JackTheLad

Someone mentioned "dynamic filters", oh god save us. Are these going to be the "intelligent" filters that ban people from looking up sites on SCUNThorpe on the web cos the intelligent filter mistakes it as a rude word.

Thats just an obvious example. But before you know it, you won't be able to look up Man United, Arsenal websites etc (mostly cos of the swearing in the forums)

And poor old ARSEne Wengers websites going to get alot less traffic

JTL

bigAPE

In a sense, but that's not quite how they work. With a dynamic filter the URL has been requested is called and the content returned scanned by the filter prior to it being forwarded to the original caller. If the content contains phrases or words in the blacklist the content will be replaced with a banner page informing you that the page has been restricted by the Australian Government. Once the URL has been blocked the next person to attempt to connect to that specific URL will immediately be forwarded to the Government banner page. It is done on a per URL basis to avoid blocking entire sites (like YouTube) when only some pages contain the "inappropriate content", also it stops website owners from circumventing the system by adding random strings to the end of the URL to obfuscate the true URL.

This is also why it is such a bad idea because, as most URLs these days are dynamic anyway, the filter will have to scan almost all content that is requested by every internet user in Australia every time they change pages every second of every day. In theory even this thread will be blocked because we are using the term "euthanasia".

As you can imagine that will lead to the massive strain on the many multi-million dollar servers and software filters that the government will force the ISPs to buy (who will pass the cost onto us with massive hikes in internet usage charges) and thus result in a massive drop is speed, quality of service and general performance, combined with an enormous increase in cost to the end user (i.e. us).

This is bad news on so many levels but those who feel it will not affect them (wrong) seem to say that it's OK without fully understanding the impact on the Australian economy and our pockets.

JackTheLad

The obvious question though is, will they ban proxy sites? I view BBC tv via a proxy so they think I'm in the UK.

Thats what is so insidious about this proposed law, it will ban sites that aren't illegal, but have the potential to be used illegally. (Kind of like you saying guns aren't illegal... but they have the potential to be used illegally, or cars for that matter)

JTL

MartinLuther

The blacklist is, a manual process is and a legal process is.

The thing that hasn't been put in place is an automatic filter (which probably won't work anyway).

MartinLuther

I presume the technology has moved on the the last decade when those were all a problem. You'd be surprised at how fast this new techology thingy changes

NedKelly

I don't see how, anyone can set themselves up as a proxy site. You could get a friend in the UK to do it for you with their home computer. Even a school kid could do it in five minutes, there is plenty of free software around.

I bet what they will do is pass another law making it illegal to use a proxy site to view banned material. You can bet your life they will heavily police that and there will be a $10,000 fine or something similar. If you can't stop people doing what they want then fine them. Typical left-wing police state mentality.

bigAPE

Peer based Onion routers will still provide you with the proxy services you need without the requirement of a dedicated peering service. Have a look at Tor takes minutes to install and configure and will circumvent any filtering these people put in place, what it won't do is fix the horrific degradation to the network.

Far more likely that knives will kill in this country, yet there are no plans to ban websites selling kitchen equipment.

Exactly, the filter is not in place thus it has not effected you yet. I don't get your point.

Oh, it can do what they want but to get it do so will require such a high level introspection that it will kill the internet services in Australia. Anything less than that and they will only clock some of the inappropriate sites, which is half arsed. You either do it or you don't, half doing it is just a blatant waste of tax payers money with no observable positive result.

MartinLuther

My point was that the plan is to automatically block what is already on the blacklist.

I personally don't see that as a problem. Firstly because the list doesn't affect me and secondly because I don't think it'll happen (technologically). If on the off chance it does happen and they add something to the banned list that shouldn't be there then we have a democratic and legal process to rectify it.

Who knows? If they stop all those teenagers perusing porn maybe some of them will start going outside and free up the internet for other Aussie businesses to make a profit

anawanahuanana

The whole idea of this thing gives me the sh!ts. How will they, for instance, deal with a website dealing with animal euthanasia? Will it be banned because it contains the word for an illegal (human) but legal (animal) activity?
What about things that most people would find distasteful, like Amputee Sex websites or something (not that I'm into that by the way!), but are still perfectly legal? Will they be blocked for the "greater good" of society?

This has the capacity to snowball once it's implememted and I suspect that once it's in, and people get used to it, it will do just that.

Mind you, it could turn out to be much like Work Choices. Come the next election the Opposition could stand on the issue of getting rid of the clean feed, but to be honest I think this idea came from little Johnny anyway, and by then the apathy displayed by the general population will mean that most folk won't be bothered. Certinly not enough to make a difference to the result anyway.

:curse::curse::curse::curse::curse::curse::curse:: curse::curse::curse::curse:

datamile

Teenagers and Pervs will get past this in 10 mins. Does the gov think everything is http from childporn.com , and that kids can't solve filters.

NedKelly

Most kids are more streetwise than adults when it comes to the internet. It follows that they are even more streetwise than pollies about the internet.

hoofie2002

The more I think about this the more I bang my head on the desk. The biggest impact is that internet speeds will get even slower than they already are [and compared to just about everywhere else in the developed world, it is appallingly slow here].

It won't stop ANYONE who is determined to access 'forbidden' material, the bit of course is that the government will decide what is 'forbidden'. No one disagrees with the elimination of child porn but euthanasia ? Does the government really think that someone who is serious about that will be stopped by this ? All it will do is stop research and stifle rational debate on that subject.

There are so many ways to access websites I won't even list them - one that came straight off the top of my head is to use a satellite modem - ok it's damn expensive and slow but demonstrates it can be bypassed. And no, I'm not some mad pervert; anyone with networking knowledge can tell you this.

The whole thing akin to banging in a screw with a sledgehammer and stinks of the government wanting to be 'seen to be doing something' to appeal to the masses whilst actually screwing everything up - the last example of that was when they made the grants for solar power panels means-tested; that market dissapeared overnight and I'm sure its just coincidence that BP are now shutting down their solar power panel production facility in Oz [ok so it's not directly related but it shows you just how warped the governments judgement is].

Rant over....

lesleys

So online newspapers won't be reporting any more crime?

MartinLuther

This is like a game of Chinese Whispers (or should that be Chinese Wall Whispers ).

• The government announces a project to automate the blacklist.
• A couple of non-government MPs suggest adding euthanasia and anorexia to the list.
• Web sites like the ones posted by BigApe state that some Government MPs are touting that euthanasia be added to the black list.
• Some people then start saying euthanasia is on the black list.
• Some of the same people then say euthanasia is on the list because it's a crime in Aus.
• Other people then start to say that anything that is a crime will be blocked.
• etc.
• etc.

Even if this is technically possible what is most likely to happen? Taking an item off the current black list (detailed instruction in crime) as an example. Yes they will block sites that give details on how to break into a car but they won't block websites reporting or discussing car crime.

If on the off chance euthanasia is added to the list then the likely scenario is that sites offering short stays in Swiss hospitals will be banned. It is extremely unlikely that the discussion of euthanasia will be banned especially if the discussion is political (which is protected by the High Court) and it is improbable that animal euthanasia is blocked. (The reason the filter is being tested is to check if it will affect legitimate pages.)

I think some chill pills are in order Although I'm not allowed by the black list to give you details on how to make them

NedKelly

I don't think that chill pills are in order. I know what you are saying but the fact of the matter is internet censorship, however you try to do it, is a totalitarian measure aimed at controlling the population.