All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
16 Dec 2009
The Australian government is looking to expand its controversial web filtering platform, forcing internet service providers (ISPs) to install content filters to block out "refused content" from overseas.
Material classified as "refused" includes anything depicting sexual abuse and child pornography, along with instructions for criminal activities and drug abuse. All items on the list are already illegal to distribute within the country.
The Australian government also plans to offer a grant programme intended to help ISPs integrate further filtering features at the service level which can then be offered as optional protections to users.
The move is the latest in a filtering campaign that has become global news. Citizens and lawmakers have protested against the plans, which have been compared to the heavy-handed filtering practices used in China and Iran.
Stephen Conroy, Australian minister for broadband, communications and digital economy, said that the government would welcome input from ISPs, and that the campaign is designed only to block illegal material and give parents a better option in protecting their children.
"The government has always maintained that there is no silver bullet solution to cyber safety," said Conroy.
"Through a combination of additional resources for education and awareness, mandatory internet filtering of RC-rated content, and optional ISP-level filtering, we have a package that balances safety for families and the benefits of the digital revolution."
Latest stories from Web
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
V3 examines the key strengths and weaknesses of Samsung's latest iPhone killer
Connect with V3.co.uk
Social networking is almost ubiquitous. This white paper examines the benefits and risks and it looks at the different ways companies can reconcile them
The importance of understanding your infrastructure
Service Manager - Technology Managed Services, Service...
Reporting to the Managing Director, the role of the Client...
Senior Technical Support/ Support Engineer...
Job Purpose To analyse system requirements...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
save the children or save the artists?
Seems to me the copyright industry stands the most to gain once the infrastructure is in place. Without even touching p2p traffic protocols its not too hard to domestically knock out bittorent websites like pirate bay without having to go through the legal hoora that has failed throughout Europe. I'm not saying its the copyright industry driving this by themselves, but certainly they have deep enough pockets and the labor government seems game enough to test how far they can push this one in order to score a freebie on an otherwise impossible sell telling Australians they need to pay for overpriced content media to 'save the artists'. What's Britain doing? Introducing Clause 11 of the Digital Economy Bill to allow the Home Secretary to place ?a technical obligation on internet service providers? to block whichever sites it wishes. New Zealand & Germany tried last year with the same 'save the children' rhetoric Add a free ride to building the infrastructure to futureproof internet regulation, well.. while the populace is too busy blaming religous fundamentalism, I find it hard to believe Stephen Conroy is more hardcore about the bible than his political career. Would it be too surprising or amusing to find the Australian Christian Lobby has also been taken for a ride by kevin07 & the great internet villain of 2008? Senator Conroy well played. A double smoke screen if I ever saw one.
Posted by: Louis 19 Dec 2009
Internet Filtering in Oz
The Australian (Labour) Government in particular Minister Conroy have been waging war on the subject of internet filtering for sometime it isn't new. The internet and its contents have been in their sights for some time the driving force behind it are a relatively small number of right wing Christian lobby groups and they have found an attentive in ear in the Australian parliament which has a significant number o,f for want of a better description " Christian Fundementalists: the Prime Minister Rudd and the Opposition leader included. This is not unique to Australia these same groups are evident in the USA and elsewhere and are seeking to put their views into legislation. They are in my opinion more dangerous to our way of life than the Muslim extremists and fundamentalists. The results of the limited and secretive field tests conducted by a government sponsored company have not and will not be released to illustrate the alleged effectiveness of the filtering there fore it cannot and will not be subject to peer review. Various ISP's withdrew from the planned trail and in fact became vocal opponents to it due to the difficulty of implementing it and its limited value further there is a growing industry fear that it will kill an almost basket case Internet sytem within Australia. Conroy regularly refers to "evidence" that the content that will be blocked impacts on children, this has no basis as it is not evidence that has been gathered by law enforcement or agencies charged with responsibility for children. The determination as to what is and isn't suitable for a child to see and the responsibility for that rests with the parent. It is not a role that should be taken on by government. It should be remembered that when Wiki Leaks posted the Australian Governments existing :"Blacklist" the first thing that was done was to call in the Australian Federal Police to ascertain how Wiki Leaks came into possession of that document. They did all within their power to stop that document being circulated into the public domain. It is my understanding that there were a number of sites contained within that document that had nothing to do with pornography, terrorism or anti social behaviour what they did do was be openly critical of the Australian Government. This is censorship at its worst and another tool by which government can control the masses and dictate what is and isn't suitable for its citizens to see. I as an Australian have no interest in the sites or material that Mr Conroy seeks to filter. I do however have an enquiring mind that takes me into the professional sites that address these very issues and they may well be the victim of this filtering, as has been seen by the governments leaked blacklist.
