Looks like the big internet filter is going ahead. and you won't exactly be able to opt out of it.

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/15/australias-great-fir.html

this is so completely s*** i cant believe it;

we were talking about it at work today:

http://www.efa.org.au/censorship/mandatory-isp-blocking/

its not like my boy kurdd to be off target, but this is some seriously retarted policy;

Kurdd yess, kinda like turd :D

They've been tossing this idea around for a decade, It's great bulls*** fodder for the polititions to take our mind off important issues like being able to afford to eat and stuff like that.

If you read the original article the "no opt-out" bit is based on some speculation by one of the guys from Internode, I think. It's not reallllly confirmed yet, so I think the article is a bit of FUD - but unlike normal FUD it's actually really useful as it will draw more attention to this bulls*** f***ing proposal.

I emailed the ACMA a couple days ago when I read this article to try and find someone official to comment but they're no longer handling it and I have been pushed off to the Department that is handling the next stage, so I will let you know when I get some more information about it.

In the meantime, http://nocleanfeed.com/ and go and become an EFA member ($55/year) to help protect your rights.

rudd is a douche. WHY WON'T YOU PEOPLE LISTEN???

Perhaps it's just me, but rather than ruining the internet for everyone, couldn't we just stop young kids going on the internet unsupervised? Really is it that hard? Or make this an Opt-In program which would make things even eaiser. Those who want it, can have it. But blocking everyone? I hope to f*** that article is not quite right on it being absolute for everyone. I have just a tiny bit of a niggling problem with some old f*** sitting in an office telling me that something I may like, he considers illegal and I can't look at it anymore. No i'm not talking about porn here, but cmon if they do this to "stop porn for kids" then how far off are sites that offer bittorrents or ANYTHING copywrited like anime fan subs?

if this went ahead, internet plans would probably sky rocket in price as well

It should also be noted that the EFA reckon that the filtering is a failure based on the trial. Highlights:

* One filter caused a 22% drop in speed even when it was *not* performing filtering;
* Only one of the six filters had an acceptable level of performance (a drop of 2% in a laboratory trial), the others causing drops in speed of between 21% and 86%;
* The most accurate filters were often the slowest;
* All filters tested had problems with under-blocking, allowing access to between 2% and 13% of material that they should have blocked; and
* All filters tested had serious problems with over-blocking, wrongly blocking access to between 1.3% and 7.8% of the websites tested.

*Printing out letter to send to communications minister*

DO IT YOU LAZY BASTARDS!

i'd like to know how does this affect bittorrent?

if it doesn't, its pointless and a total failure - like taxes on alcopops, if it does i'd like to know how as bittorrent has some data encryption support now. if it just flat out blocks it, then its retarded, but i don't think you even could.

NO CHILD WILL BE VIEWING PORNOGRAPHY ONLINE BY 2010.

Seriously, one proxy and the goodies will be available.

The music Industry must be excited.
They will be one of the first to apply for a ban on p2p.

If you read the original article the "no opt-out" bit is based on some speculation by one of the guys from Internode, I think. It's not reallllly confirmed yet, so I think the article is a bit of FUD - but unlike normal FUD it's actually really useful as it will draw more attention to this bulls*** f***ing proposal.

Yes, I have to agree 100% with you. I also suspect this is just an "experts say" publicity beat up by some in the industry.

If you read the article nobody has actually said it's mandatory (except, the "experts"). Who are these experts?

If you'll forgive me for delving into grotty telco politics, I think the strategy is to stoke public outcry so the T has less sway with Those With Decisions To Be Made. Telstra will be selling a network which (by design) naturally lends itself to tinpot filtering schemes like this.

It will surely be opt-in, or opt-out.

nf, I believe none of the options presented cover anything other than http.
IM BT and any other <10 year old tech get off scott free. Even ftp is excluded ?

do they not realise how stupid that then becomes, probably 50% of the porn on the net travels via bittorrent now.

the previous government already investigated a universal internet filtering scheme and discovered that it would be too expensive, too slow, and almost completely ineffective

i guess the new guys have decided that that's better than nothing

True, but most people spend 90% of the time in a browser, and most people probably can live without goatse.

Spoot filter = no more QGL?

Its a f***ing nightmare FTPing to china. Its going to be just as horrible getting anything to us. FFS our internets are going to be even more crap.

Someone please just link them the TOR project.

This thing seriously makes me rage.

If you read the 16 odd pages on Whirlpool, it's pretty clear that they are making it so you can't opt out completely. There is an opt out but that only allows legitimate porn etc. and there is still another filter that blocks 'illegal' content such as kiddy porn etc.

There are many things wrong with this:

They filter HTTPS as well, meaning your secure online banking will be vulnerable to man in the middle attacks.

The whole system still gets filtered no matter what, significantly decreasing speeds, according to the trial. One good analogy that I read was that it's like building a nation wide water grid, with cement pipes 20m wide, and then have every drop go through a household water filter at one point.

Also mentioned, there is no k-mart for kiddy porn. As in there isn't a one stop website for it. The websites change frequently, if they use websites at all. Most of it goes through protocols that aren't even filtered. And most of them are smart enough to be able to set up a simple proxy to bypass the filter anyway. Thus making the goal of this steaming pile of s*** filter a waste of taxpayers time and money.

http://www.nocleanfeed.com/

This website has information regarding contacting Senator Stephen f***head Conroy, as well as template letters to send, as well as other ways you can help take action.

god damn talk about not reading the thread kr0wb4r. Read trogs posts please.

Mother f***ers. I'm setting up a SSL tunnels in the states.

They filter HTTPS as well, meaning your secure online banking will be vulnerable to man in the middle attacks.

explain how this is possible.

Thanks for the useless post. I have in fact read that article. If you can seriously say that the government doesn't intend to make it no opt-out then I think you're stupid.

Read the article again yourself, read the whirlpool thread in which Mark Newton, the Internode ISP rep from the article makes many posts.

What Trog said is that it's not 100% official yet, but you can be sure that they will try their hardest until the whole thing flops.

As much as it might seem like speculation, I've done a fair bit of reading, and there has been nothing to suggest that they won't try and make it 2 levels of filtering, well nothing short of the entire idea going belly up.

nF, while i'm not an expert by any means. What was said in the thread was that when you connect to your bank through an HTTPS connection, encrypted information goes direct from you to your bank where it is unencrypted.

What the filter does is pretend to the bank that it's you, then pretend to you that it's the bank, so that it can unencrypted the information in order to scan & filter any illegal material.

What the filter does is pretend to the bank that it's you, then pretend to you that it's the bank, so that it can unencrypted the information in order to scan

i can see it now

Your connection to this web site is encrypted to prevent eavesdropping.
Certificate Verified by: K-Rudd's l33t CA

wtf, forums ate my post. That's a new one on me.

Basically, i can't see any scenario in which snooping on HTTPS will be tolerated by businesses or the people. Technically I can't really see how it would work without cooperation from the certificate owners, but anything like that would totally destroy the entire point of using HTTPS in the first place. I'd be moving my banking off shore pretty quickly.

yeah sounds like a lot of hogwash
I for one am not worried, outraged sure, but worried no

# man ssh

look at the -L option people!

or for you windows users, putty -> advanced -> tunnels
squid + ssh tunnel to some box in the US = unrestricted intertubes

Read the article again yourself, read the whirlpool thread in which Mark Newton, the Internode ISP rep from the article makes many posts.

just because he works for the magical internode doesn't mean he knows what the situation will be like exactly at the end. he, like us all, only have ideas and theories.

nF, while i'm not an expert by any means. What was said in the thread was that when you connect to your bank through an HTTPS connection, encrypted information goes direct from you to your bank where it is unencrypted.

What the filter does is pretend to the bank that it's you, then pretend to you that it's the bank, so that it can unencrypted the information in order to scan & filter any illegal material.

from my (admittedly limited) knowledge of ssl and ssh that is impossible without having the private keys.

from my (admittedly limited) knowledge of ssl and ssh that is impossible without having the private keys.

That is pretty much what I wrote in my post that got eaten - the banks would have to give up their certs private keys for it to be actually seamless.

Seriously though who the f*** voted for Rudd?

The problem with democracy is that the majority of the population are deads*** bogans.

le boo hoo

this is just keven747 (i only saw someone use that the other day, i think it is awesome) showing his right faction-ness off.

just another policy he announces after he gets in like the alcho pop tax, the luxury car tax increase, the medicare levy change.

Seriously though who the f*** voted for Rudd?

...but the worm told me to.

hes been removed from my friends list and blocked

They filter HTTPS as well, meaning your secure online banking will be vulnerable to man in the middle attacks.

explain how this is possible.

funny you say that, ive was on a training course for Bluecoat proxy SG devices which are basically proxy web filter devices and they can do exactly that.

What happens is that when a connection is made to go to a https site, its the filter device that actually makes the connection to the https site, then because the device is setup with a CA signing authority, it can resign the content and send them it on to you, so its all encrypted ,except for on the device it self.

This way the device can see what you are doing in a HTTPS connection. Its pretty easy to tell this is happening because the secure connection is now signed by a different CA than it used to be. Most people wouldnt notice though.

