The Web Matters Too!

[Ellipsis]

I think many of us take for granted the free and open net that has allowed the free spread of information in most of the "Free World." Even with the presence and growth of such groups as the EFF the Web is slowly slipping into government control and regulation. Now we have something like this (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081016-net-filters-required-for-all-australians-no-opt-out.html) happening in Australia.

Many good people in government (I am sure they exist), civil rights movements and the general public are either too inept (I bet the majority even call IE "the internet") or else unappreciative of it. Today, Australia has chosen to go through their resident's web usage habits and limit them. I am sure there are many checks in place to prevent abuse, I am sure that this is just a over generalization but simply put the government( and the contractors hired to this) are blocking certain sections of the web.

Earlier this year a group of ISPs decided to stop free access to newsgroups on the basis that "all the bad people use them". I would understand if it where believed to be business decision or at least something rational from the perspective of media. Instead for the most part the media laughably called it "action" against these bad things. But it was nothing more then a PR statement because "The bad people" will adapt and either pay for the service or else move to a new medium. This did nothing to solve the overall social problem or even bring people to responsibility.

This happens because the politicians largely don't know what they are voting on. Sure they may have advisers to simplify it down to their level but largely it is a emotional decision from them based on a few minutes of explanation. So when some lobbyist comes up and says that they need to start blocking child porn or illegal content it of course is a easy thing to throw money at hoping that someone down the food chain figures out how not to infringe on the rights of their people.

It is YOUR fault for letting this happen. The politicians do not have any major opposition to this when such a plan is announced because they too announce it on a simplified level (net neutrality). Even something like the EFF is small compared to various family values groups and something like the the RIAA. The public just accepts such announcements and proclamations of checks and balances.

To someone like myself who uses the net for greater majority of my entertainment, information and business needs such actions are a great threat. It is fundamental because if the government develops the technological capacity to this they may one day be able to limit the majority of my interaction with the world.

So before you Americans cast your votes this fall make sure the freedom of the web is on your list of priorities and more importantly high on the list of the priorities of the man you are electing.

[MadamI'madaM]

Many good people in government (I am sure they exist)

checks in place to prevent abuse

politicians largely don't know what they are voting on.

Don't concede so much. Facists hate to be patronized.


It is YOUR fault for letting this happen.
Last time I checked, you and I don't have a political war chest or a paramilitary force.


So before you Americans cast your votes this fall make sure the freedom of the web is on your list of priorities and more importantly high on the list of the priorities of the man you are electing.
These are the kinds of real issues that never make it to Rupertvision for obvious reasons. Don't hold any hope.

[Oso Mocoso]

Earlier this year a group of ISPs decided to stop free access to newsgroups on the basis that "all the bad people use them". I would understand if it where believed to be business decision or at least something rational from the perspective of media. Instead for the most part the media laughably called it "action" against these bad things. But it was nothing more then a PR statement because "The bad people" will adapt and either pay for the service or else move to a new medium. This did nothing to solve the overall social problem or even bring people to responsibility.

Hang on, context check.

Weren't "all the bad people" in question accessing child pornography? I mean, the limits placed on Usenet were fairly specific and targeted at child porn. Apparently there was some controversy over other kids of similarly transgressive porn being censored, but that was the main goal of this law.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for free speech but I have to draw a line at defending consumers of child pornography. I really wish such materials simply didn't exist, and I think prosecuting consumers of such materials is justifiable towards the goal of further marginalizing its production, which is unspeakably horrible wherever it takes place.

If we were talking about political speech or something, I'd feel differently.

[MadamI'madaM]

I'm not quite sure what I hate more about "bad people" like chomos and terrorists: that they really exist and do what they do, or that they're the perfect patsies/leverage to con the populace into anything.

[tinribz]

The child porn thing is a smokescreen, newsgroups is about bandwidth plain and simple. I mean as if ISPs give a flyin F about what you download, I think how much is a bit higher on their list of priorities.

Still not sure if it is just a chinese whisper because it so beggars belief but was reading the other day about a leaked report of the UK giving £1B to some bunch of vampire consultants just to investigate the feasibility of intercepting and storing all UK internet traffic email and phone calls.


"If they are going to use the internet to communicate with each other and we don't have the power to deal with that, then you are giving a licence to terrorists to kill people."

'Orwellian'

He added: "The biggest civil liberty of all is not to be killed by a terrorist."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7674775.stm



I've no illusions about how often this already goes on but given how local councils already sell personal information to advertising agencies, anyone working in the NHS has access to anyones medical history and of course the catalogue security blunders, I think that legitimising the snooping will effectively make all this data public as opposed to requiring a court order to be used.