Posted by: Adrian Thomas 17 Dec 2009
Misguided
This filter will only serve to punish the innocent internet users, this is because people who want to do illegal things can circumvent this technology easily, in fact anyone who does some simlpe searches on the internet can figure it out - all bar of course the people who believe this is actually a good thing. People who view and share terrible content will continue and even more annoymously than before, these people exist mostly because of society neglect and poor education - and because not everyone in the world fits the reasonable citizen box, some people will always be a little nuts. The most important thing here for me is that a developed country doesn't continue to go backwards with free speech. This is a closed doors system on what gets "Refused Classification" (Banned) so they can ban anything they like with little fear of consequences. I agree completely for an op-in system, but a mandatory is just not modern society. There are many reasons people may use to say this system shouldn't come in which aren't about the fundamentals of a developed nation, e.g. speed - but when your government can filter information secretly whenever it likes, that's bad and soon it will be China. I hope people will wake up and see this for what it is - at least before we all drive 20km per hour with our cars in bubblewrap because no one can be trusted to operate a vehicle any faster.
Posted by: Jason Fisher 17 Dec 2009
head in the sand
To ignore the opposition, .You will never come across child pornography by accident, have you ever !, neither have I. Google themselves do not agree with this filter this is part of what they have to say (google it for the rest of their statement) Quote Google, like many other Internet companies, has a global, all-product ban against child sexual abuse material and we filter out this content from our search results. But moving to a mandatory ISP filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond such material is heavy handed and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information. Childs rights groups do not agree with it ,International child rights group, Save the Children, said while it congratulates the government on its attempt to improve the safety of children online, an ISP-level filter is not the best way to offer protection. There are more google it, but be careful as I understand the USA does not censor the internet (yet) so you never know what you may come across. Sure there things on the net that children should not see, but I guess parents should no longer be responsible, why should they, isn't this why we have government to make all our decisions for us
Posted by: David 16 Dec 2009
not just CP
i love my politicians... they have avoided the issue raised by any opposition to their filter. they keep saying that it is to stop child pornography, but it blocks much more than that, even worse the ignorant people that live here dont bother listening to half the things being said so they say oh yes this is good as it will block child pronography and have no negative reprocussions whatsoever. and with the absence of an R+18 rating the censorship in Australia is just bloody insane. Im beginning to hate my country
Posted by: ben 16 Dec 2009
Bad move Aussies
You don't have to be in favor of child porn to be against government sponsored filtering. Government will justify the filtering by claiming to restrict it to only something everything reviles (like child porn). THe problem with letting the government do that is they wil eventually decide all kinds of useful information should also be banned because in their opinion you will be better off not knowing it. The decision becomes arbitrary and there won't be any way to stop it because you may not even know it will be happening. Seeing the comment from Mr. US Guy makes me ashamed that someone who lives in a country where such government control over information is explicitly banned would be so clueless about why the government is banned from doing that.
Posted by: A brighter US guy 16 Dec 2009
Ignore the opposition
Okay if someone is against blocking things like child pornography, I dont know what to say... I think the govt is doing the right thing by introducing this block. Good job Aussies
Posted by: US guy 16 Dec 2009
WORST IDEA EVER
A fantastic plan by a government of "save the children" fanatics, who have no understanding what so ever of the repercussions of their actions. Australia has some of the slooooowest broadband speeds of any nation, and can be seen with the ridiculous download speeds and almost non-existent upload. This filter is going to reduce these pitiful speeds further, rendering activities from digital downloads to online gaming, extinct. If people don't want their child viewing such things, then they can install their own filters on a user based level. This is getting awful close to a society where freedoms are chosen for us.