Seems pretty dodgy for this to be happening for any connection that goes out from australia, they would need some serious hardware to handle the load, and I reckon it would be way slower.

last edited by `ViPER` at 21:49:35 16/Oct/08

^ this is why compulsory voting is a bad idea IMO.

lol, I was joking ara.

Every single word that comes out of Rudd's mouth is a load of bulls***.

Its pretty easy to tell this is happening because the secure connection is now signed by a different CA than it used to be. Most people wouldnt notice though.

most certs are linked to the domain or even a specific server and browsers have started making a big deal (large warnings) when you go to a site that the cert doesn't match.

most certs are linked to the domain or even a specific server and browsers have started making a big deal (large warnings) when you go to a site that the cert doesn't match.

From memory, when we tested this in the lab, it still says that the certificate is assigned to that website, just by a different CA.

so what does the browser do when it notices that Joe Blow's CA isn't on its list

most certs are linked to the domain or even a specific server and browsers have started making a big deal (large warnings) when you go to a site that the cert doesn't match.

From memory, when we tested this in the lab, it still says that the certificate is assigned to that website, just by a different CA.

Is it a CA for which most browsers will have a root cert installed for?

so what does the browser do when it notices that Joe Blow's CA isn't on its list

But they wouldnt, it would still be signed by verisign or someone like that.

I've seen it in action at a site where I worked. They announced that it was in place and the browser made me re-accept my cert warnings. I didn't pay attention to what was wrong with the certs cause I'm so used to seeing cert warning anyway (from self sign certificates).

so verisign would sign certificates on the fly for any secure website you were in the process of visiting

yeah...

so verisign would sign certificates on the fly for any secure website you were in the process of visiting

yeah that doesnt sound right does it, im just re-reading my textbook now to remember how it works. Im pretty sure it could be setup so that the user doesnt get any warnings in the brower.

Its a bs excuse to control the internet, don't let these f***ers do it!

If peaceful protests fail...burning down government buildings shall prevail!

yea a bunch of nerds sending emails to crash government servers maybe... protests? na

From the BlueCoat SSL proxy datasheet at http://www.bluecoat.com/doc/direct/664 :

Blue Coat is solving this problem for IT today with its ProxySG family of secure content appliances. By positioning a ProxySG inside the corporate firewall – in the session path between the internal user and external application – the appliance can act as a secure intermediary between the remote application server and local Web client.

In this type of deployment, the ProxySG will automatically set up a trusted SSL session on behalf of the browser and perform the necessary steps for authentication. Just as important, the ProxySG will terminate the session containing encrypted data coming into the enterprise. At that point, data is converted to “clear text” and automatically inspected by the ProxySG.

Creepy. I didn't know these things existed; I still can't figure out how it works cuz I've always thought SSL was fairly resilient to things like this; will have a closer look a bit later.

Seriously guys, the internet is not going to remain an altruistic, unregulated haven forever. Eventually law's and limitations will need to be put in place to protect the majority at the sake of a few freedoms. This is society and it must be protected.

I for one am glad that someone as intelligent and thoughtful as Kevin is taking this on rather than some radical, authoritarian a****** liberal.

However, approximately 90% of those parents do not install filters for reasons other than “cost and poor computer literacy”.

Why not take some of that $1000 per child Rudd is giving out so a comp tech can install a net nanny on all these computers.

Na, don't do that, just censor everybodies internet.

protect the majority at the sake of a few freedoms

It should be the other way around.

last edited by CHUB at 22:22:33 16/Oct/08

I probably should be able to explain it better, I was on a 3 day training course for the proxysg devices and we did touch on this.

Funny thing was, they said that you would always use the in conjunction with a web filter so it doesnt filter for know banks sites etc because generelly filering bank information is a bad idea.

Thats how we set it up in the lab anyway.

I for one am glad that someone as intelligent and thoughtful as Kevin is taking this on rather than some radical, authoritarian a****** liberal.

Kevin rudd is just as f***ing right of center as any liberal in power, wake the f*** up.

last edited by qmass at 22:33:25 16/Oct/08

. Eventually law's and limitations will need to be put in place to protect the majority at the sake of a few freedoms. This is society and it must be protected.

There are already perfectly adequate laws to protect people. This thing isn't going to do s*** except cause problems and waste our tax dollars on another "Won't Someone Think of the Children" plan.

Not strictly appropriate, but I can't help but remember the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security".

white list or otherwise it's still a c***-act for a government

i can sort of understand an employer doing it (or denying all https traffic outright) except that if they want to see what you're doing they can usually just remote desktop your arse

Thinking about it again, im pretty sure for it to be seemless, the new certificate needed to be installed onto the PC via group policy etc, obviously not going to work on the internet.

Anyway, with SSL, it still has a detination IP, and if thats blocked then it would still be filtered, but if you where using the SSL go to a site that wasnt on the block list and then tunneling your bad traffic inside that you would be fine.

Probably worthy to note that if you are on a corporate environment, that the IT department could deploy a certificate to your pc and intercept and inspect all your data.

Thinking about it again, im pretty sure for it to be seemless, the new certificate needed to be installed onto the PC via group policy etc, obviously not going to work on the internet.

Yeh that's my understanding as well. But that's still a problem, people are so used to just randomly clicking "OK" just to get things to work - I wonder how likely it is that they'll just randomly accept certificates presented to them.

Anyway, the whole thing is so stupid hopefully it will get squashed and we can use that $125 million of our money for something useful. Imagine if that much money was invested into open source software development.

countdown to more people setting up their own networks using modified wireless routers.

Just thought of a new term for this ... the "Kruddnets"??

We already give up so many freedoms for the safety of the public and you aren't jumping up and down about them? It is just a fact of life that there needs to be a balance between responsibility and rights.

The public has also spoken on this particular topic be Kevin's election. Obviously a lot of them are already afraid of a widely available anonymous resource that young children can instantly gain access to pornographic material, bigoted content, order controlled substances, cigarettes, alcohol, weapons or in some circumstances come into contact with paedophiles.

It would lovely to run around getting back our lost liberties but for the most part the freedoms we give up for society can also save many lives. A world in total liberty is a world in chaos.

qmass: your'e a f***ing moron, I said authoritarian. Nothing about his left or right persuasion. Maybe you should understand what you are typing before you post and f*** mate your ugly! Maybe you should put a bag on that.

Obviously a lot of them are already afraid of a widely available anonymous resource that young children can instantly gain access to pornographic material, bigoted content, order controlled substances, cigarettes, alcohol, weapons or in some circumstances come into contact with paedophiles.

Parents should be taking control of all that.

Agreed, but where there is a will there is a way. If a child really wants to get around his folks he/she will. You can't watch them 24 hours a day and you also can't stop them from using public terminals.

ok, three posts means you're actually serious :D

why does everything have to be about the children

f*** the children

f*** 'em

http://insom.com/image/georgecarlin.jpg

lots of appliance load balancers already do this.

From memory this setup breaks if the eventual host is also secured by https

"Where there's a will there's a way?"

If they are that f***ing intent on accessing this kind of material, do you really think one of them won't find out how to use a proxy, then go to school and tell his friends about it, then they tell theirs.

Seriously, this is like throwing a bandaid on a shotgun blast to the face. There's no way you can stop them doing it. Whether there is a filter or not.

In many years on the internet, i've very rarely/if ever stumbled upon anything that they are describing as illegal. Sure it's there to find if you know what you want.. but hell, what kind of 8year old googles kiddy porn. Okay so maybe a few.. :P but jesus christ.

As for gaining access to paedophiles? What do you think they are going to block chat websites and stuff? no.

last edited by kr0wb4r at 01:53:49 17/Oct/08

If they are that f***ing intent on accessing this kind of material, do you really think one of them won't find out how to use a proxy, then go to school and tell his friends about it, then they tell theirs.

Why would they do that when they could just bring it in on a $10 USB key and share it around?

Why would they do that when they could just bring it in on a $10 USB key and share it around?

Ahh the old school way of sharing stuff around before the internet existed (except replace USB key with floppy disks)

A filter will slow Internet access down by up to 78% according to a Government repor

As if anyone will even use the internet if they do this... so u pay more $$, get about 22% of the speed and block most of the legal and illegal sites that the government deem not suitable for us to view...

WTF Rudd... sounds like ur trying to turn us into some sort of german nazi country where all our content is strictly censored so we dont see anything you dont want us to. f*** he is ruining australia

alright guys, this is pretty serial stuff

i think we're gonna have to organise an online petition

WHOS WITH ME?~!

i f***ing hate the labor party, f*** all you dumb f***s who voted for him.


FFS.

Its a hard argument to win becuase the goody goody's always say, "why do you want to support kiddie porn" "if you arent doing anything illegal then why are you worried about it" "if we stop just one kid from being abused by a peadophile then it will be worth it" etc.

Most people have no comprehension about how difficult it will be to implement and how flawed it will be. Anyone who knows anything about internet filtering knows that you always block sites that arent meant to be and allow access to sites that should be blocked.

Anyone know what vendors they are using to implement in the tests?

"if you arent doing anything illegal then why are you worried about it"

That is very dangerous thinking, because the laws aren't always fair and in a lot of countries they are downright insane.

I wasnt saying that was my thinking, but you just know that will be one of the arguments.

