![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
divabat)Today I was at the rally against the proposed Clean Feed (Internet filter), which is being implemented by the Aussie government under the guise of "stopping child porn". (If you were there: I was the Malaysian speaker in black with the "Do Not Want" sign)
Never mind that this doesn't actually stop child porn - they'll just go underground. Find other ways to distribute their rubbish. It's not like there's going to be extra funding being given to the groups actually responsible for prosecuting child pornographers anyway.
The rally mainly concentrated on geeky things, very lefty things - pro-marijuana decriminalisation, anti-government sites, etc. They're definitely at risk of the filter; however, saying that those sites will be affected won't help our cause. The rest of the world doesn't care about our LOLcats.
However, since there's no way of knowing what exactly's going to be filtered (all we know is child porn, adult porn, euthanasia), there are potentially many sites that are going to lumped into this filter:
* Sites about Islam (OMG TERRORISTS ALQAEDA!)
* Sites advocating for rights for sex workers
* Sexual and reproductive health, including cervical/breast/prostate cancer
* Independence and ethnic struggles
* Sites by dissidents of other countries - for example, if Australia plans to have a trade agreement with China, China may demand that their blacklist be applied in Australia, and that they should go find any Chinese dissidents hiding in Australia. Money or freedom?
* GLBT rights and support networks
* Academic studies on pornography (hell, even a report on why people make child porn in the first place) or any other "controversial" topic
* Sites by minority religions and other small groups
* Support groups for drug users and drug addicts
* Sites dealing with radical politics, including anarchy
* Support sites for people who have dealt with abuse (including child exploitation survivors)
basically, anything that could potentially rankle others. It happens in Malaysia - the land where an upside down JPG of a flag is a "threat to national security". This is why the filter idea pisses me off; I've seen how it goes back home, seen the danger. Ironically the Internet isn't actually censored in Malaysia - they just arrest those that speak out and scare the others into submission. Fun.
And what if some old auntie got hit by spyware because she thought she was opening an e-card by her niece? Spyware that dials up child porn? The logs would point to her and she'll get in trouble - but the spyware people go free. My aunts and uncles have computers FULL of spyware because they don't know well enough not to click on "You won this today!" or "Free icons!".
All that money and effort spent on the damn filter, which doesn't seem to have any advantage at all but just breaks technology, could be spent on:
* Actually going after the bad guys in the first place
* Educating the public about Internet safety and Internet use
* Getting parents, schools, childcare people, etc to work out how to take care of kids collaboratively
* Give kids more things to do and get involved in aside from the Internet
* Working out other methods of going after child porn/hate sites/etc together with ISPs and hosting companies and other Net techs
* Connect communities together to care about each other's livelihood and keep kids safe from exploitation
* Create better tech that blocks spyware/malware/viruses/etc
The filters hurts most and helps none. You want to fight child porn? FIGHT CHILD PORN. Closing our eyes doesn't make child porn disappear.
December 13 2008, 09:02:43 UTC 3 years ago
If this is actually true, and the filter would block these kinds of sites then this filter effects me directly.
Not only do I run a Pagans in the Park group who have a site online; I also run an Ascension (new age, hippy shit) Information website and chat room.
All three of my sites would likely be blocked by this cock-and-bull filter! BAH.
I agree with you, what we need is communication, education and more appropriate targets for this money.
December 13 2008, 09:11:50 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
December 13 2008, 09:06:14 UTC 3 years ago
December 13 2008, 09:12:10 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
December 13 2008, 09:17:26 UTC 3 years ago
December 13 2008, 09:19:37 UTC 3 years ago
[citation needed]
What, like a blanket ban? Geez, that's like a massive chunk of the Internet right there! Where's that from?3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
December 13 2008, 09:32:54 UTC 3 years ago
But from little things, big things grow and all that.
December 13 2008, 10:18:56 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
December 13 2008, 09:43:24 UTC 3 years ago
December 13 2008, 10:19:56 UTC 3 years ago
And what's the point of the blacklist if you're not going to do something about the people that MADE THE SITE in the first place?
