Internet Content Filter

[Mao]

what the hell is up with that?

[bucket]

?

[Mao]

here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm

NO MOAR TORRENTZ?

more info here: http://nocleanfeed.com/

to put it into perspective, this mightwill be the Great Firewall of Australia [to keep the rabbits out, of course].

[TrueLight]

WTF THIS IS BULLSHIT , but it does say its for children... so maybe it doesnt apply for us... stupid government interfering with internet

[TrueLight]

if parents didnt want children to freakin watch 'inapproriate' material gees.. then they could do it themselves im sure theres many ways to do it , we dont need freakin government putting mandatory filters on the internet

[Collin Li]

I disagree with this wholeheartedly.

As an Australian and an internet user, I have serious concerns about your new mandatory "clean feed" filter initiative.

Given the importance your Government has attached to modernising Australia's broadband network, pursuing a policy that can only slow down and increase the costs of home internet access seems misguided at best. Australian households are diverse, and most do not have young children, so mandating a one-size-fits-all approach will not serve the public well. I don't think it is the Government's role to decide what's appropriate for me or my children, and neither do most Australians.

Given the amount of Internet content available, the Government will never be able to classify it all and I feel that the time and money could be spent in better ways both to protect children and improve Australia's digital infrastructure. Australian parents need better education about the risks their children face online. Trying to rid the Internet of adult content is futile, and can only distract from that mission.

This sample message on http://nocleanfeed.com/takeaction.html represents my views accurately.

In addition to this, there are much more effective client-side filters that the private market is capable of providing for families that do want to shelter their kids from some parts of the internet.

[bucket]

Yeah what the hell, this is ridiculous.
I don't understand how somebody who genuinely believes this would work even has a position as a government minister.

[AppleXY]

This f*king internet "censor" is effin bs.

I mean seriously, all it's going to create is disadvantages on top of disadvantages. Costs > Benefits.

It only creates internet bottlenecks, thus slow speeds and its a form of control over citizens. Democracy my ass. If they want they oh-so-precious children who will someday actually see porn and violence in their lives, install a client-side filter.

This minister does not know ANYTHING about the technology costs of this stupid project. Instead of increasing our bb speeds, he is going to decrease them. Utter pathetic.

[bturville]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081016-net-filters-required-for-all-australians-no-opt-out.html

[Mao]

is anyone else thinking petition?

...Will various Wikipedia pages be blocked?...

WTF this is turning out to be more and more like the Great Firewall of Australia.

[excal]

I can tell you from a technical perspective that this is doomed to fail.

My concern is also with what the opt-out process is? I would've much preferred an opt-in, but I'm sure that the various ISPs could implement similar filters if demanded by users. In addition, again from a technical perspective, client-side filters (widely available) are far more effective and configurable.

If there isn't, then just like China's firewall. By the sounds of it, both will be vulnerable to exactly the same attack (SSH tunnels). Any script kiddie with the right (widely-used) tools can do this.

[Mao]

The main concern I have with this is the control over the content filter. The ACMA writes the blacklist, but what standards do they use to do so? Does the public have a say in what should be "appropriate" and "inappropriate for children"? Will there be a system in place for the public to lobby against the filtering of certain sites? Will that process be long and tedious and just makes people cbf?

Also, what influences will the politicians have over it? If, say, the Govt deemed "hate sites" to be inappropriate/illegal, and there comes a Muslim politician [no offense intended] who claims that visiting their "Holy Victory" site, which contains hate messages for all other religions, is part of their religious rights, does that provide ground for the ACMA to de-list? Is that justice for other factions/beliefs who may not have as strong lobbying power?

[excal]

The main concern I have with this is the control over the content filter. The ACMA writes the blacklist, but what standards do they use to do so? Does the public have a say in what should be "appropriate" and "inappropriate for children"? Will there be a system in place for the public to lobby against the filtering of certain sites? Will that process be long and tedious and just makes people cbf?

Also, what influences will the politicians have over it? If, say, the Govt deemed "hate sites" to be inappropriate/illegal, and there comes a Muslim politician [no offense intended] who claims that visiting their "Holy Victory" site, which contains hate messages for all other religions, is part of their religious rights, does that provide ground for the ACMA to de-list? Is that justice for other factions/beliefs who may not have as strong lobbying power?

Exactly.

I'm absolutely against this from an ideological standpoint. Further to that, from a technical standpoint, even if we were able to pinpoint the exact sites to block, it would be very simple to bypass it (blocking this particular technique will have legitimate IT businesses crying - probably why it's left wide open in China).

[Collin Li]

One justification I heard was that it's to stop illegal activity. That's sort of like putting police outside of milk bars, preventing access, just incase you'll rob them.

Where's the freedom of speech?

[excal]

One justification I heard was that it's to stop illegal activity. That's sort of like putting police outside of milk bars, preventing access, just incase you'll rob them.

Where's the freedom of speech?

Well, the example isn't exactly the best one (the police could just leave you alone unless you pull a knife out and rob the store)

But I do concur - where is this freedom of speech?

Mind you, a filter already exists - most people don't even know about it. The list is intended to block phishing sites (fake banking sites in particuarly). I have no problem with this.