I know and it's a load of bulls***. Perhaps we should just put CCTV in every single house in Australia, because if you aren't doing anything illegal, what do you have to worry about?

It is bulls*** and will be a complete failure. Rememeber a while back when they stopped the hosting of X rated content in australia, that sure stopped the porn on the internet didnt it.

Will it affect our games? That is my main concern.

I don't mind having a filtering system, as long as you can compleatly opt out of it and not have it affect the performance of the internet.

We just spent the last 20 years getting the net up to a decent speed, now they want to send it back to pre-broadband days?

Thats just it, it shouldnt be an opt-out system, it should be opt-in. When you sign up for the internet you should be able to select what filtering you want.

This would also pose problems though, can you imagine the ammount of calls to ISP helpdesks when a parent has asked for the "clean feed" and then they find the child on a porn site. "You said you would filter my internets!" etc.

Whats the big issue with porn anyway, what are the parents afraid of.

To find anything on the internet you have to be looking for it. All the sick bastards who want foul stuff - it's probably not even on public websites anyway right? Aren't all the sickos in groups/sindicates who do private file sharing type stuff anyway?

So the filtering system won't stop ANY of the pedo's etc anyway so what's the point.

As for "the children", parenting is the job of the parents. Why don't they just install net nanny or put a password on accessing the internet or something.

Just more money wasting by Krudd to go along with his "a pc for every student". All he does is buy bogan votes by blowing all the cash that the Liberals managed to surplus while in power.

Is kiddy porn illegal if a kiddy is looking at it?

As for "the children", parenting is the job of the parents. Why don't they just install net nanny or put a password on accessing the internet or something.

From an website posted earlier.

However, approximately 90% of those parents do not install filters for reasons other than “cost and poor computer literacy”.

Biggest joke ever.

My suggestion was that Rudd is giving away $1000 PER child for spendies. Why not take $100 of that (could be $4000 for a household with 4 kids) and implement some type of government computer tech scheme. Free filter, detailed instructions and if all else fails a mobile service (like waterwise) can come out and install it for you, for free.

IMO, if you can't install netnanny, you should have no say on technical issues.

last edited by CHUB at 08:44:22 17/Oct/08

Remember the government did release it's own net filtering software about 18 months ago.

Remember the government did release it's own net filtering software about 18 months ago.

I briefly remember hearing about that.

So why didn't it work?

some kid cracked it the first day it came out;

some kid cracked it the first day it came out;

he cracked it as administrator, again it just shows more training is required for parents to help them police their own children's internet use instead of fobbing the role off to the government to attempt to do.

i hope everyone here takes the time to write to their local member and state senators about this. unless we make our views known the only noise they will hear is from people advocating a nanny state.

last edited by ara at 10:01:03 17/Oct/08

Anyone seen this? http://www.netalert.gov.au/filters.html

It's a free government sponsored internet filter...and it's the first response on google when searching for internet filter.

What this isn't enough?!

no, because it isn't about filtering the internet for people who want their internet filtered, it is now about filtering the internet for everyone regardless of what they want.

lol ross
you're a cracker

i know, first plasmas and now this!

he sure is good for a roffle

It only takes a SMALL handful of people to make enough noise for the government to take action.

In essence it can take only 1 person writing a stack load of letters and whatnot to get something done.

Don't think that several thousand people are writing into the Government to get net filtering, it would probably far fewer.

The free filter didn't work because of the response of forums like this. You guys rubbished it as ineffectual instead of getting behind it and promoting it to your gumbie friends and family

A free voluntary government Internet filter. Did you install it on your parents PC? Did you recommend it to work colleges complaining about online porn and their children? No u posted 'f***ing waste of money' in your circle jerk echo chamber and now your nets going to be censored at the tap.

It was just a hundred million dollars, a small price to pay for uncensored net in my view

The free filter didn't work because of the response of forums like this.

Get f***ed.

It failed because it didn't work. It was rubbished in the media because a 12 year old bypassed it in 30 seconds. The noise made on some forums by some 30 year old virgins doesn't have any effect on the real world.

The free filter didn't work because of the response of forums like this. You guys rubbished it as ineffectual instead of getting behind it and promoting it to your gumbie friends and family

A free voluntary government Internet filter. Did you install it on your parents PC? Did you recommend it to work colleges complaining about online porn and their children? No u posted 'f***ing waste of money' in your circle jerk echo chamber and now your nets going to be censored at the tap.

My boss installed it on his kids PC and he said it's great. So yes it does work for some people, no filters will ever be perfect. But then that's not what we're talking about here now is it.

hahaha jim gets it:)

I never said the technology would work or be benificial I am just saying that such attempts to regulate the internet will always occur. Hopefully through the original ethics of DRM and enforcing a classification system. I also only voted for rudd by 'proxy'!

the previous government already investigated a universal internet filtering scheme and discovered that it would be too expensive, too slow, and almost completely ineffective

i guess the new guys have decided that that's better than nothing

new guys being labor ? Kevin f***ing Rudd .... god damn this pisses me off so much that they are looking into this again (glad I didn't vote labor and never EVER will unless they can prove that they wont blow the budget out and then liberal comes in and makes all the money back) . So much for a free world but then if it was free I suppose we wouldn't be living under a centralized banking system but that a whole other rant :)

Ok i feel slightly better I got that out of the system ... :)

natslovr the special touch of hilarity with your posts of this nature, is that you do a pretty tidy job of coming across as though your self-delusion is a complete success

A free voluntary government Internet filter. Did you install it on your parents PC? Did you recommend it to work colleges complaining about online porn and their children? No u posted 'f***ing waste of money' in your circle jerk echo chamber and now your nets going to be censored at the tap.

i think it would be hard to find a person who actually wanted this product but didn't know it was out there after the carpet bombing of mailboxes about its release.

why would i install it on my parent's PC? they are adults and can view what they want.

FFS. why does labor f*** up everything when they get in?

you were like 6 the last time there was a labour power, what would you know

infi told her about it

it's just common sense. look they love to get their grubby little mits on every minute part of our daily lives and TELL US they know how to make decisions better.

GET f***ED RUDD AND STAY THE f*** AWAY FROM MY INTERNET (MORE SPECIFICALLY PORN AND TORRENTS)

if thise does go through it will be exactly the same as with their other f***ed up laws that dont work such as:

3am lockout - apparently they are thinking about closing clubs earlier because the 3am lockout hasnt stopped fights (or whatever the excuse was they used)

alco price rise - there has been no decrease in alco consumption/ binge drinking / fighting etc so now they are thinking about putting the price of bottles of spirites up

these are f***ed up rules that dont help anyone and are enevitably just going to get stricter and stricter due to the fact that they in no way or form help with the problem they are trying to fix...

first it will b "porn" for kids, then torrents, then whatever the f*** they want because the filter won't be stopping whatever they are trying to stop

alco price rise - there has been no decrease in alco consumption/ binge drinking / fighting etc so now they are thinking about putting the price of bottles of spirites up

pretty sure those wonderful independants and the coalition of the swigging are knocking this one back in the senate.

on a related note, have labor wound back the workchoices system that they were elected to wind back?

3am lockout was state government.

on a related note, have labor wound back the workchoices system that they were elected to wind back?

no they actually wound it forward, much to the disgust of the unions who campaigned to get them elected.

the only things they have effectively wound back were AWAs and unfair dismissal for between 15 and 100 employee workplaces.

the rest of workchoices has either been retained or even beefed up. Conned again...

The worst thing about this isn't going to be our torrents getting f***ed with, or our internet slowing down, or anything else like that.

The worst thing about this is that there are actually people out there who think this is a good idea, and it will help people, and that they seemingly greatly outnumber us.

Yes fpot, I think you get it. It's because the majority of us pretty people are intelligent and wise. The moronic f***wits on the qgl forum are exactly that!

Ross why don't you go back to sniffing your own farts or whatever you social elites are good at doing...

hahaha i am elite! Thank you for your apology!

props to infi for the south park reference

and get a prius while ur at it.

whoever voted for rudd should get the policy while the rest of us remain free of itm since those who voted were the ones that fkn wanted it.

this is bulls*** and defiantly something i would protest against if they try to impose this s*** on me. the internet is the the peoples broadcaster! one of the only way that anyone can openly communicate there ideas to anyone that wants to listen and be truly free.

interweb nerds unite and stop this bulls***.

whoever voted for rudd should get the policy while the rest of us remain free of itm since those who voted were the ones that fkn wanted it.

Ah, democracy, isn't it great.

To quote the great Ross

protect the majority at the sake of a few freedoms

Sigh.

I DRIVE A PRIUS!

So basically some old farts are going to make Australias internet, which is ALREADY slow compared to most other countries -- slower -- because our cyber police are too s*** to track down some CP?

no thx.

because our cyber police are too s*** to track down some CP?

No, the filters have nothing to do with child porn or other highly illegal content. Like others have stated, this stuff isn't avaliable to the general public... kids aren't accidently stumbling onto kiddie porn, never has happened, never will.

They're doing it because nobody takes responsibility anymore for their children and would rather the government take control.

i think it's more because the g'ment are pandering to vocal minority interest groups

oh you mean family's with internet as the minority! what was I thinking!

