U.S. Government Seizes Domains

by enigmax – TorrentFreak.com

Without any need for COICA (Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has just seized the domain of a BitTorrent meta-search engine along with those belonging to other music linking sites.

While complex, it’s still possible for U.S. authorities and copyright groups to point at a fully-fledged BitTorrent site with a tracker and say “that’s an infringing site.” When one looks at a site which hosts torrents but operates no tracker, the finger pointing becomes quite a bit more difficult.

When a site has no tracker, carries no torrents, lists no copyright works unless someone searches for them and responds just like Google, accusing it of infringement becomes somewhat of a minefield – unless you’re ICE Homeland Security Investigations that is.

This morning, visitors to the Torrent-Finder.com site are greeted with an ominous graphic which indicates that ICE have seized the site’s domain.

Aside from the fact that domains are being seized seemingly at will, there is a very serious problem with the action against Torrent-Finder. Not only does the site not host or even link to any torrents whatsoever, it actually only returns searches through embedded iframes which display other sites that are not under the control of the Torrent-Finder owner.

Yesterday we reported that the domain of hiphop site RapGodFathers had been seized and today we can reveal that they are not on their own. Two other music sites in the same field – OnSmash.com and DaJaz1.com – have fallen to the same fate. But ICE activities don’t end there.

Full list of seized domains @ TorrentFreak.com

Domain seizures coming under the much debated ‘censorship bill’ COICA? Who needs it?

How to subvert the firewall

When the Australian Minister of National Enlightenment and Propaganda fires up the Great Firewall of Australia, the website of pro-euthanasia group Exit International will be among those blocked from access because of its "RC" content.

Exit International approached the Pirate Party of Australia and asked if they would kindly prepare instruction suitable for 70+ year olds in the art of bypassing the filter. The Pirate Party gladly obliged, the result can be seen here at computerworld.com.au

The slide show also includes general info of interest.

Think about that for a minute.

Minister Conroy claims that testing undertaken by Telstra, showed that every single website you visit being logged and checked against a blacklist, slowed internet performance by less than one seventieth of the blink of an eye.

The blink of an eye? Who’s eye? How fast could this eye blink?

In the "pilot test" that the Government commissioned, the performance results were apparently not so favourable; otherwise Conroy would be quoting them and not Telstra. In these tests by the way, it was reported that "testing criteria" was decided after commencement of tests (they made it up to produce results they quite liked), and they were carried out using a blacklist of around a 1,000 URLs.

If 0.0001 percent of www pages (of which there are about 25 billion indexed) contained content reviewed and categorized RC by Australian authorities, the blacklist would contain 25,000 URLs. I suspect that the hindrance on performance for that number may be significantly greater than one seventieth of the blink of an eye (whoever that eye belongs to).

If the URL blacklist should be less than 25,000, why is Minister Conroy so keen to spend $44 million implementing a filter for the purpose of blocking access to even less than 0.0001 percent of known indexed website pages?

Suppose that was some how good value, Minister Conroy and the Government, by their own admissions, know the internet filter will not work. Conroy claims:

"The Refused Classification Content list cannot be made public because if it was, it would simply be a catalogue to direct people to specific URLs that are Refused Classification."

If the filter was other than an elaborate joke, the URL blacklist would be safe to publish publicly, because if the filter worked, nobody would be able to access them.

How to subvert the firewall – Pirate Party Australia

World Wide Web of Censorship

The Australian reports:

The Obama administration has questioned the Rudd government's plan to introduce an internet filter, saying it runs contrary to the US's foreign policy of encouraging an open internet to spread economic growth and global security.

Officials from the State Department have raised the issue with Australian counterparts as the US mounts a diplomatic assault on internet censorship by governments worldwide.

Responding to questions about the filter, commentary website The Punch reports today that US State Department spokesman Noel Clay has raised concerns on the filter plan.

A spokeswoman for Senator Conroy declined to comment on Mr Clay's remarks.

This comes on the back of damming criticism for the mandatory censorship policy by two of the internet industry’s biggest players, Google and Yahoo.

Both companies tendered their input in a discussion paper released by the Aus Dept of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, which had called for feedback on transparency and accountability measures, 174 submissions were received in total.

The policy (if you haven’t heard) aims to "deny access" to overseas hosted internet content that is Refused Classification in Australia.