Posted by: Ryan 16 Dec 2009
Thin end of the wedge
It's rather like a new tax that starts off at 1% with no protest. Then, every year the tax rises by 1% and no one protests until it's suddenly realised to be a 20% monster that everyone accepts as inevitable. This is the beginning of the end of freedom of information. Every year, proscribed content will be reviewed by the political elite and every year the noose will tighten just a little - say 1%.
Posted by: Keith 16 Dec 2009
Christian Nazi Nete is Go!!!!!
The great thing about all of this religious or "culty" guff, is that all the sheeple groveling in their steeple, they all have "opinions" about what their deity is "saying" and righteously so, but the deity in the last few thousands of years of "omnipotence", has never once put in a personal appearance. You know like if "JC and the Space Cadets" were a rock band - the clueless would have caught on that while the promoters claim that they play in gigs all over the land, but they have never turned up; while the clueless and stupid keep rocking up and buying the tickets. Losers. So the same overlording us with more holier than thou drivel, is projected into the area of computer games and internet sites. Again while people get slaughtered for fun and profit in the movies and the real world, playing computer games doing the same stuff is just not on? Why? Am I surprised that the people thrusting their liturgical loins at the censors office for "standards and decency" are not trying to put the shackles on those who choose to have their own autonomous opinions, by declaring them to workers of the devil, sorcery and witches - starting with the jabbings for the devils mark. Am I even further surprised that this is now extending into the Great Australian Firewall. Perhaps those who cry loudest are those who look forlornly upon the promises of the bible, such as Ezekiel 23: 21 "whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions." I mean who wouldn't want that or to be getting that? I mean thank god Conroy is standing up for real Christian family values. Jesus said in Revelation 2:22-23 "And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." So Jesus wants to kill our kids - that's cool cause it is Jesus. Timbo says I Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." So all the women ought to keep their traps shut. I mean it's in the bible - so it must be true right. And God digs killing pregnant chicks by knifing them and smashing their kids brains out on the ground; so the christians have got this family values stuff down pat: Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." So Conroy and his catholic buddies have got this right - we have to be protected against them out there on the internet and subjugate ourselves to the righteous christians showing us how their god loves us and how we ought to be kissing his ass, on the basis of their say so. Oh did I mention that the old testament is a scammed copy of the Code of Hammurubi? The King of Babylons state laws - and the first 6 books of the bible are bare faced rip offs of this, just rebranded to a diety instead of the king? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_code_of_Hammurabi.pdf Yep gotta remember them good old christian family values, the true word of god is the bible... except that getting nailed for copyright and plagarisim wasn't invented then.
Posted by: Jahm Mitt 16 Dec 2009
To "US guy"
Don't comment where you don't know. In trials of the filter it was found that only 10% of attempts to circumvent it could be stopped. On top of that - that's not the only thing it blocks. A leaked version of the list shows that sites of small businesses like a QLD dentist have been erroneously blocked - and because the list is secret, and compiled by the ACMA (a non-elected body) nothing stops them blocking anything the government has described as "unwanted content." On top of that - why is it the government's job and not parents'? Piss off and comment on what few things you might understand.
Posted by: James 16 Dec 2009
Wow, and we thought Bush was bad
Seems the Australian government picked up where the Bush administration in the US left off, and has run with it. Sorry to hear that, Aussies.
Posted by: EJ 16 Dec 2009
V3 has been given wrong slant on national filtering
I do wish international journalists would look further than Australian Government media releases. The proposed mandatory national ISP-level filtering scheme is not about restricting content which is already illegal in Australia. The government ACMA URL blacklist which forms the basis of its filtering scheme already bans specific websites and/or webpages which are composed of content which is legal in other communication mediums within the country, eg. print and film. The blacklist already bans political comment about certain issues. The national filtering scheme is aimed at ensuring that no-one within the country can sidestep this censorship and that political debate/publication via the Internet is restricted.