Why can't those families install a netnanny Ross?

Because they are f***ing retard ignorant f***s that want the government to babysit their kids for them.

I think what infuriates most people is that the general f***tards are the ones calling the shots yet they don't know s***. If they knew and understood yet they still wanted it to go on ahead then I think I'll be a little less annoyed.

So what you guys are saying is, if they are able to develop a system that does not effect you in anyway but stopped people from gaining access to content they would not be allowed to view through any other medium you would still be against it?

I think what infuriates most people is that the general f***tards are the ones calling the shots yet they don't know s***. If they knew and understood yet they still wanted it to go on ahead then I think I'll be a little less annoyed.

If they knew, they wouldn't want it to go on

So what you guys are saying is, if they are able to develop a system that does not effect you in anyway but stopped people from gaining access to content they would not be allowed to view through any other medium you would still be against it?

sure if they can do the impossible, but it isn't going to happen.

for example, how is this filter system going to stop pedo rings that use email with encrypted mail attachments from doing their thing? or is encryption going to be outlawed too.

how about we just drop our pc's into the police station once a week to get probed?

I don't think the idea of it is stopping pedos? But either way you should be f***ing outraged that they even want to add any type of censorship to the last bastille of true freedom of speech available to everyone world wide!

The internet circumvents all political doctrine and allows people to organise and mobilise themselves to cause real change. Online blogging sites are almost single handedly bringing about reform of Egypts 30 year old 'State of Emergency' and totalitarian government.

The internet is a lot of things to a lot of people but to some it is their only means of expression and communication. The reason for the interwebs success is because of its freedom, not in spite of it. What scares me as that this becomes more and more of a problem for corrupt regime's more severe measures will be taken to block and filter its content.

We already see it in Saudi Arabia where beatings, burnouts and murder are commonplace for anti-establishment content being posted in Arabic. It is actually starting to switch percentages of their population to English as it is not policed by the state.

I think we have lost entirely enough civil liberty's in my short life time and it makes my blood boil that even now in our age of enlightenment people still fear what they don't understand.

http://i440.photobucket.com/albums/qq125/dmjrx/Rudmasterbate.jpg

I just want to punch it.

you mean dick punch it

lol ravn0s.

What happens is that when a connection is made to go to a https site, its the filter device that actually makes the connection to the https site, then because the device is setup with a CA signing authority, it can resign the content and send them it on to you, so its all encrypted ,except for on the device it self.

This way the device can see what you are doing in a HTTPS connection. Its pretty easy to tell this is happening because the secure connection is now signed by a different CA than it used to be. Most people wouldnt notice though.

Seems pretty dodgy for this to be happening for any connection that goes out from australia, they would need some serious hardware to handle the load, and I reckon it would be way slower.

lol wat? why would you trust a CA that would openly let people run mim attacks. maybe some CAs let certain people run MIM attacks a very small amount of time but a CA letting the government run MIM attacks for filtering would kill its business model.

last edited by hast at 00:46:24 19/Oct/08

Guys just for the record all Ross is doing is trolling. He doesn't really mean any of the bulls*** he is saying you can all stop responding.

do you mean just in this thread, or everything he's ever said?

or maybe you're trolling fpot and he does mean everything

think about that!!

Either way he is retarded.

to all those people tlaking about the proxy server being able to read your banking information by exchanging a signed certificate on your behalf... check this out

https://blog.startcom.org/?p=125

it's very real and is happening every day 'in the wild'

Yeah and what's more, while Australia's internet crumbles...

Australian broadband ‘too slow, costly, limited’
17th October 2008, 6:15 WST

One of Silicon Valley’s pioneers, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, has blasted Australian home broadband services as too expensive and restrictive.

Speaking in Perth yesterday, he criticised download-limited contracts with prices that far outstripped the unlimited broadband plans on offer in the US.

“It seems like all internet plans of all the companies are kind of limited here. I don’t like that,” he said.

Mr Wozniak said even “high-use” monthly plans, which typically cap downloads at around 30 gigabytes, did not offer consumers a good deal.

“I have a lot of friends who would shriek at that and say ‘it’s not enough for me’,” he said.

Monthly prices and limits vary widely between Australia’s 700 wireless broadband providers. Netspace offers a 120GB limit for $109.95 per month, while Optus charges $99.99 for its monthly 30GB plan.

Source

Money is used else where.

Lara Sinclair | October 16, 2008

TELSTRA, one of the nation's biggest advertisers, plans to seek millions from taxpayers to make a film featuring the father and son characters from its BigPond "Rabbits" commercials.
Independent producers have blasted the plan, saying it would be "totally inappropriate" for a company that size to seek government support for its marketing activities.

It's understood that ideas for the film script, which would promote Telstra's BigPond internet brand, include having Daniel, the son in the popular commercial, look on the internet for a suitable wife for Patrick, his father.

An advertising representative for Telstra -- which was Australia's third-biggest advertiser last year, with a budget of more than $130 million -- said the telco would approach all the federal and state funding bodies for help to keep its costs on the movie "as low as possible".

Source Again...

I really start to wonder what has Australia got left to offer? Oh that's right we've got lots of coal and yellow cake. Pardon me while I play juggle the live hand grenade and have a cup of 'Yep, we sure are a lucky country'.

There goes another 130 million that could of been used for infrastructure projects and getting past phone black spots.

last edited by trog at 16:47:08 20/Oct/08

i love krudd

what's your link sposed to be to scorp

hey jim, it's a link on how much Man in the middle attacks happen and explains how they can happen even when using signed certs... gives an example of a big shot reporter being MTM'ed to...

please goto here http://www.chineselinuxuniversity.net/articles/16248.shtml and there is a link on the bottom 'original link' please click that, i'm not sure why i cant paste it here and have it work :( (it links to this? https://blog.startcom.org/?p=125)

oh I see why heh
it's our silly forum auto-url-formatting thing, breaking the https link

id vote green (or even liberal) for these guys

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/technology/internet-filter-hits-hurdle/2008/10/30/1224956286825.html

The Greens have added their voice to Coalition concerns about the plan, with the Greens' communications spokesman calling the proposal "daft".

kruddler must be stopped!

the one thing he decides to do instead of holding a summit on it, and he f***s it up. oh and the bank guarantee.

The people of Australia voted for him so therefore they can't complain. The people get what the people deserve.

i dont remember him telling me about this before i voted for him though:

you didn't read the fine print did you?

no :(

i dont remember him telling me about this before i voted for him though:

I remember him hinting about it and it made me panic. We can all jump up and down and cry about but we are the ones to blame. We voted him in and so we have to pay the price. If you think the libs will scrap it if they get voted back in don't be surprised if they don't.

well Howard was a social conservative so it wouldn't have surprised me if he eventually proposed something. rudd is just howard lite.

last edited by infi at 18:00:40 31/Oct/08

well Howard was a social conservative so it would have surprised me if he eventually proposed something. rudd is just howard lite.

Howard was to focused on smashing the unions to care about the internet. Rudd is just plain scary and the people of Australia should stand up to this sort of thing. But sadly given how anyone who protests in this country is labeled a bludger or my fav unaustralian I can't see it happening.

what are you talking about you dirty ape! We are the most argumentative bunch in the world. Our f***ing question time is like a grade school play ground. Dunno what f***ing country you think you live in.

so what is this limited interwebs everyone speaks of ?? :D

i don't know but i just had an awesome drumstick choc icecream... I WIN.

Also mentioned, there is no k-mart for kiddy porn. As in there isn't a one stop website for it. The websites change frequently, if they use websites at all. Most of it goes through protocols that aren't even filtered. And most of them are smart enough to be able to set up a simple proxy to bypass the filter anyway..

Why do you know so much about this? sus...

you didn't read the fine print did you?

it wasn't on his facebook profile.

Also mentioned, there is no k-mart for kiddy porn. As in there isn't a one stop website for it. The websites change frequently, if they use websites at all. Most of it goes through protocols that aren't even filtered. And most of them are smart enough to be able to set up a simple proxy to bypass the filter anyway..

Why do you know so much about this? sus...

Anyone that knows anything about kiddy porn knows that. Or anything that is actually criminally illegal on the Internet.

Its a stupid idea...

But the cynic in me tells me that Rudd is too "media aware" to not know the outcome of this... which makes me wonder what he is really pushing under the radar somewhere.

Pedos are going to be the most vocal supporters of this mandatory filtering as they KNOW that their supply of child pornography won't be shut off. Those that haven't been caught out over their desire for kiddie love can publicly and vocally back the mandatory filtering as it diverts suspicion from them in the eyes of the average punter.

You'll see them on the news discussing how important it is, and how the small hit to net speed we may see will be insignificant compared to the benefit of protecting the children. They'll cast dispersions on those opposing it and say things like "Many parents are concerned on how easy it is for children to access harmful content" and "The government does not believe that children using the Internet should be exposed to this material" in a sincere voice to try and trick you in to thinking they are anti-child porn.

But i'm not falling for it. I won't let my kids anywhere near anyone that supports this proposal for that very reason... and I won't vote for them either!


last edited by natslovR at 22:14:56 31/Oct/08

that's ah... a different spin on the debate

just heard they hate this entire thing and its the f***wit communications minister pushing for it and acting like a republican on all the criticism of it. They are dumping him at the end of the year.

please tell me you're being serious

Thread tl;dr, can someone just tell me what exactly is going to be filtered?