Google:

"In considering the government's plans for mandatory ISP level filtering we have listened to many views, but most importantly those of our users."

"RC is a broad category of content that includes not just child sexual abuse material but also socially and politically controversial material - for example, educational content on safer drug use - as well as the grey realms of material instructing in any crime, including politically controversial crimes such as euthanasia. "

"Decisions in relation to instructional, educational, scientific or current affairs video material will often be much more complex than in relation to entertainment 'films'."

"Scenes of war or terrorist activity may 'offensively depict real violence' and rate RC when the video is not in any way 'gratuitous violence' or posted for entertainment."

"Moving to a mandatory ISP level filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond child sexual abuse material would raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information."

"Filtering material from high-volume sites such as Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter appears not to be technologically possible as it would have such a serious impact on internet access".

"We have a number of other concerns, including that filtering may give a false sense of security to parents, it could damage Australia's international reputation and it can be easily circumvented."

Yahoo:

"Yahoo are entirely supportive of any effort to make the internet a safer place for children, however mandatory filtering of all RC material could block content with a strong social, political and/or educational value"

"Innocuous sites that could be blocked include:

• Safe injecting and other harm minimization websites.

• Euthanasia discussion forums.

• A video on creating graffiti art.

• Anti-abortion websites.

• Gay and lesbian forums that discuss sexual experiences.

• Explorations of the geo-political causes of terrorism where specific terrorist organizations and propaganda are cited as reference material."

I offered my own personal submission (well kind of); I wrote to the minister 6 times, rejecting the automated address I received the first time I had written. I was overjoyed when I received a note from his office today, a very speedy 3 month turn around in response.

The last paragraph on page 1 reads:

"The RC Content list includes child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape and detailed instruction of crime or drug use. The Government believes that RC content has no place in a civilized society and blocking of this material is nor an impingement on free speech."

This is really beginning to f*cking shit me. It’s regurgitated by the minister and Prime Minister every occasion the policy is discussed, it’s mindlessly repeated in every main stream media article ever posted about the policy.

Yes RC does include child sex, bestiality and rape. But as Google and Yahoo point out above, it also includes so much more.

The government should be required to reveal the truth, that RC content includes; safe drug injecting and harm minimization info, euthanasia forums, graffiti art videos, certain gay and lesbian forum content, terrorism studies, scenes of war "offensively depicting real violence", some fetish pornography, women with small breasts in porn and even porn featuring female ejaculation (when male ejaculation is quite acceptable).

If they did so though, told the truth, they would have but one solitary policy supporter, the Australian Christian Lobby.

This propaganda, choosing which facts to disclose, and which ones to omit, has been used to dodgy up surveys to in turn further the propaganda effort. It was reported that a commissioned survey reflected that 80% of Australians support mandatory internet censorship.

Crap! To begin, 1000 people only were telephoned, hardly a cross representational indication of the Australian continent. More importantly, participants were asked their opinion on the aforementioned propaganda:

Do you support the government filtering access to RC internet content that includes child sex, bestiality and rape?

You would have to be pretty f*cked up to answer no. Apparently though 20% of Australians are, or maybe they were just aware of the facts regarding the policy and choose not to comply with the loaded question.

An online survey on March 30, 2010 by the Age News paper was conducted without the propaganda.

Question - "do you approve of the government filtering the internet"

Response - 96% No, 3% Yes, 1% Indifferent


The Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 governs classification decisions. It provides that classifications are in accordance with the National Classification Code and guidelines.

The Code sets out that RC is applied to content which may; depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) took action against 1365 different pieces of web page content hosted overseas in the period 2008 – 2009. This was double the volume of items actioned for the previous year. It includes not just RC material for which filtering will be based upon, but also X18+ and "potentially prohibited" content.

At the same time, the actual number of complaints received by the ACMA decreased in the period. We are told that the system is complaints driven; ACMA only investigates content when it receives a complaint. It is quite curious to see complaints decrease but actions undertaken double.

On the topic of censoring online games, page 3 of my letter from the minister’s office reads:

"The Minister for Home Affairs released a discussion paper to consider whether there should be an R18+ category for computer games in Australia. The government’s approach to filtering online games will be developed drawing on this consultation process"

Making shit up as they go along in essence. If R18+ video game ratings are still not forthcoming after the consultation, any online game there forth not suitable for persons aged 15 years and under will be blocked from access, if law requirements are followed.

view the complete letter here

The US Government, Google and Yahoo are the latest and biggest in a long, long growing line of critics against Australia’s internet censorship policy. But are they the pot calling the kettle black?