Personally this is a deal breaker for me when it comes to voting, CCTV or even ID cards are bad enough but this beyond the pail. I mean as if terrorists wouldn't use proxies or internet cafes and code their messages FFS.

[foodeater]

Australia ruins everything.

[Oso Mocoso]

The child porn thing is a smokescreen, newsgroups is about bandwidth plain and simple. I mean as if ISPs give a flyin F about what you download, I think how much is a bit higher on their list of priorities.

But this is being forced on ISPs by the .gov.

From what I've read they're only actually censoring far less than 1% of network traffic. If it were the case that they were primarily interested in bandwidth, you'd think they'd be more aggressive. Like, maybe they'd target Bittorrent and not Usenet ... which hardly anyone uses anymore. Furthermore, the Aussie filters have to be voluntarily installed on end-users' computers.

In terms of the child porn thing, that seems like the only place where the government has aggressively pursued enforcing much censorship. When it comes to mere transgressive porn, they've been pretty lax.

[tinribz]

ISP's have always been selective about which newsgroups you can access at least I've noticed access has always differed between them. But I think that Ellipsis is talking about ISPs cutting off access to newsgroups completly. This is a trend I'v spotted too along with the traffic shaping.

It doesn't compare to bit torrent especially with speeds of 16Mb becoming the norm, ISPs will tell you it's the 1% of usenet users taking 50% of bandwith and I can believe it.

[awe]

Hang on, context check.

Weren't "all the bad people" in question accessing child pornography? I mean, the limits placed on Usenet were fairly specific and targeted at child porn. Apparently there was some controversy over other kids of similarly transgressive porn being censored, but that was the main goal of this law.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for free speech but I have to draw a line at defending consumers of child pornography. I really wish such materials simply didn't exist, and I think prosecuting consumers of such materials is justifiable towards the goal of further marginalizing its production, which is unspeakably horrible wherever it takes place.

If we were talking about political speech or something, I'd feel differently.

The number given for estimated false positives in the new Australian system is 1%. If a website you want to view is incorrectly labeled as illegal you will have to contact the government and ask them for permissions to be allowed to use the website. The government will process your request in due time.

The limits placed on usenet previously have blocked groups such as alt.binaries.pictures.astronomy because objectionable material could have existed someone else in alt.binaries.pictures.

[awe]

But this is being forced on ISPs by the .gov.

From what I've read they're only actually censoring far less than 1% of network traffic. If it were the case that they were primarily interested in bandwidth, you'd think they'd be more aggressive. Like, maybe they'd target Bittorrent and not Usenet ... which hardly anyone uses anymore. Furthermore, the Aussie filters have to be voluntarily installed on end-users' computers.

In terms of the child porn thing, that seems like the only place where the government has aggressively pursued enforcing much censorship. When it comes to mere transgressive porn, they've been pretty lax.

If the government knows where the child porn is located then why not shut those sites down directly or arrest the people that are accessing it? Dealing with the problem directly would appear to be cheaper and cause less problems for legal internet usage.

[Oso Mocoso]

The limits placed on usenet previously have blocked groups such as alt.binaries.pictures.astronomy because objectionable material could have existed someone else in alt.binaries.pictures.

Well, the problem with the alt hierarchy is that it's completely unregulated and even by design possibly even un-regulatable. Anyone who knows how can just create a group, and sometimes groups of people take over a group and repurpose it. So, it's a magnet for pervos of all stripe. It's not an issue of whether or not child porn exists in the alt hierarchy. It definitely does. And the groups where these materials are traded are never labeled something that would make it obvious what was being trafficked there. They are always named something innocent sounding.

Law enforcement online faces very complex challenges. I don't think censorship is the best solution, but in this case I don't think it's a totally unjustifiable one.

And the reason Australia can't just go get them or shut them down is because they tend to be located in far away jurisdictions that are weakly policed, such as Russia. Who could you report them to who would care? Could they trick them into coming to Australia and arrest them there? Probably not.

[rhinosaur]

There's a fine line between protecting free speech and protecting children here. I agree that child pornography is disgusting, but does the law set precedent for further restrictions on the internet? In the future, will I be banned from going to a drug site, gun site, or a stealing cars site because of regulations enabled by this child pron law?

I want access to as much information as possible. If that means some pedo has an easier time finding child porn, then maybe that's the cost of this kind of freedom.

I realize that the law may not actually be this restrictive, and may only target child pornography. In this case, I have no problem with it. However, from what I've heard and read, laws are rarely so specific, and could be interpreted to apply to more situations than they were intended.