Thread tl;dr, can someone just tell me what exactly is going to be filtered?

Anna Bligh was quoted on the news "Illegal things like euthanasia and anorexia web sites"..

f*** it, those are two of my favourite things

Yep completely serious, there is nothing to worry about.

There is plenty to worry about.

nope and krudd has never actually commented on this scheme yet, other than to say 'we are looking at it'. Stephen Conroy as fallen from grace on this issue which is a bit of a shame because a lot of his other policy's are pretty good!

From crikey.com.au:

"I reckon he’s just going through the motions with Coonan’s timetable to keep Family First Senator Steve Fielding happy. Fielding’s Senate vote is desperately needed for other matters, as is überpopulist Nick Xenophon’s — a man who knows the value of words like “kiddie p-rn” in stirring the voters’ emotions. Until that much-anticipated double dissolution election, anyway, after which Conroy can renegotiate with the somewhat-more-rational Greens."

bet all the internet companies are s***ting themselves if there is no opt out service available.

no1 will need half their plans, im pretty sure i wont need my 60gb a month if i cant even use it, so there goes my $80 and im sure alot of others will b the same.

shares will plumet and heaps of isp will go broke.

anorexia web sites"

i mean wtf.. Anna tries taking titties from our beloved indy and now she is trying to take informative sites to allow girls to be skinny :(

no1 will need half their plans, im pretty sure i wont need my 60gb a month if i cant even use it, so there goes my $80 and im sure alot of others will b the same.

What the f*** are you talking about?!
You won't need 60gig because you won't have access to kiddy porn?
AFAIK it doesn't stop peer-peer file sharing, which is where you'd get the majority of your downloads from. And you can opt out for porn sites etc (I mean imagine the uproar if the government took away people's porn?)
Personally I don't think much is going to change, other than speed and access to web-pages will be restricted oh and cost of plans. (Which is more than enough for my outrage)

Edit: I am still outraged, but I don't think it's going to affect people's usages to the degree Scoobs is making out.

last edited by Fireblood at 16:14:37 01/Nov/08

well, we cant opt out of all filtering and thats why im outraged;

i dont want ANYBODY telling me what i can or cant see: (even petal doesnt bother telling me not to look at norty stuff aynmore)

It really sickens me that when my wife and I get back to aus in the future I will have to contend with this s***. Why in the f*** would I need to get the government to censor my kids internet feed, when I can do it myself. For about the cost of pulling down what ever firewall distro flavour of the month and a cdr would be under a $1

To quote John C. McGinleys line from clerks "If they took all the porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called: bringbacktheporn.com"

Seriously why hasn't Rudd told the masses to start burning looms..... On a different note I wonder what effect having the brakes pulled on Australia's broadband would have on an international stage.

I would be happy to throw up a couple of proxies

last edited by HerbalLizard at 18:33:19 01/Nov/08

What the f*** are you talking about?!
You won't need 60gig because you won't have access to kiddy porn?

pretty sure i read that it cuts ur speed down by a pretty big percentage, so... i wont even b able to download 60gb worth of s*** even if i leave it on 24/7


Cant wait to see the
"You are not allowed to visit this stite, due to this site not complying with Australian goverment standards"

pretty sure i read that it cuts ur speed down by a pretty big percentage, so... i wont even b able to download 60gb worth of s*** even if i leave it on 24/7

Again..like wtf

I can download at up to 1-1.5/meg a second.
Even if the download speed was a quarter of that, its still 375kb/sec which is HEAPS more than you need to download 60 gig a month comfortably.
So you could download 60 gig in roughly 46 hours, so 1.5 hours a day over the course of the month?

If your on dialup or ADSL1....well suck s***!

The people of Australia voted for him so therefore they can't complain. The people get what the people deserve.

Don't be a dick, they can complain and they should.

I'd love to see a politician that people will agree with on 100% of their policies. There are just never enough candidates and parties to ensure statistically that you'll ever agree with one completely. Just have to pick the one that is aligned with your views the most.

Anyway, zdnet has a good video on 3 ISPs opinions - worth a watch:

- Vid Link -


last edited by parabol at 11:34:12 02/Nov/08

Even if the download speed was a quarter of that

arent they talking about it cutting down the speed by up to 70%? pretty sure that will rape ur little 1meg/s

arent they talking about it cutting down the speed by up to 70%? pretty sure that will rape ur little 1meg/s

yeah so: 100% - 70% = 30%, 30% > 25% (1/4)

That said....I am still pissed, and have sent a letter off to the communications minster - have you? or are you just happy to sit around and complain about over-inflated problems?

If your on dialup or ADSL1....well suck s***!

Well f*** you too Fireblood. It's not my fault my phoneline doesn't have enough copper wires and I missed out on cable by one house.

Well f*** you too Fireblood. It's not my fault my phoneline doesn't have enough copper wires and I missed out on cable by one house.

wow that was a quick ban!
Well ADSL1 has a max of 384k/b from memory. so ....96k/b (1/4). Still usable, just means your back in the dark ages of australian internet

wow that was a quick ban!

Not long enough if you ask me.

Well ADSL1 has a max of 384k/b from memory. so ....96k/b (1/4). Still usable, just means your back in the dark ages of australian internet

Really? then tpg is ripping me off. Max speed is 150kb/s. 70% off would reduce it to 45kb/s. That's not usable for a household with 4+ computers.

i'm no internets expert - but surely an X percent reduction in speed at the ISP's router where the filter would be, doesn't necessarily mean an X percent reduction in your speed

or is this a troll, i can never tell these days

wouldn't the isp's transfer that reduction in speed to the customers?

not if they wanted to keep some customers

Really? then tpg is ripping me off. Max speed is 150kb/s.

You're probably on 1500k plan yeah?

Yeah I am but the point is if this goes through I'll be sent back to s***ty 512 speeds. Not fair!

^ Totally
Send them a letter! They are old school, net petitions don't work!

Dont worry everyone.
The Greens wont support it.
The pokies Senator will only support it if they ban Overseas online Casinos.

This Bill is D.O.A.

greens are a pretend party to make hippies happy... their opinion doesnt count in real life

Mark Newton from Internode is a f***ing cainer

Mark Newton from Internode is a f***ing cainer

:D

I like his style

The ALP are complete pussies. Get them into a debate and they have absolutely nothing to say. No matter what comes out of their mouth, there's a strong, certain, factually true rebuttal that drills them back into the floor. Despite all the bluster, despite all the certainty, despite all the cries of "won't somebody think of the children"...

... these people have literally nothing to say.

I present to you the new rules of the internet...
http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/3811/1225530073562gt4.jpg
#8 made me laugh

last edited by DM at 23:36:29 04/Nov/08

I get the feeling Conroy is not a technical 'luddite' wrt broadband delivery and in particular the mechanisms used at the carrier level. As a _compulsory thing_ the whole proposal is pretty ridiculous and anybody should see that.

I mean nothing's happened in the telco arena for yonks, this FTTN thing has been on a holding pattern for years, the only improvement were the speed upgrades to 8/~1 and 20/1 for wholesale customers, and this was fundamentally a result of Telstra upgrading a bunch of core routers (don't let any whingepool rep tell you otherwise).

Let's see how long the talk lasts before anything actually happens..

So can someone informed tell me the chances of this filter coming into place?

1:100

Rudd is a devout Christian and speaks Mandarin. Can he be any more obvious that he would like your internet to be nothing more than a government run religious channel?

So once again, I blame religion.

awesome find troggles, im going to post the best bit in its entirity:

I wrote to my local member for Adelaide Kate Ellis and voiced my opinion.
I received a reply from her assistant saying that Kate's position was essentially to agree with Conroy.

... which brings me to my meeting with Ms. Ellis this morning.

It was originally going to be at 1pm, but they rescheduled to 10:30am late last week. No problem.

I prepared a meeting plan before I went in. I only had 20 minutes to make my case, and needed to make sure that I'd be able to make all the important points I needed to make.

Ms. Ellis was running on time, and I was escorted into the boardroom of her Main North Road office by an aide. We greeted, sat down, and got down to business.

"You've obviously read my letter, can we perhaps start with you describing your position on the issue?"

She parroted the Labor Party line. Child pornography, illegal material, election promise, the whole nine yards.

I started with the illegal material vector: Debunking that meme is easy, we've done it in here dozens of times already. Conroy referred to the ACMA Prohibited Content list as his "illegal material," but that list was originally intended by the previous Government to contain material unsuitable for children, and it's inappropriate to use it to censor adults. In addition to "illegal material" it contains legal RC material, X, R18+ which isn't behind an adult verification service, and some MA15+ material. It also contains content which, in the opinion of some faceless ACMA bureaucrat, would be classified into one of those buckets by the OFLC if they ever saw it, which they won't, because overseas content often isn't submitted for classification and the list is secret.

I also addressed the election promise issue: The Government took a different policy to the election, one that said the clean-feed would be modeled on the UK system, and would be opt-out. The system Conroy is pushing at the moment has no electoral mandate, and implementing mandatory censorship for adults is a violation of an election promise.