YouTube (owned by Google) has a growing reputation for removing user videos by the bucket load. I have a YouTube channel specifically designed for reloading content that has been removed/banned by YT.

Currently I am unable to keep pace with restoring the content that has disappeared from the site, just within the videos I have added to my channel favorites. These are not videos that violate the terms of service (although they are often claimed to), they do not contain sex or violence, they are however politically sensitive.

I’m glad Google is so concerned about "restrictions on access to information". To add some perspective, YT generally do "take downs" upon request, so the true censorship culprits are those doing the requesting, media corporations.

YouTube recently revealed that the media company Viacom have been engaged in the game of uploading their own product to YT, only to then turn around and lodge complaint with take down request.

As for the US Government "raising concern" over the policy, this really is a twisted game they are playing, which is why Minister Conroy will probably not feel unduly pressured by the remarks.

The US Gov is at the forefront of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) which it is forcing upon the world. A balance heavily weighted in the interest of big media corps already exists under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but ACTA is set to take these interests to unprecedented new heights.

Australian copyright law largely mirrors US DM Copyright Act due to Australia being a signatory to the 2004 Free Trade Agreement, another US policy forced upon the world.

The ACTA treaty is highly secretive. After much tedious campaigning by Electronic Freedom Foundation in the US, 159 doc pages associated with the treaty were released, but only after 1362 had been deemed as potentially violating “national security” and withheld.

A new UK Digital Economy Bill has also been drafted as a result of ACTA negotiations. It is proposed in the UK, users have their internet service disconnected if they are caught file sharing 3 times or more, "three-strikes" and your out regime.

Other measures include a ban on open Wi-Fi (hot spots) and needless to say, website filtering. Currently the censorship of internet pornography and even abuse material is voluntary for ISPs in the UK, but this new Bill places compulsory requirements upon ISPs to block access to copyrighted content.

The ACTA treaty tentacles obligate signatories including Europe, USA, Japan, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Singapore, and United Arab Emirates.

An EU ACTA negotiator recently promised no "3 strikes" rules for Europe, but a leaked ACTA draft would indicate otherwise, as will be the case in future for all aforementioned signatory nations.

Conroy in a pickle

Paris-based media rights group Reporters Without Borders last week put Australia on its list of countries "under surveillance" in its recent "Internet Enemies" report.

Australia joins the company of countries in danger of making the main enemies list which includes Russia, Turkey and South Korea.

The report added that in South Korea; "draconian laws are creating too many specific restrictions on web users by challenging their anonymity and promoting self-censorship".

According to the report, China, Iran and Tunisia who have been named "Enemies of the Internet", got more sophisticated at censorship and overcoming dissidents' attempts to communicate online.

Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda - Stephen Conroy, protected under parliamentary privilege from real world accountability, attempted to mitigate the reports implications by attacking Electronic Frontiers Australia.

Prompted by the Reporters Without Borders report, Queensland Liberal Senator Sue Boyce asked Conroy if he had stifled national debate on internet filtering by "branding critics as child pornography advocates".

In reply Conroy said:

"The material that has been supplied to Reporters Without Borders comes from Electronic Frontiers Australia, who have been challenged publicly on a number of occasions to produce a quote where I have ever said that."

"Electronic Frontiers Australia have run one of the most disgraceful misinformation campaigns and have misled Australians."

"I challenge each and every one of you to come up with such a quote, because it does not exist."

But EFA immediately did produce two such quotes:

In one of the first public pronouncements of the policy, the Minister stated:

"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree."

On another occasion, when answering a question on the filter put to him by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam during a Senate Estimates hearing, the Minister dodged the question using this device:

Senator Ludlam – Just let me finish. In terms of the countries that you have just listed for me, it is mandatory or is it an opt-in system that, for example, concerned parents could take advantage of?

Senator Conroy – Illegal material is illegal material. Child pornography is child pornography. I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child pornography.

After laying down the challenge to find such a quote, Conroy (without irony) went on to say:

"Anyone who tries to suggest that anything other than material included in the RC classification is subject to the filter is misleading all Australians. Let me be very clear: the material under the RC classification is material like child pornography."

