Internet Censorship

[ch33z1l]

Originally Posted by rawr

The filter is beginning to cross over into the issues affecting the woeful classification system in Australia. I'm a gamer, so I worry that games like Bioshock that are classified as an adult game in other countries is given a badge that lets a 15 yo play it.

By all means, protect the kids. But internet filtering is doing it wrong.

All the more reason to have an R classification for games in Australia. Would they go to the lengths to block ebay and other auction sites that sell the R classified games like Grand Theft Auto etc.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by ch33z1l

All the more reason to have an R classification for games in Australia. Would they go to the lengths to block ebay and other auction sites that sell the R classified games like Grand Theft Auto etc.

Why wouldn't they?

If the filter is automated, all they need to do is add the relevant keywords... so when a game is released that is unrated in Australia, they simply add its name to the list of keywords - any site that mentions it will not be served up.

If the filter is not automated, and a human needs to review and manually add URLs... then the filter will be nothing but a useless money pit.

[ch33z1l]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

Why wouldn't they?

If the filter is automated, all they need to do is add the relevant keywords... so when a game is released that is unrated in Australia, they simply add its name to the list of keywords

Hence, blocking alot of legit material...

[rawr]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

Why wouldn't they?

If the filter is automated, all they need to do is add the relevant keywords... so when a game is released that is unrated in Australia, they simply add its name to the list of keywords - any site that mentions it will not be served up.

If the filter is not automated, and a human needs to review and manually add URLs... then the filter will be nothing but a useless money pit.

See, then that blocks all sites with legitimate discussion. Suddenly, we're not allowed to even discuss unrated material. What of the sites that do not provide the unrated material itself but discuss it? They're on the black list and the Australian public is essentially kept in the dark. How is this different to China blocking Youtube because it is 'morally depraved'? How are we to know what's on the blacklist? The leak earlier this year showed a website of a QLD dentist to have been blocked.

This is a filter that checks all packets of data. A site is made of of thousands, if not millions of packets of data. Now imagine a system that goes through each one. Not only is it going to be extremely expensive, but it's going to slow down the speed of the internet. Can you imagine how much damage that would do to the economy?

The filter is a useless money pit. Tell me WHY we need it. There are a million reasons against it and not just because of this censorship issue.

I would not be surprised if this was pushed through for something dodgy - to take advantage of the new network being put into place and con people into payinig for something they should never have lost.

--

Currently there is a blacklist - it's the one I mentioned earlier that was leaked - and there's around 3000 sites rumoured to be on it, I believe. It's added according to suggestions. That system is already dodgy, automated and making it go by keywords is just asking for trouble. Slippery slope and all that.

What was it that Ben Franklin said?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."


EDIT: In regards to the four officers comment, my mate on Level3 (Ch31 program) went and interviewed them at their office in Melbourne.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by ch33z1l

Hence, blocking alot of legit material...

Absolutely - only one of the reasons I am opposed to the filter (Apparently, hysterically so...), especially if it's implemented using automated keyword-based filtering.

rawr: I agree with you. Maybe you haven't read through all 8 pages, but I do not in any way support the filter, quite the opposite.

[rawr]

Ah, pardon. I read the posts, but don't keep up with the usernames all the time

It's amazing the level of opposition to this yet it keeps getting swept under the radar with hardly any media covering it. You'd think they'd be worried but no... the internet has always been competition to them though, so maybe they're thinking this filter is a good thing? It'll only bite them all on the ****.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by rawr

Ah, pardon. I read the posts, but don't keep up with the usernames all the time

No problem mate... welcome to the forum.

It's amazing the level of opposition to this yet it keeps getting swept under the radar with hardly any media covering it. You'd think they'd be worried but no... the internet has always been competition to them though, so maybe they're thinking this filter is a good thing? It'll only bite them all on the ****.

I think the media would be extremely happy if we woke up tomorrow and the Internet ceased to exist... more and more, traditional media is losing relevance. For example, why would I wait until 6pm to get the "news" when i can check any one of thousands of sites to get the news - often as it happens. With RSS and push, I can be updated automatically on the news that interests me, and only the news that interests me. The situation is even worse for newspapers, given the publication delays.

The Internet goes a long way towards breaking the media conglomerates' hold over the information disseminated to the masses - information online does not necessarily have vested interests such as corporate owners or advertisers to keep mollified. I'm sure the media giants are in support of anything that diminishes that ability.