Posted by: What'sHerName 16 Dec 2009
Freedom?
This is all wrong. Protect the children? More like the Government is moving towards Information Control. Parents can install their own filters if they're that worried and people who are into child pornography are going to find it one way or another, just like all the other information they intend on blocking. It's going to reduce our already dismal speeds ... why aren't they spending all of this money of something a little more important like Australia's pathetic excuse of a Health System? This is all wrong, they have no idea what they are about to do.
Posted by: Twilight Angel 16 Dec 2009
Please take a look at the result of your decision
Who decides what is good and what is not? The risk of introducing this type of filter is the person making the decision is so focussed on introducing the idea that they obviously didn't think it through. Look at the 'R' rating for games in Australia. The government in Australia removed the 'R' rating for games and forced game manufacturers to remove the offending components of those games to bring it down to the 'MA' acceptable rating for Australia. As a result there are a number of games available in Australia that are still not suitable for children (due to the adult nature) that kids are playing. They shouldn't be able to play these games full stop, but the new classification makes them open for them to play. The result of this bold move ... Slower internet speeds and people learning how to use proxy servers to access the sites that are banned. Again, there seems to be a lack of looking at the big picture in an effort to win votes. Well, you've just lost mine ruddy!
Posted by: Davo 16 Dec 2009
Stupid govt.
Totally stupid idea. I do not support it. Even if this filtering were effective, why should I have to suffer for the lack of care and responsibility of parents who are too lazy to look after their own children?
Posted by: Aussie 16 Dec 2009
"Think of the children"
No one has an objection to blocking child pornography it's the "other" that we don't know about that is the concern. Today it's child pornography but tomorrow it's the Alien vs Predator game becasue that happens to fail classification in Australia currently. Where are the checks and balances in this system?
Posted by: AU Guy 16 Dec 2009
People With Political Agendas Not Viable Solutions
Unlike many of the pointless posturing and renaming of existing spending proferred by our politicians in the name of seeming to have "done something", this decision will actually affect people in their day to day enjoyment of life. The determined porn surfer will readily bypass this ill thought out plan. The people affected will be the everyday citizens of Australia. People trying to enjoy the fruits of a technology available to the rest of the world. Hard working Australians, playing online games, already handicapped by ludicrous costs, this will become undoable. Approximately 1 million Australian's for example play World of Warcraft, do not for a second doubt that those people will feel strongly enough about this to use the ballot box to express their frustration. Commercial users of Internet technologies, already finding it difficult to refrain from transferring to better connected countries, will quite simply become uncompetitive. This is ill thought out pork barrelling that will see Australia's deserting political allegiences maitained by complacency. This will hurt mums and dads, this will NOT achieve anything positive.... Mr Conroy, enjoy the remainder of your term, history will label you with infamy for this act of vandalism.
Posted by: Tony 16 Dec 2009
RC does not always = illegal
Just a small clarification - RC materials are not, by definition, illegal. There is a dichotomy in Australia in the classification of "old" media (print, TV, film) and "new" media (online). The standards are not consistant and thus what might be ok in film is not ok online. "Instruction in crime", can include discussion of euthanasia or drug harm minimisation. X rated movies can be bought in Canberra, but are "prohibited" online. The controversy arises in Australia due to these inconsistencies and the fact that RC is very loosely defined, with individual public servants making judgement calls. The list of RC materials has been secret and has no judicial oversight... This is why we are unhappy.
Posted by: Azza 16 Dec 2009
Nooo
US Guy, you are insane. I am stuck in Australia with this goddam government that doesn't respect the freedoms of it's population (see our games rating system) and you believe that introducing this filter (another step forward with the ridiculous cencorship system here) is a good idea? Since when did blocking the content become a better idea than going straight to the source? What kind of lawmakers prefer to stop people driving on the highway instead of actually removing the speeding criminal from it? Oh that's right, the Australian Government. Think through what you're supporting before lowering yourself to the par of the Labor Government here.
Posted by: hew1992 16 Dec 2009