EFA asserts that RWB have never contacted them for opinion or briefing on this matter.

One commenter at EFA points out:

"All you have to do to make something “RC” is to simply refuse it. What a twit."

Very true, Refused Classification material already includes content that "instructs or promotes" acts of crime like safe drug use, graffiti art and euthanasia.

Adult content depicting particular fetishes is also RC, in example "golden showers". Recently female ejaculation was reviewed to be included under the later category. It has also been proposed that small breasted women in sexual contexts be refused classification.

But can we trust the government of the day to only ever apply a filter to RC content; even though that in itself can grow to incorporate anything they chose?

Just one year ago Conroy himself was flagging that the compulsory filtering would be based upon the ACMA blacklist of prohibited websites. After much outcry, making sh*t up on the fly, the Minister back flipped to announce official filtering policy was now strictly about denying access to RC, a subset of the blacklist which contained legal adult material.

This got the Australian Christian Lobby all hot and bothered who accused the government of breaking its election promise to censor the internet.

ACL managing director Jim Wallace said of the change to RC content filtering only;

"That doesn't meet the election promise as far as we're concerned at all. The promise was clearly about providing a safer internet environment for children and to do that you need to mandatorily block in the first instance pornography and R18+, and then provide an opt-in system for those adults who want to access it."

Even if Conroy can continue to dodge the wrath of the fundamentalist ACL and maintain a course of RC filtering, as apposed to filtering all online adult pleasures, this would still be an assault on freedom of speech.

Recently the minister called upon Google to censor all videos on its YouTube website in accordance with the filtering scheme. Google Australia politely told him to go f*ck himself, saying:

"The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information. RC includes the grey realms of material instructing in any crime from [painting] graffiti to politically controversial crimes such as euthanasia, and exposing these topics to public debate is vital for democracy."

Poor Stephen, he’s alienated just about all internet users and the internet industry for planning to over filter, while the zealous filter advocates are p*ssed that his plan doesn’t censor nearly enough.

Block the Filter

Reminder – National day of action. On the 6th of March 2010, Block the Filter, Stop Internet Censorship and Stop the Filter will be holding events in Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney. More info - www.block-the-filter.org/

I don’t want to be a broken record, but the mandatory internet censorship policy that our Government has locked in, under the pretense of protecting children, is something that I find most disturbing, so I will cover the topic once more.

Protecting children is a noble objective, one that should be paramount with no resource spared, but censoring the internet or as the government terms it “filtering”, can not deliver on this vital objective.

The Government euphemistically refers to its policy for mandatory internet censorship as “filtering”, but filtering is something applied to percolating coffee. Make no mistake; this is censorship, pure and simple.

Federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says some internet content is simply not suitable in a civilized society and that “It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material.”

There are currently around 25 billion indexed pages accessible from the World Wide Web, plus an untold number of encrypted and hidden pages which have not been indexed by major search engines.

Even the most clueless of clueless Governments could not seriously entertain that a blacklist could in any way shape or form, provide a meaningful “filtering” solution for that volume of website pages.

It is clear from the outset that this policy has nothing to do with “protecting citizens” and has everything to do with creating additional government authority for the purpose of censoring any internet content that they so choose, in a very targeted manner, as this is the only manner feasible.

If anything, the policy will place children at greater peril, as parents may be given a false sense of security and become more complacent about their children’s online activities. The policy is an easy fix solution, one that requires no real effort by parents in being responsible for their children’s safety, and one that requires no real effort for government to implement. This makes the policy very attractive to all concerned, but again the sense of security is extremely misplaced.

Senator Conroy has announced the requirements that Internet Service Providers censor internet content hosted overseas, will come into effect twelve months from the date of the passage of the legislation.

This conveniently places the commencement of censoring our internet, post Election Day. There’s a reason for this, the Government knows full well how enormously unpopular the policy is.

However rather than listen to just about every respected academic and technical mind in the country, and around 90% of the general population, who are all screaming NO FILTER, the Government seem quite at ease demonstrating utter contempt and disregard for our wishes, providing they can of course do so and still secure re-election.

If you believe what the Government tells you, you may have the impression that the mechanism for “filtering” is purely based upon a “defined list of URLs” or black list which ISPs will deny end user access to.

But of course the Government has not exactly been forthcoming with disclosing the technologies that were utilized in trials during 2009.

