(12-23-2009, 09:57 PM)Tim Wrote: I would just like to raise my concern about Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy’s plan for compulsory ISP level filtering in Australia in the hope that a few more people are made aware of why this needs to be opposed.

I was not initially concerned about this until a recent event prompted me to look further into the issue. Whirlpool.net.au is probably Australia’s largest forum and it is a very highly respected place for ISP and IT industry discussion, its profile is such that many ISPs actually have representatives who regularly enter discussion from the view of the company. Whirlpool though became the first victim of the Australian government’s internet “filtering” laws and the way I found the way it was handled highly alarming. Firstly you should be made aware that as well as preventing access to the websites on the “blacklist” it is also illegal just to LINK to one of these pages and the fine is 11 thousand dollars per day that it is published, to me this is far beyond filtering and well within the definition of censorship. The issue arose when a member at Whirlpool posted the contents of an email sent to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) containing a link to a website on their blacklist which did not contain any of the material which the ACMA aims to ban (which is why they were emailing ACMA anyway). This resulted in ACMA taking action against Whirlpool for publishing the blacklisted link, they however didn’t raise the issue with Whirlpool themselves (a privately owned Australian company), they issued a notice to Bullet proof hosting who provide hosting to Whirlpool free of charge as a service to the industry saying that if the content wasn’t removed within 24 hours they would face $11 000 per day fines. Bullet proof hosting was obviously not willing to risk their necks for a non-commercial arrangement so Whirlpool had no choice but to comply without any option to appeal or question the action from the ACMA. It disturbs me the way that in this early example they have bullied those who the website relied on to get their way rather than rising it with the people who are actually responsible.

I then looked into it further and came across the following issues:

• Firstly the ACMA refuses to publish the blacklist, therefore you can be fined for linking to a site on a list that only the ACMA has. There are leaked copies of the blacklist but there is no guarantee as to the accuracy of these lists.

• Who is responsible for the content? While clearly the owner of the website is suppose to be responsible it has already been made apparent that the ACMA will make anyone responsible that is able to get the ACMA what it wants. For example if I post something on a site owned and hosted overseas I will most likely be held responsible, however if the site was owned by an Australian then the owner will be responsible and if the host is in Australia then they will be held responsible. Further to this though, as a web designer if my clients published a link but I am able to control that content could I be responsible?

• What is the definition of a link? Obviously a regular hyperlink but what if I merely posted the unlinked URL, the name of the website or for example website [dot] com. Also, what about a url that redirects to a banned website, do I still get fined?

• There is no concrete criterion for something to be banned, this leaves the system open for censorship rather than filtering and this already seems to be the case. Many of the websites on the leaked list are not pornographic websites, there are Christian websites and campaign websites for various causes (mostly extremist though) as well as /b/ which some of you may be familiar with. Another example is that the website who published the leaked list was on the list for leaking it, this is clear censorship (I won’t post the name of that site to keep both myself and Chris out of trouble). There is also no independent tribunal to decide if a website does meet these nonexistent criteria.

• There is no way to appeal or contest a website that has been added to the list, what if a domain expires or is sold and is used for a legitimate purpose afterwards? Another issue that has already arisen is that a website was defaced and then the defacement page got the domain added to the black list, this could be a new way of attacking a website.

• How does this work with search engines, do they have to remove all cached pages that contain these links?

• Where is the line drawn between publishing a link publicly or privately? Is a member’s only forum safe? How about PMs Then?

• The ability to censor websites easily is of huge benefit to governments and once this is in place I can’t see any administrations taking this ability away from themselves.

I fear that the answers to many of these are subjective and will rely on precedence in the courts and unfortunately this could send a very concerning trend for the future of Australian websites, that way ACMA can twist any of these factors however they like so they can get their way.

Even then the filter is going to be totally ineffective. The people who this filter are trying to stop will not be deterred, they have an addiction and are just going to use proxies to get their fix and worse still new websites will see this potential and there will continually be new websites created that are not blocked and cater to these peoples needs. At the end of the day it is only going to inconvenience the people who are doing nothing wrong, cost the tax payer a lot of money and is not going to stop the problem in any way.

Your probably pretty angry about all this so what can you do?

Sign the following partitions:
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442
http://petitions.tigweb.org/oznetcensorship
http://www.petitiononline.com/filtarud/petition.html
Write a letter or email to your local member of parliament
Make your social group aware of the problem and show your support for the cause in general.

An alternative?

In my opinion there are many far better options to deal with the problem any way. Firstly provide better support for the people who psychologically need access this content that they are trying to filter, if they felt they could legitimately solve their problems through established support channels then I am sure they would jump at the opportunity. Secondly make simple and freely available filtering software for your local computer with several options for levels of filtering and that use pre-screened lists. This has been tried before but the process of installing the software was complicated and you had to construct your own list which is ridiculous.

Please, discuss here and make people aware of this situation.
I don’t mind if you post this elsewhere or if you quote parts providing you state the source (here).

(12-23-2009, 11:58 PM)Aristotle Wrote: Damink you should start a revlution. I bet they are gonna ban you site ;)

(12-24-2009, 12:34 AM)DAMINK™ Wrote: I hear ya mate. Its an issue for sure. Might look at overseas hosting if that happens.