[Oso Mocoso]

There's a fine line between protecting free speech and protecting children here.

Well, yeah, but we agree there is a definite line between exclusively restricting child pornography speech and something else.


I agree that child pornography is disgusting, but does the law set precedent for further restrictions on the internet?

No, it does not. This is a law about child pornography. Well ... there has been some stuff that was overage actresses pretending to be children that was also banned, but basically the law was about "kiddie porn".


In the future, will I be banned from going to a drug site, gun site, or a stealing cars site because of regulations enabled by this child pron law?

Not at present.


I want access to as much information as possible. If that means some pedo has an easier time finding child porn, then maybe that's the cost of this kind of freedom.

Is this just because you're worried about being cut off from your Russian suppliers? Nah, I do get it and I don't disagree in principle, but I have no desire to see child porn, so I have no problem with this. If and when the enforcement of the law changes, I might have a problem then.


I realize that the law may not actually be this restrictive, and may only target child pornography. In this case, I have no problem with it. However, from what I've heard and read, laws are rarely so specific, and could be interpreted to apply to more situations than they were intended.

Well, they COULD be interpreted to apply to more situations in the future, but right now that's not what's happening.

[rhinosaur]

Well, they COULD be interpreted to apply to more situations in the future, but right now that's not what's happening.

Obviously, but if the ruling sets the precedence for future laws that will negatively impact me, I don't want it. From what I've read (I'm not a lawyer), it's much harder in practice to get a law reversed after it's been established and put into use, even if the law was controversial when it was put into place.

[puzzled-observer]

That kind of thing can never work. There's just too many people that you have to battle against to make the filter system work. It will only be a matter of time before everyone in the country knows how to get around the filters. By imposing such a law, you're going up against thousands of people who have absolutely nothing better to do than try to find ways around the system. It's a stupid idea, not to mention kind of 1984ish.

[Oso Mocoso]

That kind of thing can never work. There's just too many people that you have to battle against to make the filter system work. It will only be a matter of time before everyone in the country knows how to get around the filters. By imposing such a law, you're going up against thousands of people who have absolutely nothing better to do than try to find ways around the system. It's a stupid idea, not to mention kind of 1984ish.

Err ... I don't think it's stupid at all. I think your assumption that "everyone" will have an interest in accessing child pornography to the point that they'd want to learn how to hack the filter is kind of disturbing. In order to find chomos all you'd have to do is look for people trying to hack the filter.

[awe]

Err ... I don't think it's stupid at all. I think your assumption that "everyone" will have an interest in accessing child pornography to the point that they'd want to learn how to hack the filter is kind of disturbing. In order to find chomos all you'd have to do is look for people trying to hack the filter.

Someone that tries to get to alt.binaries.pictures.astronomy should be investigated as pedophile?

[Oso Mocoso]

Someone that tries to get to alt.binaries.pictures.astronomy should be investigated as pedophile?

Well, according to previous posters, the Aussie law enforcement's rate of false positive errors is 1%. In terms of the security industry, that's so low that I'm quite skeptical of the number. If it's true, then I'm quite willing to think of maybe one actual astronomer being investigated for every 99 child molesters. I'm confident in law enforcement's ability to tell the difference between them once they've been looked into.

Besides, just because it's called alt.binaries.pictures.astronomy that has absolutely no bearing on the group's content. You don't seriously believe that child molesters call their groups alt.binaries.pictures.little.kids.naked do you? Or have you not actually ever used Usenet?

[awe]

Well, the problem with the alt hierarchy is that it's completely unregulated and even by design possibly even un-regulatable. Anyone who knows how can just create a group, and sometimes groups of people take over a group and repurpose it. So, it's a magnet for pervos of all stripe. It's not an issue of whether or not child porn exists in the alt hierarchy. It definitely does. And the groups where these materials are traded are never labeled something that would make it obvious what was being trafficked there. They are always named something innocent sounding.

Same thing goes for the www since anyone can:

• re-purpose an old website/page
• set up a illegal website under sub domain or folder on an already approved website like that if a university or government
• set up a webserver on their own home computer
• post what ever they want on places like intpcentral, youtube, facebook, deviantart and flickr etc.


Which sites are safe for our children?

[Oso Mocoso]

Same thing goes for the www since anyone can:
[INDENT]• re-purpose an old website/page

No. No you can't. Not without the owner's permission.


• set up a illegal website under sub domain or folder on an already approved website like that if a university or government

Nope. Not without permission.



• set up a webserver on their own home computer

Right. The difference is that it would be on their own home computer, and you could tell that it was on THEIR home computer. Do you understand the difference?


