Somebody Think Of The Children

See also public consultation
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/online_safety_and_security/cybersafety_plan/refused_classification_content_list_review

Measures to increase accountability and transparency for Refused Classification material
As part of the introduction of Internet Service Provider (ISP) filtering, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, has made a commitment to consult publicly on the process that leads to Refused Classification (RC) material being placed on the RC content list for the purposes of mandatory ISP filtering and how those decisions can be reviewed. Additional transparency and accountability processes that are adopted would, as far as practicable, also apply to material put on the RC content list from overseas lists of child abuse material obtained from highly reputable overseas agencies.

Public comment is invited on the options set out in the consultation paper for increasing accountability and transparency of the RC content list.

By Bob Bain on Dec 15, 2009

Did that just say they’re going to block even profanity and lingerie models?

I need to leave this country.

By Joe on Dec 15, 2009

What seems of most interest in the report is the apparently ridiculous ease with which the filter can be circumvented, rather than how well or badly the filter itself performs. Four participants report successful blocking of circumvention attempts at less than 13%. That means about 9 out 10 attempts to bypass the filter got through. And those participants that report high percentages of successful blocking of circumvention attempts also note a corresponding increase in performance degradation. So as I read it, it seems that unless Australians be happy to put up with a dramatic slowing of internet speed & performance (which of course they absolutely will not be), we will have a filter, but a totally useless filter that anyone can surf right through whenever they feel like it. A filter that will only work for people who wouldn’t try to circumvent it because they would have no interest in visiting filtered sites in any case. As for those totally intent on accessing blocked sites – they will have, on average a more than 90% chance of successfully doing so. (Of course, it’s still all just academic – all that’s needed to 100% bypass the filter is to download a free VPN off the WWW and hey, presto: shields totally down.)
What a blatant and criminal waste of taxpayers money this fiasco is turning out to be…

By Daniel on Dec 15, 2009

From the FAQ on DBCDE’s website;

“8. Can’t these filters be readily circumvented? Will they filter non-web material such as peer to peer?
A technically competent user could circumvent filtering. The Government has always said that filtering is not a silver bullet solution. It is part of a suite of measures that will help to reduce the risk of inadvertent exposure to Refused Classification-rated material, particularly by children.”

What a load of old bollocks. Why as an adult in mid 30’s do I need to protected from stuff like Abbey Winters, Party Poker or Redtube? Note in the answer did they mention P2P. Also as previously mentioned, you can circumvent the censorware very easily.

“14. How will you address filtering of high usage sites (such as YouTube) to avoid overloading an ISP’s network?
The Government is aware of advice that adding a URL from high traffic sites to the RC Content list may have an impact on internet performance. Owners of most popular overseas-hosted websites that provide user-generated content already have arrangements in place to take down offensive material (including that which would reach the RC-rated threshold) and are keen to remove content such as child sexual abuse material.

In consultation with owners of popular overseas sites, consideration is being given to exempt high traffic sites from having their material included on the RC Content list if they implement arrangements to either take down identified RC-rated content or to block it from access by internet protocol (IP) addresses in Australia.”

Like Youtube or Facebook will give a crap about some Australian Public Servant saying “Hey, we know this is quite leagal in the US, but can you take down because the Australian government says so”. What a load of tripe. So they’re just going to block it if Youtube says no? Um, didn’t Watchdog put out a paper not long ago (avalible on Wikileaks – that is if it’s not blocked by censorware) saying they’d whitelist high traffic sites because the censorware falls over if you try to block a url on a high traffic site?

Overall a really crappy day for Australia. Why should by ISP bill go up due to the sucessful prodding and lobbying by arseholes like Peter Mancer and the ACL?

By Matthew on Dec 16, 2009