
Australian opposition vows to implement Internet filter by default - aaron695
http://www.zdnet.com/au/australian-opposition-vows-to-implement-internet-filter-by-default-7000020270/
======
westicle
As a citizen, this is impossible to fight.

This issue is regularly floated by both "sides" of politics, usually to much
criticism (on both technical and moral grounds). It is like the Hydra - chop
off one head and it will simply grow two more. This time the policy
announcement is especially reprehensible, coming 48 hours before an election
which is all but decided in advance and buried in fine-print.

No doubt the new government will announce that it has "a clear mandate" to
implement the filter as it was tucked away in their last-minute policy
announcements.

~~~
cabalamat
> As a citizen, this is impossible to fight.

There are several ways you can fight it.

1\. Voting. If you live in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria or Tasmania,
you can vote for the Pirate Party in the Senate on Saturday. If you live in
NSW, Victoria or Western Australia, you can vote for the Wikileaks Party. Live
anywhere, and you can vote for the Sex Party or the Greens.

2\. Activism. Join one or more of these parties.

3\. Software. Write software that circumvents the censorship.

> This issue is regularly floated by both "sides" of politics

People who think there are only two sides are wrong.

~~~
bolder88
There will always be only 2 relevant sides in politics.

If there were 3 or more, then it means that one sides vote is split, and so
will not get a majority.

Unless of course you have some wacky proportional representation system.

~~~
nl
In Australia we have a wacky proportional representation system.

~~~
jsmeaton
Handing seats over to the greens and independents is pretty much why we had a
minority government though. The system works on a seat by seat basis, but it
doesn't seem to work when forming a government.

Though this election is going to be a landslide for the Libs, and split votes
aren't going to have much impact.

~~~
jacques_chester
The system has almost always worked as intended: the Government is formed in
the House, which has the monopoly on questions of supply. Because the House is
single-member electorates, there has been a clear majority in every election
except for 2, including this outgoing Parliament.

The Senate doesn't form the government and cannot originate supply bills, but
otherwise has coequal legislative powers. It is elected on a proportional
basis.

The system works well because a government can normally form quickly and
govern stably, but in order to pass legislation it must give consideration to
minority parties in the Senate. You get an Executive that can execute but
which must nevertheless be prepared to compromise.

~~~
jsmeaton
Good points, thanks for that. I guess I have thought about the minority
government a little too much when it is an anomaly.

I have no problems with the senate. I vote for minority parties (Sex Party
last election and this one) because I want protection from the government when
required.

~~~
jacques_chester
I basically miss the Democrats. It's a pity that Stott-Despoja killed them by
zagging left.

~~~
nl
"The Democrats died because they zagging left" narrative is one I've heard
before, but it doesn't match the facts.

The fall of the Democrat vote mirrors the rise of the Greens vote, and the
Greens are _way_ more left leaning than the Democrats ever were.

I think their demise had more to do with internal infighting and the Andrew
Bartlett drunk in the senate debacle.

But yes, I miss them too - they were basically a sensible party who wouldn't
do stupid things.

~~~
jacques_chester
When she took the party left, the Greens were already outflanking them.

Zagging left cost them the votes they got from Liberal voters.

And that was that.

------
damncabbage
Snuck in less than 48 hours before the federal election, in the media
blackout[1] period that immediately precedes it. Disgusting.

1\.
[http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/election_advertising.htm#blackout](http://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/election_advertising.htm#blackout)

~~~
InclinedPlane
That is absolutely reprehensible. This is precisely why blackouts are such a
bad idea. It turns out they are extraordinarily easy to game.

~~~
lessnonymous
Blackouts don't make much sense in our always-connected world, but I think
they should be swapped for "all policy must be announced 7 days out".

If you have no economic policy announced the Saturday before the election then
you're going in to the election with NO policy and you're not allowed to talk
about what you'll be doing in regard to the economy in that last week.

~~~
cabalamat
> all policy must be announced 7 days out

What if an event happens 6 days before the election and politicians are asked
to comment on it?

~~~
lessnonymous
Sorry, I take my policy queues from Abbott and Turnbull. I haven't really
thought it that far through. But if you vote for me I can probably muddle
through.

------
lostsock
Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) tweeted at 7:43 PM on Thu, Sep 05, 2013:
Policy released today wrongly indicated we supported an opt out system of
internet filtering. That is not our policy and never has been.
([https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm/status/37555476615306854...](https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm/status/375554766153068544))

------
prawn
And as the article notes, this pledge has been snuck into a document that will
be read by few, and released after an "advertising blackout" point has been
passed which prevents TV advertising (and thus critical ads) for the final
couple of days before the election.

Can anyone explain to me how this isn't a really low move?