That brought us onto talking about the UK. Unbelievably, Ms. Ellis mentioned the examples that Conroy keeps banging on about, which have been roundly debunked and discredited.

So I debunked and discredited them again: UK Government prohibited from censorship by their Communications Act, BT has privately implemented an opt-in blacklist in conjunction with IWF. Swedish Government isn't involved in content, Telenor has privately implemented an opt-in blacklist, which has shown itself to be an example of scope creep since last year when the Swedish Police pressured Telenor to add BT tracker sites as child porn. Canada has a private opt-in system with 8 ISPs teaming up with the child exploitation hotline, which specifically states in the project's FAQ that there's no legal obligation to participate and that ISPs may have "technical or other reasons" for declining to use the scheme; And New Zealand, where my discussions with the President of InternetNZ last week yielded confirmation that there's no Government censorship at all, and no desire to implement it within either of their major parties.

I went on with the 8 independent points against it: No problem to solve, no public demand to solve it, Government's proposed solutions won't work, even if they worked they're unreliable, even if they were reliable they're too expensive, even if they were affordable they'll be implemented by the same class of scope-creeping bureaucrats who decided Mr. Haneef was a terrorist, even if they could be implemented perfectly the blacklist would leak, and when a perfect blacklist leaks it'll enable child exploitation all over the planet, with the direct assistance of the Commonwealth of Australia and Senator Stephen Conroy.

Ms. Ellis had, by now, worked out that I wasn't there to be persuaded by her, and asked for something she could take to the Minister that he could work with. That was actually "stage 2" on my meeting plan, so I was happy to move on to it.

I pointed out that the Internet Industry Association already runs a list of "Family Friendly ISPs" which offer clean feed services to customers all over Australia, so the Government could talk itself down from this disastrous policy by sending out a flurry of press about how their wondrous policy has solved the problem, and here's how you can choose to avail yourself of mandatory clean feeds with voluntary opt-outs from the following ISPs. The budgeted $44m could be spent on publicizing those services to educate consumers.

Ms. Ellis said the Government was more interested in governing than press releases. Which brought me to the press, wherein I quoted the results of half a dozen or so polls on the subject: Sunrise, Andrew Bolt's column in the Herald Sun, SMH Blogs, DERRYN HINCH FERCHRISSAKES! I pointed out that I'd never seen a single issue at any time in Australian politics which had so polarized the Australian electorate against their Government.

Ms. Ellis said the policy wasn't going to be controlled by opinion polls; I retorted that any sensible implementation of Government policy needs to start with the identification of a need and a desire on the part of the electorate to satisfy that need, and the Government had failed to satisfy either of those burdens.

My 20 minutes was almost up by this stage, so I moved on to the last bit of my meeting plan, namely Mr. Conroy's professional conduct. I expressed the view that Conroy was behaving disgracefully by labeling his opponents, whether they're voters or Senators, as child abusers. I also said it was utterly outrageous, and beneath the dignity of his Office, to inappropriately place pressure on my employer to quell my criticisms.

Ms. Ellis claimed that she had no detailed knowledge of that, which I found a bit stunning because I'd included a reference to it in the cover sheet on the faxed copy of my letter. So I filled her in on the details.

My final point for the meeting was a request to have Ms. Ellis convey to Sen. Conroy my demand for a written apology for the outrageous abuse of power he'd committed against me.

And that was it. We shook hands, said our farewells, and Ms. Ellis' aide showed me out.

Did the meeting meet my expectations? Yes. Ms. Ellis is on the front bench, and she didn't get there by criticizing ALP policies. Her acquiescence to my points was never on the cards.

However:

She was unknowingly parroting the same factual errors that Conroy uses every time he opens his mouth on this issue. It's obvious that there's a set of talking points that has been distributed around the Parliamentary Labor Party, and no matter which member you talk to they'll say the same things.

Those same things are easy targets, low-hanging fruit. Because they've so completely failed to educate themselves on the facts of this issue, they're absolutely simple to demolish.

There was nothing Ms. Ellis said at the meeting that couldn't be drilled into the floor by the factual data I'd footnoted in my letter.

(and I'll be following up the meeting with another letter drawing attention to that fact, and suggesting that she forward my footnotes to ALP policy hacks so that they can replace their current talking points with true ones)

The overwhelming impression I walked away with is that the ALP members who support this policy don't know what they're talking about. They haven't researched it, they don't understand the existing law, they don't understand the scope of what they're proposing; It seems that they actually believe the talking points because they don't know any better.

And that makes our job easy.

The ALP are complete pussies. Get them into a debate and they have absolutely nothing to say. No matter what comes out of their mouth, there's a strong, certain, factually true rebuttal that drills them back into the floor. Despite all the bluster, despite all the certainty, despite all the cries of "won't somebody think of the children"...

... these people have literally nothing to say.

– mark

Rudd is a devout Christian

What religion allows me to go to strip joints in the US?!@

You posted the whole thing.....

he said lots of things matty

mark newtons letter to ms ellis

http://users.on.net/~newton/ellis-2008-10-20.pdf

^ lol that's one of the few resubbed versions of that scene that actually gets funnier further into it.

from todays ping newsletter

"The participation of industry is crucial to providing evidence on the real-world impacts for ISP content filtering, including on ISPs and their customers," the government document, released yesterday, says.

ISPs have until December 8 to submit their applications.

Ms Ashelford pointed to technical weaknesses with the EOI, one example being that the live pilot would limit users to a maximum of 12Mbps.

"Many users exceed 12Mbps right now. Some national broadband network proposals have involved technology that provides speeds up to 50Mbps.

The more I hear about this, the more likely I believe that this will happen.

ISPs have until December 8 to submit their applications.

Does that mean sometime next month this god awful thing will be going live?

great link trog/spook

So if no one sumbits, it won't go ahead?

Im sure there will be ways around it...

Like encrypting s*** to fool filters and;
or remote viewing of some sort from an overseas server.

I read somewhere today that IINET is onboard for the trial, and that they are on board so they can make public every single incident where a kid gets around the filter and every single incident where the filter blocks legitimate content.

From whirlpool:

Senator Conroy did not shy away from the opportunity for future expansion of the blacklist when speaking to the ABC. "So in terms of what some of the senators want to claim should be included on the blacklist, I'm sure that when we get to the debates down the track, if it proves to be technically feasible, there'll be a whole range of people with a whole range of demands about what should be on the blacklist", he said.

Seriously, f*** that. Scope creep indeed ... every party and religious/family group will be wanting to force their opinions and views on all Australians through the blacklist.

I read somewhere today that IINET is onboard for the trial, and that they are on board so they can make public every single incident where a kid gets around the filter and every single incident where the filter blocks legitimate content.

Yep, great article about it here

So apart from sending a letter to our government ministers, which according to that article:

Despite significant opposition from internet providers, consumers, engineers, network administrators and online rights activists, the Government is pressing ahead with its election promise of protecting people from unwanted material

Doesn't seem to be doing anything, what can we do?

Go back in time and vote for a better government

all i need is a flux capacitor then im set

oh why did i vote for this :(

I'm amazed that this isn't getting more media attention?

I guess no one wants to have the finger pointed at them and called a pedo.

Really comes down to the wrong generation in charge of something they dont fully understand.

very true jake

i blame the old people;

ive never been closer to calling in on sunrise this morning when they were discussing this to tell them how bad an idea it was, but then i went for a s*** instead;

but then i went for a s*** instead;

you cant multitask?

were the people on sunrise for or against it?

last edited by ravn0s at 12:20:26 13/Nov/08

They had a talk on Sunrise about this a few weeks ago and Kochie was a noob - saying he was all for the filter even though his guest speakers were telling him it was s*** and giving examples.

I guess no one wants to have the finger pointed at them and called a pedo.

You don't have to be a pedo to not want your internet slowed by anywhere up to 86% on top of many other things that will happen if this gets introduced

im not about to go cruising for kiddy pron, i just dont want some old dude who is affraid of technology controlling what websites i can to

or being able to go to whatever websites i want and having a massive speed hit and seeing my tax dollars wasted on a retarted service that wont/doesnt work

f*** this i'm moving back to texas.

its cool though, i will get my army of mexicans to download the internet onto DVDs to send back to you guys.

Censorship in the UAE

Sorry I think you guys misinterperated me. I meant that the knobs who want the censorship will just call everyone pedo's instead of actually listening to the arguments.

Ok I won't say it then

last edited by natslovR at 14:09:04 13/Nov/08

last edited by natslovR at 14:30:19 13/Nov/08

that's disgraceful and defamatory.

I wouldn't mind it if you could Opt Out and not have it affect the performance of your connection if you do opt out.

also

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people," Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. "As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

Phooks that had me in tears, thanks mate

http://kimmo.suominen.com/docs/proxy-through-ssh/

infi I take back everything I have ever said in praise of the labour party.

we unwittingly elected (well I didn't) chairman (gulag) rudd. Next will be an "enabling act" to deal with the crisis of climate change.

I will help you campaign for liberal next election. This is f***ed beyond belief.

The reason rudd talks about "dark times ahead", and all the other crisis s*** he bangs on about is purely to whip up emotion and disarm reason.

I wouldn't mind it if you could Opt Out

You mean you wouldn't mind if you could Opt In, right?