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
December 13 2008, 09:46:55 UTC 3 years ago
But I'm too lame to go to a rally. Also the effect of protests on events seems negligible. So I figure hit them were it really makes a difference.. In the wallet!
With my power as a consumer in the market I gave some money to the EFA (Electronic Frontiers Australia).
The people who have the energy and the smarts to go fight against silly things like this in the senate etc.
Also you dont have to become a member. Just a bit on paypal works too.
Though it'd be awesome if they had a store. Some merchandise would really got my dollars flowing at them. As my need for shirts is bountiful
December 13 2008, 09:48:25 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
December 13 2008, 10:14:55 UTC 3 years ago
It would have been good if some 'core messages' had been disseminated a week prior to the event. This would give people the chance to make signs based around these core messages.
But at the end of the day, a protest that relates to freedom of speech and expression wouldn't be good if people can't express their view in their own way (however geeky).
December 13 2008, 10:22:49 UTC 3 years ago
The way to connect to people is to be relatable - and the average Joe isn't going to understand LOLcats or the damn 1337 signs. What we need to get through is why this filter is a bad idea for everyone - even those who only go online once a week.
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
December 13 2008, 12:31:18 UTC 3 years ago
Of course, I do agree that the money put toward this could be spent on a hundred better things. However, I do support blocking access to child pornography sites - many of them are hosted out of places that make it very difficult to prosecute the operators, so just going after the pornographers isn't the most practical of solutions. However, the operators of these sites make money from every hit they receive, through paid advertising or by running a subscription service. By blocking access to these sites, you cut off this source of income for child pornographers, and make it far more difficult for them to do their nasty business.
I realize I'm probably going to get flamed for this comment - I'm not saying I support an internet filter. But I do think that spreading conspiracy theories about what the government will use it for and attempting to protest against it on the basis of these theories is an ineffective way to fight it. The guy who recommended donating to organizations who can fight this on a governmental level has the right idea. Even if the filter is put in place, these organizations will be in a position to fight against website bans that make no sense/are obvious censorship for political purposes.
December 13 2008, 12:36:48 UTC 3 years ago
And then you'll have campaigns from everywhere going "Block XYZ sites! They're evil!" and it keeps going on and on.
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
December 13 2008, 14:20:46 UTC 3 years ago
This does need to be stopped. Surely there's an infringement of some human right or another somewhere along the lines..?
What is the current status on this, then? Does it look like it will be going ahead?
December 13 2008, 14:35:17 UTC 3 years ago
In my opinion, a major error with today's rallies (and it seems not just the Brisbane one) is the connection to other political parties/agendas. I'm glad that there are many groups interested in this as an issue, but as soon as you bring the Socialist Alliance, The Greens, or the Raelians you've lost Joe Public.
And what of this Digital Liberation Coalition? "The Digital Liberty Coalition (’DLC’) is a non-profit grass roots community driven coalition of organisations who are standing up for free speech online." (Always love a good quote)
So why is there very little information on which groups came together? Shouldn't people who are signing up for membership or donating money know exactly where this money is going? Why so little transparency on their website? I'm sure it is innocent enough. Just like blocking child porn through a mandatory filter seems like a good idea.
Joe Public is sceptical of the 'Commies under the bed' or 'the bloody Greenies'. On the Raelians, I'm sure some people will take the jump from Intelligent Design to Scientology as well. Do we really need to be fighting an uphill battle before it started?
What is needed to get the ear of all voters is a truly independent effort. Whatever our colour, creed and political/religious beliefs, we should be united about this one issue and have no others jumping on the bandwagon for the ride.
Selling the "Green Left" (and other publications) in the middle of the speeches? Tacky and an unneeded distraction.
December 13 2008, 14:36:56 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
December 13 2008, 14:42:31 UTC 3 years ago
December 14 2008, 00:17:31 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
December 13 2008, 21:29:38 UTC 3 years ago
Makes anything like the Bill Henson case much easier for them.