Lui Spandas of ARNnet reported in June 2009 that ISPs involved in the trials were using appliance based products which through signature blocking, have capabilities for filtering peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic, instant messaging communications, anonymous website proxies and online gaming sites.

Quoting Webshield Managing director Anthony Pillion, Spandas writes:

“Web filtering is more granular and flexible than just blocking a black list and we haven’t stopped at Web content level.”

Stephen Conroy says the Government will not determine what is blacklisted; rather an independent body will determine what sites are rated as RC (refused classification).

The “independent body” he refers to is otherwise known as the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), a government organization.

Currently the Australian Classification Board provides classifications on internet content to the ACMA on request, if and only if, the ACMA receives a complaint about internet content. According to the ACMA website:

The ACMA can only take action about material that is prohibited, or potentially prohibited, under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

This golden rule will now be applied to all overseas content under the filtering policy and already law exists in anticipation of that. The Broadcasting Services Act of 1992, Amended Nov 20th 2009, Vol 2 reads:

If, in the course of an investigation under Division 2 of Part 3 of Schedule 7, the ACMA is satisfied that Internet content hosted outside Australia is prohibited content or potential prohibited content, the ACMA must:

Give each Internet service provider known to the ACMA a written notice (a standard access-prevention notice) directing the provider to take all reasonable steps to prevent end-users from accessing the content.

If you are to attempt discourse with Minister Conroy or worse, ask him to explain the Governments position in this matter, you will receive from his office a publication entitled “Cyber-safety and internet service provider filtering” which will do nothing to address your questions.

One paragraph of this document makes the claim:

“For families that wish to have a wider range of material filtered, including potentially X18+ content and gaming sites, the Government will establish a grants program to encourage ISPs to offer these services on a commercial basis.”

This would appear to contradict the Broadcasting Services Act which, defining Prohibited Content reads:

For the purposes of this Schedule, content (other than content that consists of an eligible electronic publication) is prohibited content if:

(a) The content has been classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board; or

(b) Both:

(i) The content has been classified R 18+ by the Classification Board; and

(ii) Access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system.

Further, the Act defines potential prohibited content as follows:

For the purposes of this Schedule, content is potential prohibited content if:

a) the content has not been classified by the Classification Board; and

(b) if the content were to be classified by the Classification Board, there is a substantial likelihood that the content would be prohibited content.

Online video games will also be subject to internet filtering requirements. This presents a double edged injustice, as Australia is currently the only democracy in the world that has no adult classification ratings for video games.

What that means is existing video games, even extremely graphic and adult audience orientated ones, receive a maximum classification rating of MA+ 15 in Australia. This allows minor’s to play games with inappropriate content for their age, often unbeknown to their parents whom mistakenly believe MA+ 15 indicates suitability for ages 15 years and above.

A similar set of circumstances apply to games, which have been outlined in relation to internet content. If someone complains about a game, or the Classification Board receives a tip off about content concerns before a game is released, they revue the game in question. If it is found to fall outside the definition of MA+ 15, then it is classified RC, becoming prohibited content.

It will become very common indeed under these guidelines, for online games to be added to the list for which access is denied.

Already an ever increasing amount of material is being categorized as, and adding to, an extensive list of prohibited content, long before filtering is even due to begin. At this rate, by the time filtering does arrive, it may well be that content from main stream media outlets are the only remaining publications/productions which the Government allows the public to access.

Free speech now $20K speech

Detailed in the previous post, revelations of South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson, suing one of his own constituents for the sum of $20K, because she was brazen enough to complain about Atkinson in a confidential email which she sent to her local Council, who then forwarded the correspondence to Atkinson.

Last night in the ABC program – Media Watch, more details of Atkinson suing yet another individual for calling him a “crook” in a blog comment. The asking sum - $20K of course. Poor Mr. Atkinson must be short of dollars, so has thus instigated this genius plan of demanding $20,000 from anyone who annoys him.

If you would like to donate to the Michael Atkinson fund, here’s how, just make an unfavourable remark about him, on the blog of your choosing, anywhere on the net (doesn’t matter where, he’ll track you down), and you too will receive an extortion note from his lawyers Norman Waterhouse.

It’s a bargain really; just $20K and you can say whatever, just like free speech but not, because it costs $20K, call it $20k speech.

So ok, here’s what I think, $20K speech is terrorism, Michael Atkinson you are a terrorist and Norman Waterhouse – go f*ck yourself!