• post what ever they want on places like intpcentral, youtube, facebook, deviantart and flickr etc.

Right. But they'd have to register an account which would be linked to an IP address. And there are these people called moderators. I assume if someone posted kiddie porn to the board it would be immediately deleted and they would be banned, right? And reported to the law?


Which sites are safe for our children?

The ones with accountability. The ones with Moderators. Bless their little hearts!

[awe]

You don't seriously believe that child molesters call their groups alt.binaries.pictures.little.kids.naked do you? Or have you not actually ever used Usenet?

alt.binaries.pictures.little.kids.naked?

http://static.flickr.com/86/221416801_1f073a3ec4_o.jpg

[Oso Mocoso]

alt.binaries.pictures.little.kids.naked?

http://static.flickr.com/86/221416801_1f073a3ec4_o.jpg

ZOMG! You're posting goats against me! This is alarming! Of course, it's irrelevant to what I was talking about but ...

[awe]

ZOMG! You're posting goats against me! This is alarming! Of course, it's irrelevant to what I was talking about but ...

Well, lets just watch the number of goat shearing astronomers who go to jail over this and then we can decide if it is relevant or not.

[Oso Mocoso]

Well, lets just watch the number of goat shearing astronomers who go to jail over this and then we can decide if it is relevant or not.

I have a feeling that this number will be zero.

[Ellipsis]

I have a feeling that this number will be zero.

I agree.

Currently the systems are not in place to monitor everyone and are there only to "block" the content. These current events in themselves are not "that" bad. But these new powers are not that useful to law enforcement n stopping such events. Furthermore, "uptodate" blacklisting is difficult and they will likely miss large segments of the content out there. Likewise the Usenet blocking issues where largely token gestures. Realistically they will only be a slight inconvenience. But they are dangerous steps that should not be taken without caution, debate and most importantly public awareness.

[tinribz]

Seconded, this is just the thin end of the wedge the problem being the Gov having the power to impose this sort of stuff on a whim.

When we first got the tinternet at work staff were encouraged to use it freely.

After the inevitable porn incidents we got a net nanny banning sexual content on moral grounds.

A few years down the line and it is all social sites, personal email, groups, forums, game related and a bewildering number of keywords considered unsuitable. I need the net for work and 50% of legit stuff is now blocked. If you ask for something to be unblocked it eventually is for about a week then you are back to square one.

I don't think there would be the same problem or agenda creep if monitoring had remained decentralised.

[puzzled-observer]

Err ... I don't think it's stupid at all. I think your assumption that "everyone" will have an interest in accessing child pornography to the point that they'd want to learn how to hack the filter is kind of disturbing. In order to find chomos all you'd have to do is look for people trying to hack the filter.

Ya, I can't imagine anyone not loving kiddy porn... erm no. I never said anything about child pornography (get your mind out of the gutter). I was referring to the OP. The document doesn't refer to ONLY child pornography. It says "Illegal", making a note of the broad definition of such criteria (I was thinking more along the lines of videos/music/movies).

[awe]

No. No you can't. Not without the owner's permission.

If a dns on an allow/deny list is expired then anyone can purchase the dns and use it for another purpose.


Nope. Not without permission.

Not all webcontent is added by a single person/department and it is not always reviewed before it goes online. Many organizations do not have approval processes built into web publishing work flows.
Browse around any large university or government website and look at how many people look after their own sub area of the site. I have personally seen instances of employees runing their own businesses website from a sub folder on an employers website, naked pictures of their wife to an employers website and seen unsecured servers discovered by other internet users and used to host various things.


Right. The difference is that it would be on their own home computer, and you could tell that it was on THEIR home computer. Do you understand the difference?

Home computer was an example. Point I was trying to make is do you deny everything by default and only let people see approved sites or let everyone see everything and only deny sites with illegal content. Denying everything by default removes the spontaneity that now exists for example if someone wants to setup a webcam and stream it over http, or business wants to setup a http webservice for some purpose then these would first need approval to allow people to see them. If it is to allow everything and just deny those known illegal sites then how long is it going to take for the government to find a new site that has illegal content on it?


Right. But they'd have to register an account which would be linked to an IP address. And there are these people called moderators. I assume if someone posted kiddie porn to the board it would be immediately deleted and they would be banned, right? And reported to the law?

IP and mac addresses are a dime a dozen like you suggested earlier with your reference to Russia. So your Spanish friend could post child porn on his facebook page and the Australian government wont know so should they just block facebook? Deviantart could host photos or artworks that are illegal in Australia but allowable in the US so do they block Deviantart?

I am thinking any government web censorship solutions are either going to leek like a sieve or severely restrict legitimate web usage.

