MedVision ad

Internet filtering: You can't opt-out (1 Viewer)

Will you be voting labor?

  • Yes, because i support the internet filter

    Votes: 9 5.7%
  • Yes, but it has nothing to do with the filter

    Votes: 36 22.6%
  • No, because i'm against the filter

    Votes: 61 38.4%
  • No, i was never intending to vote labor.

    Votes: 53 33.3%

  • Total voters
    159

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
chicky_pie said:
LOLZ @ Optus & iiNet users.
Um, if you read what Michael Malone (CEO of iiNet) said it was because he wanted to opt-in and basically get the results which said "this is how fucking stupid your idea is" rather than them getting some ISPs with 50 users and garnering the results they want to see. It makes sense, really.

Some moar media stuff:

THE country's largest internet service provider has dealt the Rudd Labor Government a slap in the face by refusing to participate in content filtering trials.

Child protection group Child Wise said Telstra's decision was bad for Australia, but other groups welcomed the news.

Political activist organisation GetUp is even planning an advertising blitz to rally opposition to the filtering plans.

ISP Internode has also declined to take part, while Optus and iiNet will participate.

On November 10, the Government released details of its long-awaited call for expressions of interest on live content filtering trials for internet service and mobile providers.

Telstra, which through its BigPond internet service has millions of customers, showed its hand even before the clock struck midnight, the deadline for expressions of interest.

The blow was delivered in a succinct statement.

"Telstra is not in a position to participate in the Government's internet filtering trial, primarily due to customer management issues," a company spokesperson said. The company said it was separately evaluating technology that allowed blocking via defined blacklists.

"We will continue to work constructively with all stakeholders, including the Government, to help provide a safe internet environment for children," the Telstra spokesperson said.

Internode managing director Simon Hackett said: "We feel the policy is deeply flawed as it stands and further dignifying that policy with additional tests that will repeat the results of the tests done over the last decade will not turn a flawed policy into a good one."

Child Wise chief executive Bernadette McMenamin said Telstra's decision was a black day for Australia, and questioned the telco's commitment to protecting children online.

"This indicates that Telstra is not committed to banning child pornography and we should question its values," Ms McMenamin said.


It is unclear if Telstra's no-show will derail the Government's plans to introduce mandatory content filtering at internet service provider level, but Ms McMenamin said she hoped it wouldn't.

Telstra's decision came as no surprise as ISPs have warned there were problems with the call for expressions of interest.

One major issue is how service providers would choose participants, their customers, to take part in the pilot.

"Do we pick names out of a hat?" said one ISP staff member who declined to be named.

Another issue was the sample size. The call for expressions of interest does not stipulate how many internet users ISPs would have to enlist for the live trials to be credible.

Sage-Au, a not-for-profit professional organisation representing system administrators, said the figure should be in the millions.

"How do you choose these participants? To make these trials really meaningful, it has to be done in a real-world environment with millions of internet users," Sage-Au president Donna Ashelford said.

"The bottom line is live ISP content filtering is simply not feasible."

There's also the question of legal liability and who would be held responsible if something went awry during the pilot.

If the Government can back up calls for mandatory content filtering with legislation, ISPs may be more willing to play ball.

Meanwhile, GetUp national director Simon Sheikh said more than $41,000 had been raised to fund an advertising campaign against filtering slated to start next week.

The country's second-largest internet and mobile phone provider, Optus, has submitted an expression of interest application, but on its own terms.

"Our participation will be strictly limited to filtering only the Australian Communications and Media Authority blacklist, which contains URLs of illegal content," an Optus spokesperson said. There are 1300 web pages on the list.

"The trial is anticipated to operate in a specific geographic area, with customers given the option to opt out of the trial."

Details will be finalised closer to the trial launch and Optus will decide on the size of the sample and where the pilot will be conducted.

A spokesman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy declined to comment on Telstra's announcement, saying only: "A number of ISPs have indicated their intent to participate in the trial. We won't be commenting further until all responses have been received."
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24771009-15306,00.html

The Government's plan to censor the internet is in tatters, with Australia's largest ISP saying it will not take part in live trials of the system and the second largest committing only to a scaled-back trial.

And the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has written to critics saying that the so-called "live" trials would be "a closed network test and will not involve actual customers". Greens Senator Scott Ludlam said this was a sign the Government was slowly backing away from the heavily criticised policy.

The live trials, scheduled to kick off before Christmas, were supposed to provide a definitive picture of whether the filters could work in the real world, after lab tests released by the Australian Communications and Media Authority in June found available ISP filters frequently let through content that should be blocked, incorrectly blocked harmless content and slowed down network speeds by up to 87 per cent.