Off by default, ability to turn it on if you desire. This is assuming it will work as effectively as advertised, which will not be the case.

Off by default, ability to turn it on if you desire.

See now THAT is an idea that would be fine by everyone I would assume. Parents who are too lazy to watch their kids (or just simply move the PC into the living room) on the internet could ask their ISP to turn the filter on and there you go, no more CP which apparently is eaiser to gain access to than it is to download an mp3. Read that Internode isn't participating with this trail either so PHEW... i'm safe at least for now from the evil filtering demons

List of Fail so far:

1. Alcopops farce
2. F00l-Watch
3. Leaving Pensioners out of the Budget
4. Increasing the First Home-Buyers Grant to $21k .. will do f*** all
5. Chucking 6 billion at the Car Industry that will collapse anyway
6. Wasting 128 million on Internet Censorship that hasnt worked anywhere else.

Looks like 1 term for Ruddles

7. Wasting 1.2 billion on school computers when a) the schools can't afford to keep running them b) every kid already has a computer at home c) they are not useful for academic learning and will mainly be used for games and porn d_ will be obsolete in 2 years

last edited by Le Cock at 09:29:31 14/Nov/08

not only can't afford to run but it may not even be possible to run power to every desk.

The longer in opposition the less in touch with reality.

It's just a cycle.. like the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening, like the El Nino coming every 7 years, like putting up Easter merchandise in Janurary, like Blizz needing a cash injection every 2yrs and releasing an 'expansion' .. and like the Liberal government building up a surplus just for the labor government to piss it all away into the wind.

I wouldn't mind it if you could Opt Out and not have it affect the performance of your connection if you do opt out.

I think you should still mind it, because its tax dollars doing the job that parents should be doing, and law enforcement is already doing, and quite well/much better than an existing thing. A few hundred million tax dollars would buy quite a lot of other useful s***.

yes money would be good to give everyone FTTH!!!

More good coverage from The Australian: Book burning in the digital age:

And mandatory ISP filtering has so many holes that you could drive a Leopard tank through them and stop to rotate the turret 360 degrees along the way.

If you don’t believe me, then go and have a look at this web site. The Onion Router – TOR in the parlance of propeller heads - is a quick and free download and once it’s running, you’ll never have to worry again about ISP filtering because the ISP won’t be able to see where you’re traveling on the web.

Now if a 40-something web user can sort that out in five minutes, how long do you think it will take a 16 year-old with testosterone coursing through his veins and an urgent need in the trouser area for some pornography?

16 year-old with testosterone coursing through his veins and an urgent need in the trouser area for some pornography?

Reporting in.

More good coverage from The Australian: Book burning in the digital age:

That article failed to mention my 28-yr old testosterone cursing veins with an urgent need in the trouser area for some pornography!@%

I TOLD YOU SO !

http://tinyurl.com/8ogfr6

THE Federal Government's controversial internet censorship plan may extend to filter more web activity than first thought, Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy revealed today.
In a post on his department's blog, Senator Conroy today said technology that could filter data sent directly between computers would be tested as part of the upcoming live filtering trial.

"Technology that filters peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic does exist and it is anticipated that the effectiveness of this will be tested in the live pilot trial," Senator Conroy said.

Peer-to-peer file-sharing technology is the most common way for web users to share video, picture and music files between computers over the internet.

The REAL reason for Web Filtering has now been revealed !
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAA

last edited by FaceMan at 17:30:36 22/Dec/08

i don't see how they can feasibly filter it, unless they mean all or nothing.

Peer-to-peer file-sharing technology is the most common way for Pedophiles and copyright infringers to share video, picture and music files between computers over the internet.

Thats what they really want to say isn't it??? Don't know why they don't just write that in the article

Peer-to-peer file-sharing technology is the most common way for web users to share video, picture and music files between computers over the internet.

Why can't they just admit they are doing this to try and stop piracy? Of course trying to do this is retarded as you will never be able to make something that is pirate proof. They will always find a way to share files and such. Want to reduce piracy? Make products that are worth buying. Simple.

i don't see why they don't just ban pedophilia. surely thats easier.

effectiveness of filtering ssl?

good luck with that

If this happens and you are caught by record companies sharing then it becomes a criminal offence. They will send you to prison.

The Movie/TV/Music companies must be so excited about this.
Its going to be a merry christmas for them.

last edited by FaceMan at 17:41:48 22/Dec/08

whens all this s*** starting :(

If you're with internode scoobs then never. Well at least until (if) this becomes law

HA!

I bet you Senator Conroy's department is getting BIG $'s from Big Media (in some form!) to filter peer-to-peer.

The Big Media couldn't do it via bullying ISP's directly, so they went above the ISP's heads and getting the government to do it. Hence being mandatory and no-opt out option.

No amount of logical arguments from people is going to change it, Big $'s trumps logical thinking.

People will whinge, the policy will be put in place, it will look bad for the government as lots are against it. Senator Conroy can be stepped down, making the people somewhat happy with the government but the filter will remain and Krudd's government gets lots of incentive from Big Media.

That's my take. I hope I'm very very wrong about it all.

I'm only worried about the performance impact this will have on surf the net. If I need to do anything and its blocked by the filter, I'll encrypt the traffic and it will be ignored. Most torrent clients have the option to encrypt traffic these days.
Be interesting to see this in a real environment.

So all we really need to do is do a money trace that show the media companies are lining conroy's pockets and wella he will be ousted of parliament.

No it wont be that dodgy, it will be a legit exchange in some form for sure.

Thats it.
Im quitting the Internet.

Wheres my Potter books ?

Hello Liberal win on next election! Wheee!

banning videogames, censoring the internet, giving money to old people and cripples...

I'm starting to think this government hates us 16y/o males.

If you had a couple of kids by now you wouldn't be saying that, maybe its YOUR FAULT! :D

Oh, someone posted the P2P news article already. Was thinking a thread titled "When you thought Conroy couldn't get any more retarded...".

Idiot.

i really hope this fails, and then costs labor the next election

I installed and tested TOR (from trog's post above).

It's no joke - it's a very mature OSS product complete with Firefox 3 add-on to route your requests through other computers (i.e., unfiltered ones).

The main problem is speed through TOR. It downloads very slowly. Takes you back to about a 256k connection. Of course this would improve if there were more people on the TOR network.

What amused me was that my first test to Google.com ended up at Google.ca - obviously I was routed through a Californian server! Haha. Pages like Google that are localised are borked under this method - you can end up on a page in Deutsche sprache because it thinks you're in Germany. I didn't dig too deep - there is probably a solution to force English.

I'll encrypt the traffic and it will be ignored. Most torrent clients have the option to encrypt traffic these days.

Sure you can use in-program BT encryption as well as enable HTTPS for some trackers, but torrent traffic can still be identified through various types of analysis (e.g. packet timing, etc). You might be able to get around some of this by just padding all your data to produce a constant stream. Still the problem remains that you still have to connect to a tracker, which can be blocked by the ISP.

Solution? Not sure .. VPN with constant flow of data (probably the best solution). Anonymising software (like TOR) for talking to trackers? dynamic, distributed trackers (to stop them from making a blacklist)?

Still the fact remains that the people pushing for this filter have no idea.

I have been a Labour supporter from as far back as I can remember but this will certainly make me reconsider ever voting for them again. I am pretty damn sick of government trying to play mummy and daddy to the Australian public. In all fairness I don't think the Libs are any better but this internet filter is so outragously stupid I'll never support anyone that supports it.

I get the feeling that the prevailing attitude of the government (both Libs & Labour) toward the public is one of indifference. They seem to think that they are showing strong leadership when they thumb their noses at public outcry on an issue. It appears to be a case of f***em (the public) they'll get over it and I really f***ing hate that attitude, it's dismissive arogant and down right insulting. The comment "book buring in the digital age" couldn't be more accurate and fits these ignorant "dogooders" perfectly.

What really concerns me is where does this BS stop? Just another reason why moving to the USA looks so much more appealing.

Just another reason why moving to the USA looks so much more appealing.

I can assure you, the grass isn't greener there.

Just another reason why moving to the USA looks so much more appealing.

I wouldn't consider the US to exactly be a beacon of freedom nowadays though? Especially after all the domestic spying, long-term detaining, torture, insane corporate and governmental corruption (which result in really dumb laws that help the industries).

Will swing back to the Liberal Party if they promise to unplug this stupid f***ing thing.

Actually Creepy after spending more than 6 months there over the past 2 years I can quite happily say it's at least as green as it is here. I love the place or at least the part I spent all my time in.

We have things they don't have and they have things we don't have (obviously) I guess it just depends on what your priorities are.

I don't the Fed Govt really cares about P2P blocking revolt - there's way more registered voters out there than there is Linux ISO downloading BT users.

This will be Kevin Rudds WorkChoices Debacle.
John Howard 'tried it on' with WorkChoices and was thrown out.
Krudd is going to suffer because of this at the Polls.

I dont think this will get the support of the Liberals.
Its too big a vote puller.

You know Faceman I agree with that to a point. It is equally as ill concieved but it affects far fewer people.

Take a look at how both things have played out in the media.

