Australian Internet Filter Confirmed, Starts July

[koberulz]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/vi ... On-In-July

Four Australian internet providers, including the country's two largest, will begin voluntarily censoring the internet next month by blocking access to more than 500 websites.

Australia's plan to filter the naughtiness out of the internet has been kicking around for years but it never seemed to go anywhere because when you get right down to it, effectively censoring the whole internet is a pretty daunting technical challenge. That doesn't even take into account the fact that a significant number of people who actually use the internet are pretty vehemently opposed to the idea. But beginning in July, internet access for many Aussies will in fact be censored, not by the government but by the voluntary actions of four of the country's ISPs.

Telstra and Optus, the two largest internet providers in Australia, along with two other small outfits, confirmed that they will begin to block access to "child abuse websites" provided by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and other unnamed "international organizations" beginning next month. The filter is being put into place despite the fact that the government dropped funding for the plan in May because of "limited interest" from the industry.

"The ACMA will compile and manage a list of URLs of child abuse content that will include the appropriate subsection of the ACMA blacklist as well as child abuse URLs that are provided by reputable international organizations [to be blocked]," an ACMA rep said.

But while Donna Ashelford of the System Administrators Guild of Australia said that concerns about reduced access speeds caused by the filter are probably unwarranted, she also pointed out that the scheme won't have any meaningful impact on the distribution of child porn either.

"The effectiveness will be trivial because you're just blocking a single website address [and] a person can get around it by changing that address with one character," she said. "Child abuse material is more likely to be exchanged on peer-to-peer networks and private networks anyway and is a matter for law enforcement."

Another worry, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is that there is no transparency or accountability in the creation and maintenance of the blacklist, which greatly increases the chance of legal websites being inappropriately blocked. It's not known which organizations are contributing to the list of forbidden beyond the ACMA , but the ACMA's own blacklist from 2009, revealed by Wikileaks, included the website of a Queensland-based dentist and other sites unrelated to illegal pornography. There also appears to be no appeals process for any sites mistakenly caught up in the filter.

But possibly the greatest concern is simply that it sets a precedent. Once the filters are in place and Australians have adjusted to the idea, is it much of a stretch to see them put to use blocking content the ACMA decides is "indecent" or controversial? "We've been waiting to hear details on this from the Government," said EFF board member Colin Jacobs. "It they turn out to be zealous with the type of material that is on the list then we'd want to have a discussion about ways to introduce more transparency."

[J@3]

Not a big deal in the immediate future but anyone who thinks this 500 website list won't expand exponentially over the years is an idiot. Worrying signs. Also more reason to hate Telstra and Optus.

[koberulz]

Not a big deal in the immediate future

Really?

And of course the only reason this filter has any support at all is because it ostensibly stops kiddy porn, despite the fact that only 32% of the blacklist contains kiddy porn (page 156). What the fuck is the other 68%?

[|)e8*]

dammit im on optus

[J@3]

Not a big deal in the immediate future

Really?

Yes. Unless you're with Telstra/Optus and frequent child porn/terrorism etc websites.

[Andrew]

Not a big deal in the immediate future but anyone who thinks this 500 website list won't expand exponentially over the years is an idiot. Worrying signs. Also more reason to hate Telstra and Optus.

Absolutely. If they want to block the kiddie porn/terrorism sites, that's no problem at all. Seems to me if you're going to censor the Internet, those are logical targets for the blacklist. It's what's possibly (probably?) coming next that's concerning, like anything that dares criticise the government.

[koberulz]

Not a big deal in the immediate future

Really?

Yes. Unless you're with Telstra/Optus and frequent child porn/terrorism etc websites.

Except again, kiddy porn is only 32% of the filtered material. And as you say, this step is what's going to allow them to bring in more invasive censorship. It's not so much what it's doing now, but the implications of this occurring that are a big deal at this moment, but that doesn't make them less of a big deal.

Not a big deal in the immediate future but anyone who thinks this 500 website list won't expand exponentially over the years is an idiot. Worrying signs. Also more reason to hate Telstra and Optus.

Absolutely. If they want to block the kiddie porn/terrorism sites, that's no problem at all. Seems to me if you're going to censor the Internet, those are logical targets for the blacklist. It's what's possibly (probably?) coming next that's concerning, like anything that dares criticise the government.