Dumb & Dumber

What have dumb & dumber been up to lately?

Dumb Stephen Conroy (Minister of Enlightenment) in charge of censoring the internet in Australia, was sprung last week censoring his own website.

Andrew Ramadge - News.com

The front page of Minister Conroy's official website displays a list of topics connected to his portfolio, along with links to more information about each one.

All the usual topics are there – cyber safety, the national broadband network and so on.

All except one.

It was revealed today a script within the minister's homepage deliberately removes references to internet filtering from the list.

In the function that creates the list, or "tag cloud", there is a condition that if the words "ISP filtering" appear they should be skipped and not displayed.

According to Google's cache records, the exception has been included on the minister's homepage since at least February 14.

I get the feeling that his office email has the same filter filter, because despite sending countless requests for answers on policy queries, I still await reply.

As for dumber Michael Atkinson (AG SA) in charge of censoring video games in Australia, he has been inconspicuously absent from the media since the infamous "Good Game" interview, see previous post - Who is Michael Atkinson?

"I feel that my family and I are more at risk from gamers than we are from outlaw motorcycle gangs, who also hate me and are running a candidate against me."

"The outlaw motorcycle gangs haven't been hanging around my doorstep at 2am - a gamer has."

I suspect with the South Australian election so near (March 20th), Atkinson can no longer afford to be recorded or reported making any public comment, as every time he does so, he does himself a huge disfavour.

Note of interest: video game retailer EB Games has collected 46000 signatures in the last 3 weeks, for a national petition in support of an R18+ rating for video games.

Being now starved of Atkinson’s Magoo like comedic prowess, possibly due to a self imposed media gag, I’ll add in a few more blasts from the past here which I didn’t quite fit into the previous post, cause everyone needs a laugh.

Recently Atkinson, in a feeble attempt to justify new South Australian law banning anonymous online political commentary during election periods, a law which he himself had sponsored, Atkinson said on radio the censorship was necessary because fictitious characters were being deployed by opposition parties to defame him.

Bryan Littlely, Greg Kelton - Adelaidenow.com

Atkinson:

"I'll give you an example; repeatedly in the AdelaideNow website one will see commentary from Aaron Fornarino of West Croydon. That person doesn't exist"

"That name has been created by the Liberal Party in order to run Liberal Party commentary."

When asked how he knew Mr Fornarino did not exist, Mr Atkinson said:

"Because I've been the member for the area for 20 years, I've lived here for longer.

"I have the up-to-date electoral roll and I just know West Croydon people very well."

But Mr Fornarino does exist. He lives in a flat on Port Rd, about 500m from Mr Atkinson's electorate office.

Mr Fornarino, 28, a second-year law student, moved to the West Croydon, address in September.

One of the all time classics from Atkinson was his tale about bikies barbecuing and eating a cat, in a public park just near his house.

The statement was made during debate after the Government had deemed it necessary to add extra amendments to an Act prohibiting the consumption of cats and dogs.

It was later revealed that they were not bikies, it was not a cat, it was no where near his house and the event had transpired some 13 years prior.

Poor confused Michael apologized in Parliament for his artistically creative comments:

"I apologise to the Gypsy Jokers, the Hells Angels, the Finks, the Rebels, the Bandido's and the Descendants and any other gangs the Member for Unley nominates as being cut to the quick by my remark during debate."

These examples demonstrate how readily Mr. Atkinson will utilize an imaginary premise to score points or secure support for unnecessary laws. The cat/dog Act amendments were passed.

On to a serious matter now that has Atkinson’s finger prints all over it, St Clair Reserve Woodville. Charles Sturt Council who owns this popular children’s play park, has given approval for a new housing estate to be built on the land.

Originally the land developers secured approval for the project on an adjacent, abandoned, industrially contaminated block but later withdrew due to the land remediation burden. Consequently a deal was struck to "swap" the land, put the playground in the industrial waste site and build houses on the playground.

Independent MP David Winderlich has been successful in calling for an investigation, he claims Atkinson offered one councillor his support for a Labor seat and another an appointment to chair a committee with a $3000 payment attached, in exchange for influencing Charles Sturt to go ahead with the land swap.

A couple of thousand residents have been furiously protesting the move, one of whom sent a series of emails to Charles Sturt Council commenting on statements made by Mr. Winderlich in parliament, which suggested Mr Atkinson’s staffers had intimidated residents.

