All Content Related to Australia

Australian Goverment Releases Paper Detailing Filtering Pilot

jillian — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:38:50 -0500

Ban.This.URL, a blog documenting and examining online censorship in Australia, reports that Australia's The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) has released a paper detailing the technical specifications of Australia's proposed Internet filtering plan.

In the paper [PDF], the filtering pilot is detailed:

"To the extent possible, the aim is to test a range of different types of filtering including:
• ACMA blacklist filtering only (for a blacklist of up to 10,000 URLs); or
• ACMA blacklist filtering plus the filtering of other content using different approaches
to filtering which would, for example, include:
- Index filtering of different sized blacklists;
- Dynamic analysis filtering;
- IP versus URL filtering;
- DNS poisoning.
The Pilot seeks to test a wide range of filtering solutions and is deliberately flexible."

The paper also addresses the issue of circumvention:

It is acknowledged that filtering can be circumvented by motivated people with a
sufficient level of technical knowledge.

The Pilot will seek to test the ease with which different filtering solutions can be circumvented and the capacity of filters to detect and provide warnings on circumvention attempts.

You can download the paper here.

Australia's Slippery Slope

jillian — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:02:56 -0500

With all of the news lately regarding Australia's Internet filtering scheme, one might think Australia were the first or only country to ever filter the Internet.

Since the filter was announced in 2007, it has been widely criticized. First, Australia announced their filtering scheme, which includes blocking nearly 10,000 sites. Then an Australian youth cracked the filter. Later on, Australian ISPs were told to keep quiet about their disagreement with the scheme.

The latest news reports state that Michael Malone, head of Australian ISP iiNet, has expressed distaste with the plan, going as far as to say that his main purpose was to: "provide the Government with "hard numbers" demonstrating "how stupid it is" - specifically that the filtering system would not work, would be patently simple to bypass, would not filter peer-to-peer traffic and would significantly degrade network speeds."

Malone is not the only one speaking out against the scheme. Two weeks ago I reported that Australian activists were protesting the filters. Today I spoke with Antoun Issa, an Australian journalist, to get his take on the filter.

The first issue that activists have with the filter is its effectiveness. Issa explains: "...When there was only 2% of network degradation, it performed only to 80% accuracy. When it reached its peak of 94% accuracy of sites blocked, the network degradation was as high as 30%." Given the fact that Australia's Internet speeds are generally lower than those in the United States and Europe, Australian subscribers would be hit with significantly low Internet speeds.

The second major problem with any filtering scheme, of course, is that of overblocking. Although the non-opt-out filter in Australia intends to block only illegal materials, including hardcore pornography, Issa explains that "There's a good chance sexuality-based websites and sexual-health sites would be mistakenly overblocked, because the filtering system simply cannot distinguish between what's 'good' sex and 'bad' sex."

The third and most important issue in terms of the economy is that the filter is an enormous expense, one which is not justifiable.

Additionally, Issa warns that the filtering scheme presents a slippery slope: While intended to only block illegal sites, it could easily be expanded to include other sites, including GLBT ones. In an interview Issa conducted with Greens Senator Scott Ludlum, the Senator warned that GLBT sites are at a great risk of being included in the filter eventually.

In an e-mail to me, Issa concluded: "It's just a completely flawed proposal. Not only does it leave our freedom and civil liberties open to manipulation by interest groups, but the impacts, including cost, that it will have on our internet speed and functionality is just astronomical. What's worse is that there's no demand for it. No one knows where on earth this policy has come from! If parents want to protect their children, they can buy their own personal filtering systems which can be far more aggressive than what the government is proposing."

Image credit: Janet Hawtin
"No filtering" t-shirt available online.

Australian Activists Fight Filtering Measures

jillian — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:40:20 -0400

Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's recent announcement that Australia's upcoming filtering scheme would not allow Internet users to opt-out was met with great opposition from the Australian public, as well as some from ISPs.

The scheme has also received criticism from Australian activist groups. An Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC) editorial by activist blogger Michael Meloni (Somebody Think of the Children!) argues that the idea of a high-speed national network is a "step in the right direction" but that the filtering scheme will slow down Internet access and raise costs.

Meloni also questions the Australian government's definition of "illegal" and the methods used for blocking such material: "As for banning websites that are 'inappropriate', is the Government really in the best position to decide what that is? Does inappropriate include information on sexual health, breast-feeding, drugs and abortion?"