Even now, we don't know what 50% of the blacklist is (and I don't even mean URLs, I mean what it's on the blacklist for). 32% is child porn, 50% is 'refused classification', 50% is...we don't know.

Not to mention that Pirates was refused classification here because there was violence and sex in it, and they weren't even in the same scene. So anyone with any sort of BDSM fetish is screwed from here.

I'd have less of a problem with it if it were more accountable and if the 'refused classification' standards weren't so horribly prudish, but that's not the case.

[benji]

Here's an idea, instead of granting your government the absolute power to control access to a communication medium to fight "terrorists" and "pedophiles" how about you just arrest and prosecute people under existing anti-terrorism and child pornography statutes?

You really can't separate government censorship of the entire internet from the "bad" sites.

The government gains nothing from blocking child porn sites, it's irrelevant in the fight against child porn. As Ashelford says, they'll just setup new sites and avenues and the government will always be a step behind, look at pirates of all types.

First it'll be the bad things everyone agrees on like child porn and terrorists. Then it'll be "hate" sites and other "offensive" sites, you don't want children reading Nazi or anti-gay websites do you? What about porn or violence? God forbid they visit 4chan with its wave of Anonymous bank robbing hackers. Then it'll be sites like YouTube and forums because ANYONE CAN POST ANYTHING WITHOUT A FILTER!

And they can't allow you to see the list because then you might go looking for it on sites they haven't blocked yet. Plus it's a national security issue.

Allowing you to know what's on the list defeats the purpose of the blacklist.

Not to mention that Pirates was refused classification here because there was violence and sex in it, and they weren't even in the same scene.

I'M THE GREATEST PIRATE HUNTER IN THE WORLLLLLDDDDDDD!

The "violence" in Pirates wasn't bondage related it was terrible sword fighting.

[Andrew]

Here's an idea, instead of granting your government the absolute power to control access to a communication medium to fight "terrorists" and "pedophiles" how about you just arrest and prosecute people under existing anti-terrorism and child pornography statutes?

Because that would be fair and logical, concepts that have no place in Australian politics.

[koberulz]

The "violence" in Pirates wasn't bondage related it was terrible sword fighting.

Exactly, which is why I pointed out they weren't even in the same scenes as the sex. Still illegal here, though.

That's the thing. Nobody has any problem with the blocking of kiddy porn, but 'refused classification' covers so many things and is so ridiculously prudish it's just insane. We don't even have an 18+ rating for video games, so any site trying to sell games rated AO in the States is going on the blacklist.

[benji]

There are no games rated AO. It's a death sentence at retail.

I'd argue that those who actually want to stop child pron SHOULD have a problem with blocking sites related to and offering it.

[koberulz]

There are no games rated AO. It's a death sentence at retail.

Pretty sure there are games that are legal in the States but not here. Though that may just be that we have lower standards before the rating needs hiking (which is likely, really).

I'd argue that those who actually want to stop child pron SHOULD have a problem with blocking sites related to and offering it.

Why would you argue that?

[benji]

I know there are games banned in Aussieland that are legal in the states, but there are essentially no AO games rated by the ESRB. It's a literal death sentence for a game. M is the highest games get, those are the games (Mortal Kombat, Left 4 Dead 2, Manhunt) getting banned down under. (Oddly. The ban of Shellshock 2 only lists violence as the problem instead of the hate crime every aspect of that game represents.)

Do you want to stop child porn or do you want to shunt it around to new locations you're unaware of until you find them? All while losing out on identifying everyone who scatters with each shut down?

If you have say five major child porn sites then you have ISP records to gain knowledge of not only the visitors and purchasers but the uploaders and likely creators themselves. They become actual assets in shutting down the criminals instead of a short-term victory that leaves you with nothing.

It's the same foolishness as the shutting down of piracy sites/services or drug dealers. The piracy and drugs continue, unharmed, merely moved to the next outlet.

But governments don't really care about shutting down child porn because boogeymen, no matter how truly minuscule they are are more valuable as a puffed up demon who lurks around every corner ready to murder your children than a handful of screwballs who can easily be kept under control. That's why you have to string things out until you get a big bust to play up all over the media to justify more funds until the next time you have to talk about the hordes of them out there ready to strike that you (and only you) need more funds to combat.