But now Telstra and Internode have said they would not take part in the trials. iiNet has said it would take part only to prove to the Government that its plan would not work, while Optus will test a heavily cut-down filtering model.

The Government plans to introduce a two-tiered censorship system of filtering from the ISPs' end. The first tier would be compulsory for all Australians and would block all "illegal material", as determined by a blacklist of 10,000 sites administered by ACMA.

The second tier, which is optional, would filter out content deemed inappropriate for children, such as pornography. Experts say this second tier will have the most marked effect on network performance because every piece of traffic handled by the ISP will need to be analysed for "inappropriate" content.

Optus confirmed it would start a live pilot early next year but stressed it would test only the first tier and even then it would only block the current ACMA blacklist of 1300 URLs, as opposed to the Government's expanded 10,000 URL list.

Details are scant but the trial will operate in a specific geographical area and customers will be given the option to opt out.

Senator Conroy's office could not explain why it was telling people that the trials would not involve actual customers, which would give little indication of the real-world impact of the filtering plan.

Senator Conroy himself has consistently dodged questions about his policy in Parliament.

"How on earth could you conduct a 'live' trial if there are no customers to assess?" Opposition communications spokesman Nick Minchin said.


"The minister also continues to be deliberately vague and cryptic about the definition of unwanted content and now he is unable to clarify how this so-called live trial will be conducted, even though he wants it to start before December 24."

The Greens today called on the Government to abandon its internet filtering trial, saying it was flawed and doomed to failure.

The plan is opposed by the Greens, Opposition, the internet industry, some child welfare advocates, consumers and online rights groups. They fear the blacklist will be expanded to include the blocking of regular pornography, political views, gambling and pro-abortion sites.

"This trial is simply all show. It won't give any meaningful indication of how mandatory internet filtering would work in practice," Senator Ludlam said.

Colin Jacobs, vice-chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia, said yesterday's incident in Britain, in which virtually the entire country was unable to edit Wikipedia because the country's Internet Watch Foundation had blacklisted a single image on the site, illustrated the pitfalls of mandatory ISP filtering.

Senator Conroy has said that, under his filtering plan, Australia would sign up to the same IWF blacklist.

"In Australia, not only would the Government have the ability to secretly add any site to our blacklist, but an unaccountable foreign-based organisation would as well," Mr Jacobs said.

"Given that the traffickers of genuine abuse material will not let themselves be slowed down by a filter and are already covering their tracks, the net result that will be achieved here is exactly this: inconvenience, chaos and expense with absolutely no dividend for the children."

Senator Ludlam said in a phone interview he believed Labor would drop the mandatory filtering policy in the new year once the now scaled-back trials were completed.

He said the Government could not abandon it now "without losing significant political face".

This Saturday anti-censorship protesters are planning to picket in Australia's capital cities, including Sydney's Town Hall and Melbourne's State Library.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/tec...1228584820006.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Trefoil said:
You're such a big man, pedantically attacking somebody who doesn't do chemistry because they accidentally referred to the elemental species instead of the reduced one.
I'm pretty big I know mang. You don't have to reinforce it. I can do wiffout it T, mah man.

Um, no. I know for a fact that mouth/gum diseases causes heart diseases, at the very least.
I know they dont'.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Still waiting on a fucking letter from my local member.

Going to send off letters to all Labor senators in NSW soon. They are slack fucks who won't reply.

Apparently Conroy hasn't responded to one piece of correspondence from his constituents or not.

He also used todays CP arrests to justify the filter. Err, doesn't that mean what we have now is working?

EDIT: P much everything on the net is illegal now so I'm just going to leave this here: http://cups.cs.cmu.edu/foxtor/
 

youngminii

Banned
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,083
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
jb_nc said:
Still waiting on a fucking letter from my local member.

Going to send off letters to all Labor senators in NSW soon. They are slack fucks who won't reply.

Apparently Conroy hasn't responded to one piece of correspondence from his constituents or not.

He also used todays CP arrests to justify the filter. Err, doesn't that mean what we have now is working?

EDIT: P much everything on the net is illegal now so I'm just going to leave this here: http://cups.cs.cmu.edu/foxtor/
You need to be behind 7 proxies to avoid FBI.
Otherwise v&.
 

Rafy

Retired
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
10,719
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2008
This question in the the Essential research poll released today.