The problem with that is that 12 of 17 Charles Sturt Councillors are members of the Labor Party and three are actually employed by Labor MPs. The confidential email was passed on to Mr. Atkinson by a source or sources within the Charles Sturt Council.

Acting on behalf of Michael Atkinson, Norman Waterhouse lawyers served notice on the resident in question, demanding $23,000 in damages and legal fees.

more info at charlessturtratepayers.org

Copyright theft or Big Brother by stealth?

The ABC reports that “the Australian film and television industry has lost a case against a major internet service provider whose customers downloaded pirated movies and television programs” - Hooray!

The legal action followed a five-month investigation by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft.

The companies claimed iiNet infringed copyright by failing to stop users engaging in illegal file sharing.

Justice Dennis Cowdroy said it was "impossible" to find against iiNet for what its users did.

Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director Neil Gane said he was disappointed with the decision.

Mr Gane said he was confident that the Federal Government would now review the laws surrounding copyright infringement.

The entertainment companies compiled their evidence by hiring two investigators to subscribe to iiNet and then begin trading files using different BitTorrent networks.

They kept track of what movies and TV shows they were sharing, when they downloaded them, and the ID numbers of the computers they were sharing these files with.

My opinion: Media companies should not be trying to penalize end users, or their ISP for sharing files, particularly when the media companies actually took part in the sharing.

Sharing files online should be no more illegal than permitting a neighbour to view a purchased DVD disc. If an individual was charging for the property of a media company, that’s theft, but even then why pursue the ISP that individual subscribes to?

I find Neil Gane’s expectation that Government will now review laws, very troublesome, I wonder what inspires his confidence.

In readiness of the fourth coming mandatory internet filtering, laws have already been written into the Broadcasting Services Act which obligates ISPs to execute “denial of access” for anything identified as “prohibited content”.

And then on Feb 2nd 2010, there is this - Senate passes net interception Bill.

This is all seems to be pointing to the painting of a disturbing image for the manner in which people will access (or not access) the net in future.

Although Hillary Clinton recently denounced internet censorship: “Countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century”, in truth the grimy finger prints from the hand of big brother being smeared all over the internet in Australia, would appear to be originating from US government policy.

Angus Kidman of crikey.com reports:

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) spearheaded by the US government, which apparently doesn’t think its existing draconian proposals in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (which Australian copyright law largely mirrors, thanks to the 2004 Free Trade Agreement) go far enough.

The proposal has been debated at a series of meetings between stakeholders since 2007, and while confirmed information is fairly scant, earlier leaked documents suggest that as well as covering physical piracy, ACTA will try and enforce copyright in the digital realm, meaning the same kind of ISP-level meddling that’s associated with current internet censorship proposals in Australia.

Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade:

“The participants in ACTA negotiations do not intend for the ACTA to target individuals, the privacy of individuals or the property of individuals where those individuals are not engaged in commercial scale trade in counterfeit and pirate goods.”

What DFAT doesn’t discuss at all is the highly secretive nature of the treaty process. A prolonged legal campaign by the Electronic Freedom Foundation in the US did eventually result in 159 pages of documents associated with the treaty being released but only after 1362 had been deemed as potentially violating “national security” and withheld.

Open government seems to be playing second fiddle to the demands of the IP protection crowd, which counts deep-pocketed software makers and movie studios among its most verbal supporters.

Policy measures for combating copyright theft on one hand and censoring internet content to “protect children” on the other, may seem unrelated at a glance but only if you believe the lies.

As far as I am concerned, the protecting children line is a lie, how can government possibly filter 25 billion World Wide Web pages with any effectiveness whatsoever? In addition, certain organisations, ones that have a large enough profit margin, will enjoy exemption from being filtered.

In example, management from SecondLife have stated they have government assurance that they will be unaffected by filtering. How can this be when some areas of SL host the most heinous of debaucheries to be found in any online gaming platform, anywhere on the net?

Denial of access to internet end users by big brother to protect copyright law, and denial of access to protect children from undesirable content are both two sides of the same coin. Coin literally. Allowing people of the Earth to have freedom of choice, is not in the interest of the small minority, over privileged who puppeteer our governments and own all the big media companies, when they have a monopoly to maintain.