Just ask the Chinese - why do they try so hard to control what their citizens are able to access? Even with The Great Firewall, they were unable to prevent the leaks of the last few days, for example. I think eventually, the Internet will be a major contributing factor towards democratisation in China - after all, knowledge is power. When that happens, the Chinese will move away from their ridiculous censorship policy. It's a pity we seem to be rushing to emulate them.

[sgt_doofey]

I support this filter myself, but only on an opt-in basis. It should not be mandatory. There is probably legitimate want by people for a filtered internet (why won't someone think of the children and all that), but I certainly don't want it.

[rawr]

They've had an 'opt-in' in operation for a while - it's called Net Nanny. Any family can ask for a free copy to be sent to them, they can install it on their computers and there! Greater parental control.

I don't agree with Net Nanny but if parents want to spy on their kids' msn conversations, that's there perogative. But the people yelling to protect the children conveniently don't bother with this program that has been available for years.

Like on the first page, there is no substitute for parental supervision. The internet is an adult entity (70% porn and all that) so why can't we treat it like that and if children do go on it, go with them to make sure they're safe. My sister has grown up with it but she knows what sites she's allowed to go on and what she isn't, until she grew older my parents sat down with her everytime and played through Club Penguin for the umpteenth time. No, it wasn't fun for them but it's instilled some responsibility and awareness in her that's helping to keep her safe now.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by rawr

They've had an 'opt-in' in operation for a while - it's called Net Nanny.

It's not available anymore. The current government discontinued the free hand out.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

only one of the reasons I am opposed to the filter (Apparently, hysterically so...), especially if it's implemented using automated keyword-based filtering.

Why would anyone suggest your views about a filter are hysterical?

Originally Posted by balthazarr

I think the media would be extremely happy if we woke up tomorrow and the Internet ceased to exist...

The Internet goes a long way towards breaking the media conglomerates' hold over the information disseminated to the masses - information online does not necessarily have vested interests such as corporate owners or advertisers to keep mollified. I'm sure the media giants are in support of anything that diminishes that ability.

Just ask the Chinese - why do they try so hard to control what their citizens are able to access? Even with The Great Firewall, they were unable to prevent the leaks of the last few days, for example. I think eventually, the Internet will be a major contributing factor towards democratisation in China - after all, knowledge is power. When that happens, the Chinese will move away from their ridiculous censorship policy. It's a pity we seem to be rushing to emulate them.

py: :

[Keepleft]

This kinda falls into the topic, if the QLD initiated prosecution succeeds, even more restriction and danger to those that link, view or upload even 'dumb' footage such as this. This fella should counter-sue for millions if he wins his defence, and I hope he does:-

March 10, 2009:-
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolog...447185321.html

June 9, 2009
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolog...313123500.html

Might be an update to this somewhere. Anyone know if Whirlpool are discussing this?

[vztrt]

Conroy named Internet Villain of the Year

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...0713-di8q.html

[balthazarr]

No doubt this will add fuel to the fire: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...21/2662418.htm

Booby trap: children exposed to raunchy ads
By News Online's James Maasdorp
Posted 2 hours 50 minutes ago

As more and more young children become internet-savvy, the need for parents to protect them from harmful content grows.

A Sensis e-business report has revealed a big jump in the number of children under the age of five who use the internet.

While practices can be put in place to ensure children are protected against pornographic sites, harmful spam and email attachments, the realm of internet advertising poses a more difficult challenge to parents.

Internet adverts syndicated through Google's AdSense are literally all over the web - allowing website owners to display ads relevant to their site's content.

However, one particular advert has managed to spread across the web and catch the eye in a not-too-wholesome manner.

The banner-ad in question advertises 'Evony', a free online role-playing game where the player builds up a civilisation, trades commodities with other players and conducts war against competing civilisations.

But the way the game has been marketed online has caused controversy, with increasingly racy banner ads depicting busty women alongside the words 'Play Unnoticeably', 'Save the Princess' and 'Save your lover'.

The game itself has no distressed damsels in need of rescuing.

Added to their raunchy nature, the marketing campaign was criticised after its Google ads appeared frequently on websites with family content, with many site owners struggling to block the ads.

La Trobe University sociologist Dr Michael Flood has researched the potential social effects of pornography on young children.