Q. The Government has proposed a system of internet filtering to prevent access to prohibited sites on the internet and protect children from inappropriate material. The system will include mandatory nation-wide blocking on a range of ‘prohibited’ and ‘inappropriate’ material and an option for families who wish to limit access to a broader range of internet content. Opponents of this scheme say it is a form of censorship, will make the internet significantly slower and will not totally prevent distribution of illegal material.
Do you support or oppose the Governments proposed internet filtering system?

Strongly support 21%
Support 28%
Total support 49%

Oppose 18%
Strongly oppose 22%
Total oppose 40%

No opinion 11%
 

sdent40

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
78
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Exphate said:
Yay for the baby boomer generation being the ones asked!
We need to be protected from the undesirable things on the internet, it wouldn't work if you could opt out!
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Rafy said:
This question in the the Essential research poll released today.

Q. The Government has proposed a system of internet filtering to prevent access to prohibited sites on the internet and protect children from inappropriate material. The system will include mandatory nation-wide blocking on a range of ‘prohibited’ and ‘inappropriate’ material and an option for families who wish to limit access to a broader range of internet content. Opponents of this scheme say it is a form of censorship, will make the internet significantly slower and will not totally prevent distribution of illegal material.
Do you support or oppose the Governments proposed internet filtering system?

Strongly support 21%
Support 28%
Total support 49%

Oppose 18%
Strongly oppose 22%
Total oppose 40%

No opinion 11%
Oh shi-
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
45
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
this is fucking bullshit. if i want to look at child porn no1 should be able to stop me. now listen, i dont watch any child porn and im not into that shit but why the fuck should everyone have to sacrifice their internet speed for a bunch of pedophiles? the truth is these sick minded wankers will find a loop hole in the system to go around.

if i wanted a social conservative government i would've voted for one in . fuck, is this the USA or saudi arabia?? srsly. fuck rudd.

im fucking furious.
 

sdent40

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
78
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
dont-ban-me-plz said:
i dont watch any child porn and im not into that shit but why the fuck should everyone have to sacrifice their internet speed for a bunch of pedophiles?
because ur outnumbered by the people who believe that we need to b protected and shielded from themselves. Clearly you are in the minority and that makes you wrong, because whenever the majority decides on something that makes it right.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
45
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
sdent40 said:
because ur outnumbered by the people who believe that we need to b protected and shielded from themselves. Clearly you are in the minority and that makes you wrong, because whenever the majority decides on something that makes it right.
are you fucking retarted?
 

greekgun

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
964
Location
Melbourne
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Stupid hippy labours, they should shove their filter plan up there asses. Y dont they focus on the bloody water shortages and other shit which is far more important than a stupid internet filter. Wat the hell happened to freedom of information? RAWR
 

chicky_pie

POTATO HEAD ROXON
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
2,772
Location
I got 30 for my UAI woo hoo.
Gender
Female
HSC
1998
OH GOD NO!!!


Senator Stephen Conroy breaks silence over web filtering scheme

THE Federal Government's controversial internet censorship scheme may extend to filter more online traffic than was first thought, Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy revealed today.

In a post on his department's blog, Senator Conroy today said technology that could filter data sent directly between computers would be tested as part of the upcoming live filtering trial.

"Technology that filters peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic does exist and it is anticipated that the effectiveness of this will be tested in the live pilot trial," Senator Conroy said.


Peer-to-peer file-sharing technology is the most common way for computer users to share video, picture and music files over the internet.

It was previously thought the Government's filtering plan would be restricted to traffic on the "world wide web" – the channel through which users view websites like news.com.au.

Senator Conroy revealed the plan to trial peer-to-peer filtering technology in a reply to critical comments made on the Digital Economy Future Directions blog launched earlier this month.

The blog was launched to encourage public input on the future of Australia's digital economy, but has so far been saturated with comments attacking Senator Conroy over the Government's filtering plan.

more;
Senator Stephen Conroy breaks silence over web filtering scheme | News | News.com.au

fuck fuck fuck whoever voted for this communist party :chainsaw:
 

badquinton304

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
884
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
If it is just bittorrent it should be okay cause there is still eDonkey, fast track, ares and gnuttella, for web based downloads im considering the possibilites for proxy servers, masking software, encryption tunnels....etc
I seriously hope this bill does not pass.
 

Graney

Horse liberty
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
4,434
Location
Bereie
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
chicky_pie said:
OH GOD NO!!!
If it passes every lobby group will want the internet controlls applied to their particular bugbear. Of course they were always going to ban file sharing eventually, the film and music lobby would never give up lobbying for this. Goodbye unchristian content on your internets. No more erowid, no bluelight. Sites perceived as racist or inflammatory gone.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top