallet and churn away from them to Internode, iiNet or a million other ISPs.

If you remain on these 2 ISPs out of the many choices we have and have the gall to complain about filtering then YOU are part of the problem. By staying with these 2 rogue ISPs you are telling them it's ok.

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>