He says advertising tactics like Evony's could become even more commonplace.

"It can go as far as advertisers, marketeers and amateur porn producers want it to go - I think it can go a whole lot further than it has and I think there will continue to be efforts in legal regulation and technical strategies like filtering and they will also continue to be circumvented," he said.

"One result of exposure to this kind of sexual material is just a liberalisation of attitudes, it means that children and young people are more accepting of sexual activity, assume that their peers are sexually active, and more approving of various forms of sex and sexual relations."

Children exposed
The danger for young users of the internet is that these sexually-suggestive adverts can appear potentially anywhere where a site has left allocated space for Adsense banners.

Dr Flood says, with an increase of younger children becoming net-savvy, the need for parental supervision is greater than ever.

"Parental sexuality-education is important - so is parental monitoring of children's internet use - however, as children become more independent, I think you wind back that monitoring because it's not appropriate to police a 15-year-old's computer use in the way you might police your 10-year-old's computer use," he said.

"One thing it's important to say is that children are sexual beings and do deserve information on sex and sexuality, however, much of what's available online and elsewhere isn't age-appropriate and doesn't teach very healthy messages about sex or women.

"Parents should be having conversation with kids about sex and sexuality as kids age anyway, and part of that is having conversations about the materials they may see online and elsewhere."

Sexuality education
Dr Flood says the effects on children of sexually-explicit content potentially shape the way young boys see women and girls, as well as young girls being influenced over their sexual value.

"It's actually very hard to say [what the effect is] on younger children, it may be that the youngest children cant make much sense of... sexually explicit material, they may ignore them or they may not make such sense," he said.

"There is evidence, though, of different effects of sexual content in media on children and young people.

"[One effect is] more support for what you might think of as sexist or sexually-objectifying views of women and of sex - so given that the Evony ads show women in various stages of undress, in fact progressively more and more undressed, they are teaching the attitude that girls and women are sexual objects and that their main value is in terms of their appearance and their bodies.

"Amongst girls, it can teach them that their primary value is as sexual objects, increasing their judgements about their bodies to agree with basically sexist and stereotypical attitudes about sex and gender and it can do the same amongst boys as well.

"I think that it's just as important that we teach and use social and education strategies - children and young people in schools should be taught about some of the negative and harmful ways in which sex and sexuality are represented in pornography and in advertising, so that they're more critical when they see problematic images of women or women's bodies or sex.

"They're then less likely to take on the sexist attitudes that those images can represent."

[bdave351]

Lets go back to the Victorian age as well shall we?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...-36398,00.html

Nothing showing above the ankles or wrist?

I cant beleive all the stuff that these "its all about the kids" twits come out with. Didnt they ever grow up themselves and sneak down the newsagent to check out playboy when they were young? We all did and seem to have grown up just fine.

It seems to be all the same minority groups pushing all these agendas

I mean Sipowitz (sp?) butt never would have made prime time with people like this in charge and where would we be then? A cultural void!

[McLovin']

The most important thing to remember in all this is *CENSORED* and the way the *CENSORED* will *CENSORED* if the *CENSORED* *CENSORED* *CENSORED* *CENSORED*.

Has everyone forgotten about what happened in *CENSORED* *CENSORED*?

"When they came for the communists, I was silent, because I was not a communist;
When they came for the socialists, I was silent, because I was not a socialist;
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest, because I was not a trade unionist;
When they came for the Jews, I did not protest, because I was not a Jew;
When they came for me, there was no one left to protest on my behalf."
Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)

[Green X]

How does this fall under a Government Issue..... well it might if we were China.


If some 10Yo is logging onto porn sites that is a parental issue not a government problem. why do young children need access the internet so often??.

if your a Parent and you want to let your child access this Tool then you need to give appropriate supervision. Would you as a parent hand the keys to a Gun cabinet to a 10 year old kid i don't Fing think so, So why hand em the keys to the internet.

[Falcon Coupe]

Some very valid points made, as a parent of young ones i see myself responsible for EVERYTHING they do, i do not need a higher power playing parent for me.

We as citizens have the power to change this, as long as we remember when the time comes........

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

We as citizens have the power to change this, as long as we remember when the time comes........

We do, the problem is handouts are more popular with voters....