Therein lies the problem for most. How can the government guarantee that only illegal sites will be blocked? With fine lines between nudity and pornography, drug education and drug use, sexually educational and sexually explicit, how can any filtering mechanism appropriately filter material?

Activist group No Clean Feed designed their site to "focus public scrutiny and action on to abandoning or severely modifying this policy." Their web site, which refers to the "Great Firewall of Australia," offers a number of ideas Australian citizens can
implement to protest the filtering scheme.

Additionally, a YouTube group related to the site shares videos made in protest of Australian filtering.

Despite the myriad efforts taken thus far to protest the filtering scheme, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has not responded to his constituents in any way, and has been accused of attempting to silence his critics.

Image Source: No Clean Feed

Australian ISPs ordered to keep quiet about Internet filtering regulations

jillian — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:03:35 -0400

According to news reports, Australian ISPs have been ordered to keep quiet about the country's filtering scheme. Following a complaint from the employee of one ISP, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy allegedly had an "intimidating e-mail" sent to keep the ISP employee quiet.

This latest news comes on the heels of the initial controversy surrounding Australia's filtering scheme, which includes two tiers: one which blocks illegal content and is mandatory, and another which is child-safe.

Critics say that the filters are useless due to the fact that they do not filter P2P sharing; additionally, an Australian youth cracked the filter shortly after its initial release.

Australia's Filtering Ideals

jillian — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:24:11 -0400

Under Australia's new Internet filtering scheme, citizens will be unable to opt out of inclusion. Instead, they will be able to choose between two blacklists; one blocks content inappropriate for children, the other blocks illegal material.

Shortly after the plan was unveiled in late 2007, an Australian teen cracked the AU$84 filter almost immediately.

In January of this year, our own Rob Faris blogged about the incident, saying, "In placing the controls in the hands of ISPs—who so far seem to be understandably reluctant to take over this role—the calculus of filtering and circumvention change somewhat, but the vulnerability to circumvention remains."

The latest concerns in the case involve not only user ability to get around the filters, but also the fact that the filtering technology will likely slow Internet speeds. Libertarians are also concerned that the filter could later be expanded to include subjects like euthanasia, protest, and drugs.

Although the child-friendly filter has a simple opt-out option, it is not yet clear what will be included in it, or to what ages it will be geared.

Australia's policies differ from the United States in that illegal material found on the web in the U.S. is often removed by a take-down order, rather than filtered from view.

Source:
The Standard

YouTube, Scientology and the DMCA

jillian — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:45:58 -0400

You've all seen the anti-Scientology protests; a group known as Anonymous, wearing Guy Fawkes, protest outside various churches of Scientology, or most recently here in Cambridge, outside of an exhibit aimed at teaching people about the religion. Many such protests have been videotaped, then uploaded to YouTube. Several users have also posted responses to protests.

Late last week, it was reported that American Rights Counsel LLC had sent over 4,000 DMCA takedown notices to YouTube on the basis that some anti-Scientology videos on the site violated copyright. One such video is this one from Ironhead097, entitled "To Anonymous/Scientology":

During a span of twelve hours on September 4 and 5, several videos were removed and several users banned. YouTube users responded with DMCA counter-notices, and as a result, a number of accounts have been reinstated.

Subsequent investigations by YouTube users into the "American Rights Counsel LLC" have proved fruitless; a simple Google search shows that the company does not have a main website. In fact, every mention of the "American Rights Counsel LLC" on Google relates to Scientology.

The question is: Who are the American Rights Counsel LLC? This video, posted by a member of the group "Anonymous" asks the same question:

If, hypothetically, the claims in the video are correct and a member of Scientology has filed the DMCA notices fraudulently, there are legal ramifications. According to the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse:

"Subsection 512(f) attempts to limit false and fraudulent claims of copyright infringement under the DMCA. Anyone who fraudulently claims copyright infringement or fraudulently claims that non-infringing material was wrongly removed, or that access to it was wrongfully disabled, is liable to anyone who suffers any damages because of that misrepresentation, including court costs and attorney's fees"

Whether the claims are true or not, this is ultimately a free speech issue as well as a potential legal one that should spur discussion yet again on the fairness of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.