~~~
stephenaturner
Oh it's nothing but a low move, introduced by a vile bunch who would prefer
Rupert Murdoch controlled all media.

------
nwh
[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/no-internet-filter-
say...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/no-internet-filter-says-
turnbull/4939156)

They've now backed out on it. No mandatory filter. The report was "poorly
worded".

------
joedj
According to a radio interview I just heard with the opposition shadow
minister Malcolm Turnbull on TripleJ, this is a "software filter" that ISPs
will install and enable on "home broadband routers and smartphones" by
default, and there will be "no server-side filter".

While this of course sounds terribly stupid, pointless, costly and technically
infeasible, it also sounds fairly innocuous as far as these types of proposals
go.

It sounds like users would be able to enable/disable it whenever they like,
without adding their name to a central database at the Ministry for Censorship
(unlike the UK proposal?). He declared that the point was to enable this kind
of filtering for people who aren't technical enough to set it up for
themselves, and that ultimately the decision and responsibility lies with
parents.

In fact, it sounds a lot better than the system the current government (who is
of course already criticising this policy) tried to ram down our throats
recently.

(Disclosure: I just heard about this policy on the way home from voting early,
and the intent of my vote was to benefit the current governing party more than
the opposition proposing this system, after my preferred minor candidates are
eliminated...I like Malcolm Turnbull a lot, but I don't like his party's
policies any more than I suspect he does, at the moment.)

------
tomflack
Breaking news: on ABC News 24 right now Abbott just said he doesn't support a
filter and got the policy wrong.

~~~
maxden
[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/no-internet-filter-
say...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/no-internet-filter-says-
turnbull/4939156)

"The correct position is that the Coalition will encourage mobile phone and
internet service providers to make available software which parents can choose
to install on their own devices to protect their children from inappropriate
material."

=== Sounds more reasonable if accurate.

~~~
tomflack
It's indeed VERY different to "opt-out" as they had stated. What a mistake!

~~~
damncabbage
"Mistake". It was likely just testing the waters.

------
DigitalSea
The Australian election just keeps on getting better and better. I cannot
believe Tony Abbott is actually going to win if the polls are to be
believed... I get Kevin Rudd messed up, but I think he was honestly trying his
best to right his wrongs after recently becoming leader again. The NBN and the
fact Labor aren't for a mandatory Internet filter are two good reasons alone
to vote for Labor.

I believe this is Abbott letting his Catholic views get in the way of policy.
Much like his opinions on gay marriage and abortion align with that of other
Catholics, he's a puppet. And even if Kevin was a puppet, at least he went
about hiding it a bit better.

In six months or so people will realise they made a mistake voting for LNP but
it'll be too late. Filtering will not only be used to filter adult content,
it'll be used to block whatever content Abbott and church/parent groups of
Australia want banned. It'll also block legitimate content as the test run of
a filter a little while ago actually showed.

This is just the beginning. A filter is nothing compared to what Abbott will
be capable of doing in his position of power. He is hell-bent on proving a
point by rescuing the economy by taking dirty lobbyist money in exchange for a
few lax laws and blocked sites here and there.

------
acd
Danger will robinson! This is internet censorship. Going down the slippery
slope of restricting free speech on the Internet.

Is it that the politicians themselves who can't stop surfing to those adult
sites and want to stop it by censoring it for everybody?

------
ryan-allen
Wait nope! They're backtracking [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/no-
internet-filter-say...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/no-internet-
filter-says-turnbull/4939156)

------
malbs
There is already a filter in place. It was utilised most recently earlier this
year. ASIC maintains a database of fraud/scam websites, and blocks them so as
to minimise the impact on unsuspecting victims.

"The Federal Government has confirmed its financial regulator has started
requiring Australian Internet service providers to block websites suspected of
providing fraudulent financial opportunities, in a move which appears to also
open the door for other government agencies to unilaterally block sites they
deem questionable in their own portfolios."
([http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/15/interpol-filter-scope-
cre...](http://delimiter.com.au/2013/05/15/interpol-filter-scope-creep-asic-
ordering-unilateral-website-blocks/))

And direct press release from ASIC: "ASIC has already blocked access to these
websites."

[http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/13-061MR+ASI...](http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/13-061MR+ASIC+warns+consumers+about+Global+Capital+Wealth?openDocument)

------
Fuxy
Will they cut with the porn bullshit we all know this is all about power and
controlling what people can see. Once a filter is set up it's very easy to
block any website they want. Porn/sex shouldn't be taboo to begin with it's
how we all got on this planet. I grew up on the internet without filters and
I'm happy to report I'm just fine stop filtering my shit.