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Support for the internet filter is bipartisan. Between them the two major parties represent most of the Australian population. That's not to say most Australians support a filter, but as their elected representatives do it will go ahead, that's how democracy works.

The Rudd government went to the last election promising to do it, so they have a mandate. In fact if they don't try and do it they will rightly be accused of breaking an election promise.

I'm still on the fence with the whole idea, and will wait with interest for the government trail. If others are hoping party politics will change the governments course of action they need to think of another strategy IMHO.

Early reports of the trail are saying the filter has not slowed download speeds significantly. http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/312...al_green-light

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Early reports of the trail are saying the filter has not slowed download speeds significantly. http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/312...al_green-light

Here's the article you linked to in full with my emphasis and comments:

ISPs give clean feed filter a technical green-light
The majority of Internet filter trial participants report no slowdowns or accidental blockings despite ISP filtering
David Ramli 24 July, 2009 15:51:00

More than half of the Internet service providers (ISPs) taking part in the Federal Government’s ISP filtering trial have reported minimal speed disruptions or technology problems.

Of the nine participating ISPs, iPrimus, Netforce, Webshield, Nelson Bay Online and OMNIconnect told ARN they had seen no slowdowns in Internet speeds or problems with the filtering solutions in place.

Of the remaining four ISPs, Tech2U and Highway1 were unable to respond by time of publication while Unwired and Optus refused to comment.

iPrimus Australia CEO, Ravi Bhatia, said his company’s ISP filtering trial, which must be opted into by its customers, had “probably involved a few thousand users”.

“The users have not experienced any problems, they haven’t experienced any service degradation so it’s been a pretty good experience,” he said.

The results would be finalised by next week, Bhatia said.

Webshield managing director, Anthony Pillion, said his entire customer base of a few thousand end-users experienced no slow-down in Internet speeds whatsoever.

“From a technical perspective we’re more than confident that if the government decided to roll out a mandatory Internet filter based on or around an Australian Communications and Media Authority [ACMA] blacklist or subset thereof, then it can be done without any impact whatsoever to the speed of the Internet,” he said.

There is a world of difference between scaling something up from "a few thousand users" to the millions of Australian Internet users.

IMHO, the technical results of these trials are meaningless with such low participation numbers.

Although OMNIconnect’s managing director, Peter Hutton, received no complaints about slowed speeds or technical problems after the filtering hardware was in place, he said the blacklist provided by ACMA had banned legitimate websites and caused customer dissatisfaction.

The filter has blocked legitimate websites? Really? And this has caused dissatisfaction? Couldn't see that coming.

“Some of the customers complained because the block list really hadn’t been moderated well enough,” OMNIconnect chief technician, Graeme Lee, said. “One in particular was a site called Redtube.com. The whole site had been blocked and it was just a standard pornography site,” Hutton said.

“Relating to that particular site we did have complaints that people couldn’t get through to it. They opted out of the trial straight away. It was a very embarrassing experience.”

Good thing they could opt-out... if they bring in the filter, you won't be able to opt-out.

ACMA refused to confirm or deny the website's legality or if it was currently on the blacklist and advised users to read its guidelines for rating internet content.

ACMA refusing to comment... nothing new there.

One common issue with most of the ISPs was the lack of voluntary participants, especially with companies using an opt-in system.

Surely the low take-up rate of the (currently) opt-in filter is a sign that the vast majority do not want filtering? (Apologies for the logic.)

Managing director of Nelson Bay Online, Patrick Sayer, said only 1 per cent of his entire customer base decided to opt-into the system, resulting in just 15 users.

So, 1% of the entire customer base is 15 people, the entire customer base is 1,500. See comment above about scalability.

When asked if he believed the trials provided a fair representative study, Hutton’s answer was an unequivocal “no”.

Well, at least he's recognised the current trial will not provide any useful metrics.

“That’s why we’ve asked for an extension to continue the trial till the end of this month and I understand a number of other ISPs have done the same thing,” he said.

Err... maybe not.

The results come on the back of earlier comments from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy that the current trial’s success or failure would help form much of the government’s opinions on mandatory nation-wide ISP filtering.

“We'll be guided by that trial. We've always said, consistently, we'll be guided by the trial,” the Minister said on the ABC’s Q&A program.

Of course, all of the above only relates to the technical aspects... I think I've said enough on the other aspects of the filtering scheme.