The Great Firewall of Australia


Recommended Posts

Thanks mate for bringing this to the fore. I have been following it as closely as possible but they (Govt) are playing it close to their chests.

There will be a backlash if an "opt out" no questions asked option is not made available. I know there are plenty of Labour Party politicians who cannot believe they are going down the path they are on. It is political suicide and an easy mark for a Liberal Party "Big Brother" campaign.

The Liberals intend to agree to an opt in. Nothing more. The Greens are following the same line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Media have been relatively quiet on this because it is such an extreme weirdo idea that they seriously doubt it will come about. I doubt it too but I also thought they would never fully ban smoking inside pubs

:angry:

Need to oppose it now as, like it says in the article, the 'filter creep' will mean more and more sites are banned.

Not too hard to imagine the anti-smoking fruitcakes being successful in getting sites like FoH and CC banned - perish the thought...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty appalling. With the availability of proxies and advanced services like Tor or readily-available IPSEC tunnels, it won't be very effective, but it's appalling to even try.

This might not be a bad time to send a stick's worth of donation to the EFA or someone similar who is helping to fight. Anyone down for a FOH Free Internet cashbomb? :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sadly the media in Australia has been fairly quiet on this, so I thought I'd pass along an article to let other local members know what the government is planning. In short, the government is proposing compulsory filtering of the internet to censor all 'illegal material'. Of course when questioned about the need for this, the politicians supporting it go for the trusty old

image35.png

Hopefully there will be enough opposition from the greens and coalition to ensure that this never becomes reality. Australia's internet service is already shocking when compared to places like Japan and Hong Kong (kg, do you have any more telstra stories for us?) applying this filtering technology will only put Australian businesses at a further disadvantage on the world stage. There are free filtering programs that parents can put on their computer if they wish to prevent their kids accessing questionable material, there is no need for the government to cripple the internet service of the whole country, and at continuing cost to the public (I've heard as much as $60M/year).

How long will it be before politicians start abusing the censorship to push a personal or political agenda? I may be cynical, but I don't trust anyone to be making the decision about what is appropriate or not for the whole country to be viewing.

Sorry for the rant, here's the article

BBC NEWS

Australia trials national net filters

By Nick Bryant

BBC News, Sydney

Is the Rudd government about to erect a Great Firewall of Australia - introducing a form of internet censorship that will infringe upon the freedom of computer users to browse the worldwide web?

That is the concern of online civil liberties groups, as the Rudd government prepares plans for a field trial of internet service provider (ISP) filtering products, with a view to introducing them nationally.

ISP filtering is the blocking of certain sites which the government deems illegal or inappropriate, and is the central plank of the Rudd government's "Plan for Cyber-Safety".

The official watchdog, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has been conducting laboratory tests of six filtering products, and the government plans a live trial soon.

"Although the internet has opened up a world of possibilities and benefits for Australian children," noted communications minister Stephen Conroy when he announced his intention to police the internet earlier in the year, "it has also exposed them to continually emerging and evolving dangers that did not previously exist."

The aim, he said, was to create a safer online environment for Australian children.

Web feed

But the government has been very tight-lipped about its plans. That information vacuum has been filled on the blogosphere by concerned internet users.

Much of the angry online chatter and speculation has centred on whether internet users will be able to opt-out of the filtered "clean feed".

Senator Conroy has stated that Australians would be given the opportunity to opt-out, and that the scheme would therefore not be mandatory.

But a network engineer from one of Australia's leading net suppliers, Internode, has challenged that assertion, arguing that there would be two black-lists. One would contain unsuitable and harmful material for children; the other would include inappropriate material for adults.

Mark Newton of Internode wrote in an online forum: 'The much-touted 'opt-out' would merely involve switching from blacklist number 1 to blacklist number 2.Regardless of your personal preference, your traffic will pass through the censorship box.'

Senator Conroy has since indicated that there would be a two-tier system: a mandatory one that would block all "illegal material" and an optional tier that would block material deemed unsuitable for children, such as pornography.

Watch dogs

The opponents of ISP filtering have practical as well as philosophical concerns.

Firstly, there are worries about online censorship.

The website, "No Internet Censorship for Australia" asks: "Do we really want the Government of the day deciding what Australian adults can and can't see? Do we want Australia to join a censorship club in which Burma, China and North Korea are the founding members?"

Then there is the problem of what online free speech advocates call "censorship creep". It is easy to mix up a site criticising child sex tourism and one promoting child sex tourism.

Dale Clapperton, EFA

"Even if the filtering system only targets child pornography to begin with, we have no confidence it will stay that way," says Dale Clapperton of the online civil liberties organisation, Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA). "It will be subject to creep. Everyone with any lobbying clout will be after the government to ban their pet peeve websites.'

These fears are exacerbated by the political balance of power in Canberra.

Though the governing Labor Party has a comfortable majority in the House of Representatives, it has to rely in the upper house, the Senate, on the Greens, an independent from South Australia and the socially conservative Family First Party.

Family First's sole parliamentarian, Senator Steve Fielding, recently single-handedly blocked the government's initial proposals for a luxury car tax. Freedom of online speech advocates fear he could use his influence to push for even greater controls on the internet.

There is also question of what is inappropriate, and who gets to decide. The Greens Senator Scott Ludlam contends: "The black list ... can become very grey depending on how expansive the list becomes - euthanasia material, politically related material, material about anorexia. There is a lot of distasteful stuff on the internet."

Slow start

There are technical issues, as well, such as the impact of filtering on the speed of the web, which in Australia is already slow.

The technical term is network degradation. After its recent trials, ACMA reported significant improvements on earlier studies. The network degradation on one product was less than 2%, although two products were in excess of 75%.

Filtering systems also have a tendency to "overblock", restricting access to legal material.

They look at words, the ratio of images to text and the preponderance of skin colour. They assess content but not necessarily the context in which it appears.

"It is easy to mix up a site criticising child sex tourism and one promoting child sex tourism," says Mr Clapperton of the EFA.

Finally, there is the question of whether the filters will be effective. In the ACMA trials, the filters ranged from an 88% to 97% hit rate.

Even the most successfully restrictive system was by no means water-tight.

Computer experts also say that the filters will not impact peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, which account for an estimated two-thirds of internet traffic.

"Any determined user - including children - could bypass the filter quickly using an anonymizer service," says the No Internet Censorship for Australia site.

Many in the online community fear that Australian government is about to degrade the internet with a filtering system that will not offer any effective protections - that if a way can be found to erect the Great Firewall of Australia, it will be easily and quickly breached.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/7689964.stm

Published: 2008/10/25 07:58:42 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.