December 13 2008, 23:26:25 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
3 years ago
December 13 2008, 23:59:50 UTC 3 years ago
i'll agree with the comments made by others that the whole thing felt a little TOO 'geeky' for want of a better descriptor - i'm not sure that the protest itself would have changed the mind of anyone who wasnt already a supporter, although maybe the mainstream media coverage may play a bigger part in that.
i also think i heard, although i may be wrong, and someone can correct me if so, but did the first speaker finish his talk with something along the lines of 'let's get this back to china where it belongs?' i'm against censorship everywhere, not just where it affects me directly...
December 14 2008, 04:00:07 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
December 14 2008, 04:08:31 UTC 3 years ago
Take for instance the child-friendly filter - the maximum filter length they're testing with is 10,000 entries. I dare someone to try and tell me with a straight face that you can block even just the pr0n sites with 10,000 entries, let alone other stuff. That is just NOT possible. Any higher and the speed impact will start to become a huge factor (it'll already cause a noticeable slowdown at 10,000 entries). It is just not possible to make the entire Internet child-friendly in that few entries.
They're proposing to use DNS-based blocking, meaning it blocks the actual web address and not the IP address behind it. What if I upload some illegal content to, say, yousendit or megaupload or filefront or some other site? They can't rely on website administrators in other countries doing their jobs to take it down. Are they going to block the entire website because of it? Also, you can just enter in the server's IP address directly, and completely bypass their filter. Great job there.
The alternative is IP-based blocking. I'd hesitate to say probably 99% of the Internet is hosted on shared servers, either shared one-server-multiple-sites or multiple-servers-one-site. If they do an IP-based block, if they hit one of the one-server-multiple-sites, then they will also knock out probably a thousand or more other sites that have done nothing wrong.
They're not proposing deep packet inspection. That would be terribly terribly slow and so is an even worse idea on an ISP level, but without it anything transferred over FTP, IM file transfer, BitTorrent, LimeWire, IRC, or even smeggin' email won't be filtered. Great filter there - just email it to your recipient and all is fine.
Bank sites require an encrypted connection to make sure people don't steal your information between your computer and their servers. Anyone could spend another half-hour configuring their website to accept secure connections, and to bypass the filter it's a simple matter of typing in https:// instead of http:// . The only way to fix this is to either disallow all secure communications (in which case practically all business use of the Internet becomes impossible, not just Internet Banking, and you can never do anything online that requires a username/password without someone being able to steal your login details), or they implement a man-in-the-middle attack on all secure connections (which is both VERY computationally-intensive and still exposes huge flaws in security information, because I don't know about you but I don't want to trust any government with all my login details, my banking info, my passwords, etc...).
No filtering system will work unless you disable access to all proxies. Meaning no Google Cache, No WayBackMachine, etc... However anyone can set up a VPN to a friend in another country - it's effectively impossible to stop all proxies, as if it's done correctly there's no way to tell if it's a proxy or someone doing a file transfer. Even if they have a rock-solid filter that somehow managed to overcome all other obstacles, this will always be a problem.
The final cost of this will probably end up in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and it will be as effective as putting security glass on only the bottom set of windows on a warehouse - it's so easy it's almost trivial to throw those rocks slightly higher, and will end up doing almost nothing. That money would be better spent many other places - like, oh, catching the people uploading said content rather than just blocking it once it's up there.
December 14 2008, 08:48:44 UTC 3 years ago
3 years ago
December 15 2008, 00:56:22 UTC 3 years ago
Since the Howard days
In the lead-up to the 2004 election I brought the Net Filter issue to the attention of the Greens, and they issued press releases and (along with the Democrats) raised questions about the issues we have today.Nice to see them still in the front lines almost 5 years later.
This net filter issue is not going to go away, because someone not on the Labor/Coalition axis is pushing it at both sides quite hard. Conroy's refusal to accept the expert advice that it is an idea of epic fail demonstrates someone, somewhere, with something Labor want, has a Happy for compulsory net filtering.