Plus this way the ISPs can avoid the whole mess regarding outing customer information by saying "LOOK WE BLOCKED IT!"

[koberulz]

I know there are games banned in Aussieland that are legal in the states, but there are essentially no AO games rated by the ESRB. It's a literal death sentence for a game. M is the highest games get, those are the games (Mortal Kombat, Left 4 Dead 2, Manhunt) getting banned down under.

And these are the games the online sale of which will get you on the blacklist, which was my point. The exact rating they have over there doesn't change that.

Do you want to stop child porn or do you want to shunt it around to new locations you're unaware of until you find them? All while losing out on identifying everyone who scatters with each shut down?

If you have say five major child porn sites then you have ISP records to gain knowledge of not only the visitors and purchasers but the uploaders and likely creators themselves. They become actual assets in shutting down the criminals instead of a short-term victory that leaves you with nothing.

That's really only true if the sites are within Australia's jurisdiction, though. If they're not, they can either blacklist them thus preventing anyone from accessing them, or not blacklist them. Either way you're not shutting anything down.

[benji]

Someone should inform the government about Kwangmyong which has zero child porn, zero hate sites, zero copyright infringement and zero sites about terrorism. Now that's a model to copy. And ABC could learn something about exciting news reporting from KCNA.

And these are the games the online sale of which will get you on the blacklist, which was my point. The exact rating they have over there doesn't change that.

Who said it did, I just informing you that "trying to sell games rated AO in the States" would be difficult because they essentially don't exist.

That's really only true if the sites are within Australia's jurisdiction, though. If they're not, they can either blacklist them thus preventing anyone from accessing them, or not blacklist them. Either way you're not shutting anything down.

Yes, because Aussieland is the only country that cares about child pornography and there certainly are no international agreements and law enforcement agencies definitely never ever cooperate or share information. And Interpol would never have a crimes against children division. Multi-national raids never happen. Same thing with terrorism, copyright infringement and drugs sadly.

[Andrew]

I think koberulz is saying that any sites selling games that are perfectly legal in the US but refused classification here because of our stupid ratings system will end up being blacklisted.

[benji]

Yes, I'm aware of that. As I said I was:

just informing you that "trying to sell games rated AO in the States" would be difficult because they essentially don't exist

[Andrew]

I realise that and I'm sure koberulz does too, but I don't think that's what he was getting at (or meant to suggest). It's about US sites selling games that happen to be refused classification in Australia ending up getting blacklisted in Australia.

In other words, a site like GameStop could in theory end up getting blocked in Australia because it has a listing for the latest Mortal Kombat; fine to sell in the US, stupidly banned in Australia.

[benji]

And again, nobody argued otherwise.

[koberulz]

Yes, because Aussieland is the only country that cares about child pornography and there certainly are no international agreements and law enforcement agencies definitely never ever cooperate or share information. And Interpol would never have a crimes against children division. Multi-national raids never happen. Same thing with terrorism, copyright infringement and drugs sadly.

Would it hinder things all that much? It's not as though the blacklist has any effect outside Australia, so the people running the site may well never realise they've been blacklisted.

In other words, a site like GameStop could in theory end up getting blocked in Australia because it has a listing for the latest Mortal Kombat; fine to sell in the US, stupidly banned in Australia.

To be fair, they wouldn't blacklist GameStop as a whole, just the page selling Mortal Kombat, but even that is too far.

The only way people could possibly think this isn't really a big deal is if they have no idea what this thing is actually blocking. Which, given that the government never mentions anything it's blocking other than child pornography and 'refused classification' (which only accounts for 50% of the blacklist), is true of every single person in the country to some degree, but most people probably don't realise just what falls under 'refused classification'.

[Laxation]

well there is always an ongoing debate about a new australian flag...

[koberulz]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 ... 256632.htm

So basically, "refused classification" covers just about anything with sex in it, and nobody even knows what it means.

[Andrew]

The official classification Code initially echoes the Australian Constitution by opening with the phrase "adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want". However, the succeeding 21 pages are spent qualifying this statement.

Do they really need the additional 21 pages? I mean, it could pretty much just say "adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want, and what they want is what the government tells them they want".