~~~
XorNot
Once the filter is setup its free political muck to ask a politician if their
home connection is "opted in to pornography".

------
resdirector
Looks like they've just posted a correction:

[http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-
news/2013/09/05/coalitions-...](http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-
news/2013/09/05/coalitions-policy-enhance-online-safety-children)

Sweet Jesus....playing it fast and loose with freedom of expression just hours
before an election.

------
nwh
"The Coalition said it would work with mobile phone operators to install the
filters onto handsets."

Yeah, that's going to happen.

------
sspiff
It's so easy to convince someone who understands nothing about how computers
and the Internet works that "filtering out (child) pornography" is a good
thing, easy to do and won't cause any collateral damage.

I wonder if all these spying scandals and the rise of censorship in the West
will lead to an noticeable increase in the size of tor/i2p/...

~~~
Wingman4l7
What is needed is a simple "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" analogy
that effectively communicates how it's a) impossible to effectively filter out
such things and b) how easy it is to abuse said filters once they're in place.

Maybe something using cars? =P

~~~
sspiff
Unfortunately, for the vast majority of voters (or people in general), counter
arguments don't really matter if they liked what they heard in the first
place. Then they just think "what you're saying makes things more difficult,
I'd rather not hear it".

~~~
Wingman4l7
Don't forget the studies implying that, when presented with evidence to the
contrary, people will hold their original beliefs _stronger_. The more I learn
about everything, the less certain I am about anything; I wish more people
were the same.

The idea is to come up with a metaphor that is as short and sweet as it is
compelling. As much as the idea of "selling" truth disgusts me, we need to
"market" the unpleasant realities of a filter as effectively as politicians
have sold the lie of it being "for the children" in order to have a fighting
chance of preventing it.

~~~
sspiff
I hadn't heard that before, can you provide any reference or source for this?
I think I'll need it in future discussions :)

~~~
Wingman4l7
> when presented with evidence to the contrary, people will hold their
> original beliefs _stronger_

Actually Googling my phrase seems to give pretty good results -- descriptive
powers FTW! :D

The name for it appears to be "the Backfire Effect", classed as a type of
cognitive bias:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Backfire_eff...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Backfire_effect)

[http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html](http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html)

~~~
sspiff
Thank you!

------
resdirector
And now the would-be communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has said it's
all a big misunderstanding:
[https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm/status/37555476615306854...](https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm/status/375554766153068544).

~~~
Wingman4l7
"Oops, turns out people were actually paying attention... and they really
didn't like it... quick! Backpedal!" Classic.

------
peterkelly
I've lost count of the number of times various parties have tried to implement
Internet filtering in Australia. It almost seems to be a seasonal cycle,
whereby some legislation gets proposed/approved, the IT industry and civil
liberties advocates explain why it's both wrong and can't work, and then it
sort of fades away from view.

Both sides have said everything they have to say on the issue. I'm of the
belief that it's only for point scoring with various conservative groups that
the idea even continues to be floated. I think even Tony Abbott (the
opposition candidate and almost-certain victor) probably understands how it
can't possibly be made to work but is just going along to placate certain
segments of the electorate.

~~~
Wingman4l7
A cycle! Seriously! I recall when I used to browse Slashdot a few years ago,
all you would ever see tagged "Australia" was censorship and filter proposals.
Not a good look for Australia.

Let's hope that you're right and they're not actually ever taking it
seriously.

------
stephenaturner
Well they snuck this in at the last minute hoping no one would notice and
their supporters would be too dumb to care... Based on current opinion polls
sadly good assumptions. Add this to killing the NBN as another stake in the
heart of our digital future...

------
beedogs
"The filter will be contained in software installed in either people's
smartphones or modems ... which can be disabled at their option." \- Malcolm
Turnbull (Liberal party shadow communications minister) on Hack[1] tonight.

Fucking scumbags.

48 hours before we go to the polls.

And apparently they plan on _hacking our devices_ in order to implement it?
They have no clue.

[1] 27:05 at
[http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/daily/hack_thurs_20...](http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/daily/hack_thurs_2013_9_5.mp3)

~~~
Wingman4l7
To be fair that was probably just an ad-libbed statement by a politician who
has absolutely no clue how software and filters work.

Politician: "It'll be like an iPhone app, only somehow mandatory, right?" IT
Consultant: "Uh... kinda sorta..."

------
goombastic
Someone needs to start doing version control systems for legislative bills and
documents in governments everywhere. Most lawmakers are ugly sneaks and we
will need to watch their every move.

