

How the Australian government tried to gag web censor critics - bootload
http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2008/10/23/1224351430987.html

======
someperson
What's scary is most of the people I know haven't even heard of this and what
it will mean for freedom of information.

There doesn't seem to be any reports on mainstream television at all about
this AFAIK

~~~
netcan
I've watched 2 news reports today already (its 10:00 now) no reports.

I first heard about this on HN (I live in Melbourne). My girlfriend hasn't
heard of this (I asked) & I haven't had any conversations about this with
anyone. Strange. When earlier this year there was a nude child photography
(non pornographic) scandal, the Prime Minister made multiple statements as did
senior police & it was on the news for over a week. Anything child porn
related tends to get coverage here.

I'm not convinced that it's not a coincidence, but it seems like this is being
done on the sneaky. I'm not happy.

~~~
woodsier
Sydney here. I feel the exact same way. The first I heard of this was on
reddit. I'm thinking of building a website dedicated to making this issue
heard. I have a fairly influential scope that could generate TV/print media
regarding the issue, what do you guys think?

This whole thing is hugely sneaky. Clearly the proposed plan was initiated as
an opt-out, however after heads began nodding it was changed to mandatory. And
now the thing doesn't even bloody work, while fucking up the internet.

On top of all this, I don't think this Conroy chap actually understands the
internet. He doesn't understand the scope, the open nature, and how it
constantly changes in a way that is impossible to regulate. Hell, Google is
only what it is because it was the first company that was able to create any
sense of order out of the internet.

Most illegal stuff is transferred via bittorrent. This will do nothing.

The worst child pornography abusers will find their fix elsewhere, to the
extent of creating new and secret websites to share their shit. Does he
honestly think putting in this kind of regime will make these guys step back
from their computers and say, "Well, fuck it, I guess I can't look at a
6-year-old flat chest anymore. Time to move on!" All this bloody thing will do
is create more clandestine measures of subverting authorities.

This whole thing is like the war in Iraq, and why the US has failed. There is
no enemy. There is no "Terrorist Central" that they can nuke, wash their hands
of and say, "Well, that was a jolly good shot! They are all gone, problem
solved". When one insurgent falls, more stand up to take their place. And in
the meantime, thousands of innocents are adversely affected by the whole shit
storm created by the situation. This is like DRM. It does nothing to stem the
problem, and it fucks shit up for everyone.

The only people who stand to gain anything from this, assuming the media
believes the babble and society is not informed of the ineffectiveness of this
plan, is Conroy.

~~~
alexkay
> I'm thinking of building a website dedicated to making this issue heard.

Such a website already exists: <http://www.netalarmed.com/>

~~~
woodsier
That's alright, but not quite what I meant. I mean a resource you can give to
the media that isn't a satire.

Maybe a one-page website that, in essay form, outlines the issue in full.

~~~
fallentimes
Please do this.

~~~
woodsier
Alright. Keep your eyes open near the end of the week for the completed work.

------
13ren
The internet is _perfect_ for big-brother surveillance. It's inevitable; but
let's delay it while we can.

Grassroots awareness is probably the best beginning - just let people know
about it.

Anyone know of any _official_ releases about it? I've read a few stories about
it, but not seen links to official confirmation. There must be Acts passed in
parliament or something. I'm sure it would require new laws.

 _EDIT_

Sept 21, 2007: _Communications Legislation Amendment (Crime or Terrorism
Related Internet Content) Bill 2007_ [http://news.cnet.com/Australia-pushes-
further-Web-censorship...](http://news.cnet.com/Australia-pushes-further-Web-
censorship/2100-1028_3-6209337.html)

Dec 31, 2007: _telecommunications minister Stephen Conroy said more needed to
be done to protect children._ <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-
pacific/7165987.stm>

Strange, all news stories seem to be from _outside_ Australia... that reminds
me of some other countries, where they need to listen to the BBC to find out
what is happening at home... _Not_ a good sign...!

The stockmarket crash is a convenient cover for pushing ahead unpopular
schemes...

------
jwilliams
They've been trying to censor the Internet in Australia for years (primarily
the previous government, but the current govt seems to be carrying it forward)
- to date every effort has either been ignored, badly implemented, reversed,
revised or in some other way failed...

It wouldn't surprise me if they pressed on to save face, and then quietly
shelved the idea in the background.

------
shimi
Like there aren't enough problems to tackle now days in Australia, this is
what they are dealing with?

Censorship never solved anything, if its illegal send the content providers to
jail but don't start messing around with the entire network.

Sounds like a smoke cloud....

------
Dilpil
I have a feeling that the collective hackers of the world will easily outsmart
the government contractors who implement this.

------
13ren
As a Australian, how can I protest this?

~~~
bootload
_"... As a Australian, how can I protest this? ..."_

I'm not really the protesting type but pointing out in writing why the
technical details will fail is one. A mate of mine did this as a senate
submission for the last round of digital copyright laws. Even with a PhD in a
related field I don't think the powers that be took any notice. But that
shouldn't deter you. Pestering your local member might be one option.

I'm of the opinion that this is an _"idealogical war"_ and all arguments are
going to be ignored. The argument(s) against the _"Clean feed"_ are framed in
such a way that you may appear to support the very _"Internet nasties"_ this
ideology is attempting to eradicate. So be forewarned. I'm interested in 2
things:

\- what Australians are not required to be filtered? Surely some Gov.
departments and citizens are going to get raw feeds. Who watches them?

\- if you opt of the clean feed are you being put on a _"watch list"_? A new
form of unacknowledged surveillance.

There is a sinister outcome in that new legislation will be drafted

~~~
13ren
Re your question 2, it's even worse: There isn't a clean feed, just a more
censored one (kid safe) and a less censored one (no illegal material).

~~~
bootload
_"... There isn't a clean feed, just a more censored one (kid safe) and a less
censored one (no illegal material) ..."_

All it takes is access input before the filters to get access to the raw feed.
Nothing complicated about that.

~~~
13ren
_if you opt of the clean feed_

I just meant that it isn't possible to do that for the ordinary citizen. This
doesn't take away from your main point.