[Oso Mocoso]

I was referring to the OP. The document doesn't refer to ONLY child pornography. It says "Illegal", making a note of the broad definition of such criteria (I was thinking more along the lines of videos/music/movies).

Well, in the context of how law enforcement has actually been responding to the legal document presented in the OP, they've been interpreting "illegal" to mean child pornography.


If a dns on an allow/deny list is expired then anyone can purchase the dns and use it for another purpose.

Right. If the owners choose not to own their property anymore.


Not all webcontent is added by a single person/department and it is not always reviewed before it goes online. Many organizations do not have approval processes built into web publishing work flows.

Did you have a point?



naked pictures of their wife to an employers website and seen unsecured servers discovered by other internet users and used to host various things.

If a site gets this out of control, it deserves to be temporarily placed on a ban list until they regain some semblance of propriety.


Home computer was an example. Point I was trying to make is do you deny everything by default and only let people see approved sites or let everyone see everything and only deny sites with illegal content. Denying everything by default removes the spontaneity that now exists for example if someone wants to setup a webcam and stream it over http, or business wants to setup a http webservice for some purpose then these would first need approval to allow people to see them. If it is to allow everything and just deny those known illegal sites then how long is it going to take for the government to find a new site that has illegal content on it?

Or you have the existing Australian system which bans far less than 1% of all web content. Seriously, you seem to be disagreeing with yourself. Their system bans very few sites. Are you sure you're not just wetting the bed over nothing?


IP and mac addresses are a dime a dozen like you suggested earlier with your reference to Russia. So your Spanish friend could post child porn on his facebook page and the Australian government wont know so should they just block facebook? Deviantart could host photos or artworks that are illegal in Australia but allowable in the US so do they block Deviantart?

I am thinking any government web censorship solutions are either going to leek like a sieve or severely restrict legitimate web usage.

And you're actually objecting to ... what? I mean think of something that actually happened that you object to, as opposed to something that you imagined.

[awe]

Did you have a point?

Yes. You may find it is sometimes helpful for you to read the entire thread before responding.



If a site gets this out of control, it deserves to be temporarily placed on a ban list until they regain some semblance of propriety.

Or you have the existing Australian system which bans far less than 1% of all web content. Seriously, you seem to be disagreeing with yourself. Their system bans very few sites. Are you sure you're not just wetting the bed over nothing?

Most people may not know for a long time that this sort of content is hosted on their site. Yes. The proposed system does ban very few sites. All of the sites that are banned are sites suspected of hosting illegal content. But not all sites that host illegal content are banned... Do you understand this don't you? and you do understand that people hosting illegal content are not going to advertise to the government where this content is hosted? So the system is a failure? So spending money on a system that does not restrict Australian citizens from accessing illegal content is umm... not well spent?



Right. But they'd have to register an account which would be linked to an IP address. And there are these people called moderators. I assume if someone posted kiddie porn to the board it would be immediately deleted and they would be banned, right? And reported to the law?

Australia is not just talking about blocking kiddie porn which I'm sure most moderators on forums like INTPc can recognize and delete; it is talking about blocking illegal content. This would mean that if INTPc contained content that was illegal in Australia then INTPc could be blocked in Australia. I believe it is unlikely that INTPc moderators will have sufficient knowledge of Australian laws to know what is legal in Australia.



And you're actually objecting to ... what? I mean think of something that actually happened that you object to, as opposed to something that you imagined.

I don't know if I can dumb it down enough for you but I'll attempt to anyway... let me know how it goes... I am objecting to the implementation of a system that will not perform its required task and may possibility have negative impact for legitimate internet users. My posts earlier in this thread were an attempt to show you why the system will not work and how it may negatively impact legitimate internet users. If there is something specific that I have posted that appears to be beyond all reasonable possibly of ever occurring then please refer to that post specifically when making your retort, otherwise I'll just assume you imagined it.

[puzzled-observer]

Well, in the context of how law enforcement has actually been responding to the legal document presented in the OP, they've been interpreting "illegal" to mean child pornography.


Fair enough

[Oso Mocoso]

Yes. You may find it is sometimes helpful for you to read the entire thread before responding.

Yeah, I've actually got a pretty firm grasp on that. Thanks.



Australia is not just talking about blocking kiddie porn which I'm sure most moderators on forums like INTPc can recognize and delete; it is talking about blocking illegal content.

Now you're talking about a difference between enforcement and the language of the law. The practical enforcement of the law involves child porn. There was a bunch of other stuff you posted, but basically it boils down to this. Look, when they start targeting stuff other than kiddie porn, lemme know.