~~~
Wingman4l7
I don't know if this would really fix anything, but it sure would be awesome
to see the one-line pork additions to a bill tied directly to a Senator's
name.

~~~
tlrobinson
If only we had "git blame" for legislation.

------
resdirector
To anyone not familiar with the Australian Constitution, we do not have a bill
of rights and no explicit guarantee of freedom of expression. (AFAIK freedom
of expression is an implied right
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_law#F...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_law#Freedom_of_political_communication)).

~~~
Wingman4l7
This blew me away when I first heard about it. My favorite WTF example of the
AU government trampling on freedom of expression? The banning of a TV ad
arguing for the legalization of voluntary euthanasia[1], and, even more
alarmingly, the "crime" of using a "a telephone, fax, email or the internet to
discuss or research assisted suicide."[2]

[1]: [http://www.theage.com.au/national/proeuthanasia-tv-ad-
ban-a-...](http://www.theage.com.au/national/proeuthanasia-tv-ad-ban-a-
violation-of-free-speech-20100912-1570f.html)

[2]: [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/suicide-drug-of-
choice-...](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/suicide-drug-of-choice-in-
mail/story-e6frg6no-1111119129660)

------
Wingman4l7
The Australian government is always threatening to implement draconian filter,
censorship, or data-logging plans; luckily, in true government form, they
never carry through on it.

It's a pity that such things are the only exposure the tech crowd has to
Australia, instead of more compelling things like the massive and ambitious
National Broadband Network fiber-to-the-home infrastructure project.

~~~
gilgoomesh
> fiber-to-the-home

Or, as it will be known on Saturday evening: copper to the "good luck with
that".

~~~
vacri
That's the thing that puzzles me. Fast internet benefits businesses more than
residents, and it's the 'business party' that's against it.

A colleague says that there are Murdoch's hands in the till on this one, given
that fast internet threatens his TV offerings.

~~~
jsmeaton
WE NEED TO CONTROL THE SPENDING!!!!!!!!!

That's basically all it comes down to. Not enough people care about what a
fast network can do for the country, and they've been brainwashed to think
that the economic management of the last few years has been appalling.

It's really really strange. People all of a sudden seem to give a shit about
how much we are spending and think it's a bad thing, when every economic
commenter has said it's been managed brilliantly. It looks like a lot of
people are trying to be smart and are failing hugely.

~~~
Wingman4l7
Well it doesn't help that all those pits have asbestos in them -- but that's
not the project's fault. That would have to have been cleaned up eventually
anyway.

It's the same problem the US has IMO: no one wants to support grand, forward-
looking projects that are going to take longer than a term in office. That's
why poor NASA has its funding yoyo-ed around a 4-year presidential election
cycle, and can't ever follow through on the bigger projects anymore.

------
austerity
As a human being I am angered by these rapid advancements of Internet
censorship in the developed world.

As someone in the business of circumventing said censorship I am excited to
have the solvent westerners as my clients in additional to generally poor
third-world folk we are currently serving.

------
Divinite
Looks like someone started a petition!
[https://www.change.org/petitions/liberal-party-of-
australia-...](https://www.change.org/petitions/liberal-party-of-australia-
stop-the-internet-filter)

------
progx
Who is next: Canada, New Zealand, USA ?

Make sense, this 5 Countries work really close together, as we know it from
PRISM.

------
supercoder
Ugh... we're stuffed.

------
octotoad
That was quick. Looks like they've backflipped on it already.

------
contingencies
Clearly, vote Wikileaks.

~~~
mehwoot
Wikileaks preferenced One Nation ahead of the Greens, Labor and Liberals in
the senate. Since the final senate seat will likely come down to One Nation /
Greens in 1 or more states, the only effective outcome of voting for them is a
vote for One Nation.

~~~
enneff
Only if you vote above the line. I prefer to nominate all my own preferences,
thanks. It's not hard.

~~~
mehwoot
Only 3.8% of voters vote below the line. At least 95% of Wikileak's votes will
go to One Nation.

And then there's the question of why the hell you would support a party that
does this sort of shit. The only thing they will ever do is appear on a ballot
and distribute their preferences, and they can't even do that well (I mean
assuming you wouldn't want to vote for One Nation... if you do, then go
ahead).

Edit: I got mixed up. Replace One Nation with the "Australia First" party
(even worse IMO... look them up) and the shooters and fishers party.

------
otikik
I point my finger at you and laugh, Australia.