Work Choices = You are going to get screwed as an employee. Thus grabbing a huge amount of attention within the media and general public.

Filter = Safe internet for your kids which will stop child porn.

This will gain support because most people are utterly clueless about the net and all the tech bs. Not to mention having no idea about how people such as pedo's go about doing there thing on the net.

One issue was easily understood by the general public the other is not. Tell people their wages are going to be f***ed over and they get upset.... tell the same people their net speeds will drop and they can't visit 10,000 websites they never heard of and they just shrug their sholders and walk off.


The same thing could of been said about clueless people backing the government on the gun buy back. People that actually cared about protecting their sport were hugely out numbered by clueless dicks that really didn't understand the entire arguement. All they saw was the government saying it'll save so many lives. Now years down the track we see that firearm related violence has only increased since then. (I have read the stats and they are easy to find if you would like to check for yourself).

However I believe that no matter how well informed the Australian people are it won't make f*** all difference. The reason is simply that the a******s in government honestly believe they are the only ones able to make well educated intelligent choices and we are all just peasants to be hearded like dumb cattle.


last edited by Taipan at 14:04:46 23/Dec/08

What amused me was that my first test to Google.com ended up at Google.ca - obviously I was routed through a Californian server!

haha. ever heard of CANADA - www.gc.ca

my guess is the authorities will take a dim view of tor, as soon as it becomes reasonably popular

put very simply it's a kind of proxy where the identity of the original requester cannot be traced

some jurisdictions might just put the responsibility of the request upon whoever runs the proxy

Rudd is so f***ing arrogant. "We will help you navigate the Internet safely because we know you can't do it yourself."

keep away from my internet!

I can see where this is going. First they ban "the child porn" on the grounds of... well, child pornography, then they ban P2P on the basis of piracy, child porn, and more illegal activities... then they ban online gaming on the grounds of illegal activities.
But then there'll be info out on the web on how to circumvent the filters, so that'll be grounds for banning more sites...

Hey, don't look at me, labor voters. People were saying all along Rudd wanted Australia to be more like China, but people cared more about Work Choices than their own freedoms.

Raven thats just stupid. If you think for a second the Libs wouldn't try this BS on at some point you are f***ing kidding yourself.

This isn't a Labour v's Libs thing here this is a ignorance and arogance from people in government thing.

If you want to jump on Labour about anything jump on the fact that they have been banging on about improving Australias internet thus bringing us into line with other countries. Yet they want to impose a stupid f***ing filter that is going to hamper performance now there is some hypocrisy you can bash labour for.

last edited by Taipan at 14:56:47 23/Dec/08

You think that the liberals would remove the filter if they get in?, I dont think so.

The difference here (and my main problem with Rudd) is that if you look at WorkChoices it was a policy that Howard personally believed in and introduced into law single-handedly. So he has to accept responsibility for the electoral disaster that followed.

This net filtering BS is simply another leftist Big Brother exercise being pushed by the bureaucrats and Rudd and Co. are swallowing it.

They have no f***en idea what they are buying into as they carry on their merry way with tokenism and demolishing our surplus. Argh! they are sending this country down the can.

Taipan, get off it. The Libs did the sensible thing and offered people who wanted filters the ability to download a free one from the government. The fact that some kid bypassed it when he had administrator privledges on a host and then bragged about being 31337 is beside the point. The ability was there for those that wanted it.

Labor, and note the spelling please, have come into this and are constantly changing their tune.

- It will be opt-out-able = two filters, one you can't opt out of.
- It will be for child porn only = it will now be for whatever we need to block to get minority senators on our side.
- It won't slow down the internet = 85% decrease in speeds and that still allows for 10% of errors in blocking/allowing content.

This like nearly all Labor inititives is a poorly planned and executed piece of policy. NBN is just another example of Labor failcake.

You think that the liberals would remove the filter if they get in?, I dont think so.

I think they would but until they get in we won't know. But look at Labor's track record over a year into their term and Work Choices is still around.

Way to go work-a-holic Rudd! Getting stuff done! Flying around the world getting photos taken!

last edited by ara at 15:12:54 23/Dec/08

You think that the liberals would remove the filter if they get in?, I dont think so.

the howard administration did look into a mandatory filtering scheme, and came to the conclusion that it would be too expensive, not effective enough, and slow down the internets greatly

so the liberals should remove the filter if (a) they are consistent (b) the filter is introduced and (c) the filter does indeed turn out to be a lemon

The sensible thing??? You mean they made a half hearted attempt to appease some crying minority bitches. It was a case of them wanting to be seen to be doing something without really doing anything. It doesn't even rate a mention by comparison. It quite obviously wasn't considered by them at the time to be a big issue when faced with job they did with cutting their own throats with work choices.

As I said this is not a libs v's Labor thing at all it's a case of Mummy knows f***ing best and Mummy being any arogant ignorant asshat that happens to be in power at the time. This bulls*** attitude toward the Australian public transends political parties and is centered squarely in the middle of politicians feelings of self importance.

Sadly for us though there are way to many f***ing irresponsible d*******s in this country that can't take care of themselves let alone children. That plays right in the governments Big Brother attitude.

By bringing in this filter the government is saying niether you nor I are capable of looking out for our own or our families best interests. But of course this is something we all already know. This is the issue that needs focusing on not what party is pushing it because given the right timing this would be something thats on the table for both major parties.

Insom They wouldn't remove something that was in place and up and running. Reversing s*** like that once it's brought into law isn't as easy as running a red pen through the legislation. Quite frankly I have little doubt they would bury it under a pile of "more" important issues.

You mean they made a half hearted attempt to appease some crying minority bitches.

imo that is the sensible thing.

The simple fact is this has been pushed in by more religious nuts pushing their agenda onto the masses. They don't care about feasibility or the negative effects, all they want is rule that enforces their oppressive ideals.

someone needs to throw a shoe at rudd, but actually hit him.

Cool the blacklists have been leaked from thailand and denmarks goverment filters lol

Conroy earlier likened Government's filtering plan to "successful" programs in countries including Denmark.

The federal government has distanced itself from a report that found internet censorship technology under consideration is seriously flawed.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says the Internet Industry Association (IIA) report was commissioned and paid for by the former Howard government.

It was "not an analysis of the ALP's policy", he said.

The report concluded schemes to block inappropriate content - such as child pornography - could slow the internet and result in over- and under-blocking of material.

Senator Conroy denied Labor was trialling the technology in spite of the report's negative findings.

"The government is aware of technical concerns raised in the report, and that is why we are conducting a pilot, to put these claims to the test," Senator Conroy said in a statement.

"The live pilot trial will provide evidence on the real world impacts of content filtering, including for providers and internet users.

"It will provide an invaluable opportunity for internet service providers to inform the government's approach."

The trial is due to begin in mid-January.

Senator Conroy said the IIA report simply involved reviewing existing literature and interviews and surveys.

"It involved no empirical testing of filtering technology."

The federal opposition says the Rudd government is finding it increasingly difficult to make good on its promise of an internet content filter.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy yesterday released a statement distancing himself from a report released by the Internet Industry Association (IIA) that was commissioned and paid for by the former Howard government.

The report's findings was "not an analysis of the ALP's policy" and the government's pilot trial beginning in mid-January would provide "real world" evidence on the impact of content filtering, Senator Conroy said.

Meanwhile, Opposition communications spokesman Nick Minchin said today that the filter was a repeat of the bungled handling of the national broadband network.

"Prior to the election, the now government, in opposition, made these broad-sweeping promises... to eliminate child pornography from the internet with this filter system," Senator Minchin told ABC radio.

"Now they've got to make good on their promise and they're finding it much more difficult in government of course than in opposition."

The report does identify serious issues with any attempt to impose a mandatory internet service provider filtering system that simply may not work, he said.

"It's almost technically impossible to do this."

Senator Minchin said he didn't object to the trial proceeding, but questions remained about who would be involved, whether it would involve "live" customers, and whether they will know they're involved in the trial or not.

"All I'd say is the burden of proof rests now very much with Senator Conroy to establish that this is a legitimate trial," he said.

Just to fill anyone in.

last edited by Phooks at 00:28:58 26/Dec/08

Delayed already

Original Source

The Federal Opposition says it is not surprised the Government's mandatory internet filtering trial has been delayed. The trial, which was meant to begin today, has been postponed until mid-January 2009 and the internet service providers (ISPs) who will participate will be announced at the same time. ISPs iiNet and Optus both said yesterday they had not heard anything about their applications to participate in the trial, and doubted the Government would meet its own deadline.

last edited by tequila at 09:48:49 26/Dec/08

The sensible thing??? You mean they made a half hearted attempt to appease some crying minority bitches.

yes, exactly. the sensible thing.

so, i just saw they've announced the 6 isps that are going to commence testing:

lols, what a joke, ive heard of one of them:

Primus Telecommunications

Tech 2U

Webshield

OMNIconnect

Netforce

Highway 1

http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,25040817-5014239,00.html

the tech4u website is like a journey back in time

http://www.tech2u.com.au

http://web.archive.org/web/20021125073906/http://www.tech2u.com.au/

note the scrolly text in the second one

lol @ no-name ISPs (apart from Primus)

They are probably just thrilled to be in the news ...

gg Conroy, idiot.