Atkinson; Humble pie tastes like sh*t!

Image from The Inquisitr

South Australia’s Attorney General Michael Atkinson, has crash landed back to Earth after completing a double back flip (with half pike), and is now enduring the sour taste of humble pie, forcibly spoon fed while under restraint.

A furore erupted on the 2nd of Feb, when it became widespread public knowledge that the SA Government had passed a Bill sponsored by Mr. Atkinson, amending the Electoral Act (effective as of 6th Jan 2010).

The new Act reads:

"A person must not during an election period, publish material consisting of, or containing a commentary on, any candidate or political party, or the issues being submitted to electors, in written form, in a journal published in electronic form on the internet or by radio or television or broadcast on the internet, unless the material or the program in which the material is presented contains a statement of the name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of that material."

Chris Prior from gamers4croydon wrote:

After only a few hours of public outrage, Michael Atkinson has promised to repeal the legislation after the election, and not enforce it during this electoral period. Given the Rann Government's history of sticking to election promises (for example, regarding the banning of political advertising with public funds) we're not going to forget this ill-fated attack on civil liberties by the people who should be representing us.

The law applies in SA (or no longer applies, only on the word of Mr. Atkinson’s promise) between the issue of a writ authorizing an election and the election.

Fines of $1250 for citizens can be issued for non-compliance in the law which also requires media organizations to keep a person's real name and full address on file for six months, with fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.

Chris Prior, gamers4croydon:

2/2/10

Now, whenever a South Australian writes a comment about a political matter during an election period, they must provide their full name and address. With accusations of government MPs threatening their constituents with legal action for expressing dissent, it is not difficult to imagine a possible motivation for these changes.

The AdelaideNow website (a division of News Corp’s Advertiser Newspaper) reported:

Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said the law would not impinge on free speech and claimed that he expected The Advertiser and AdelaideNow to "publish false stories about me, invent things about me to punish me''.

Mr. Atkinson described AdelaideNow as "not just a sewer of criminal defamation'' but also "a sewer of identity theft and fraud''

WTF Mick?

I used to have respect for Mick Atkinson; he was once a politician who was approachable, a regular local guy. While most other parliamentarians were being chauffeur driven about town in luxury cars paid for by tax payers, Mick could always be seen pedaling down the street on his bicycle, arriving at work with pegged trouser legs.

But this outburst against AdelaideNow; "a sewer of criminal defamation", in itself defamation, clearly suggests the old man is going senile.

And this is not the only gibberish attack to dribble from the mouth of Mr. Atkinson of late. I get the feeling he’s a tad nervous about the forthcoming March 20 election in SA.

He has held the seat of Croydon in Adelaide for the last 20 years but now there is a new party on the block directly challenging him in his own electorate, gamers4croydon.

Atkinson has been a lone campaigner (only Attorney-General in Australia) persisting in voting no on the introduction of an R18+ classification rating for video games in Australia. This was the primary catalyst for gamers4croydon forming; they hope to apply enough pressure to have this classification issue resolved on the side of common sense.

Speaking to GameSpot AU Atkinson said he wasn't threatened by gamers4croydon's presence.

However, he then proceeded to attack them just for good measure:

"I assume the gamers4croydon campaign will involve criminal activities and dirty tricks, which is what I've come to expect from gamers."

As a member of gamers4croydon and/or just as a gamer, I find that remark highly offensive, way to alienate your constituency Mick.

The story of the amended Electoral Act ends happily for now (providing we can believe the promise of a politician) and it’s a great demonstration of what can be achieved if people only give a dam, and act on their convictions.

Even if Mick keeps good on his promise, the fact that he sponsored the implementation of this abominable law to start with, and the main opposition party supported the law without objection, would incline me to recommend all South Australians vote 1, gamers4croydon.

South Australians can support gamers4croydon by signing up for membership (free) and/ or making donations, click here.

You may also show your support by purchasing gamers4croydon gear.

Blackout Week

It’s been 2 weeks now since I last submitted queries regarding compulsory internet filtering to the Minister of Enlightenment, Senator Conroy, see previous post. I still await reply and therefore shall begin sending his office frequent requests.

There are many great protests evolving against the announced internet filtering policy. One group registered the domain stephenconroy.com.au which proudly displays the header; Stephen Conroy: Minister for Fascism.

Despite Minister Conroy profusely guaranteeing complete transparency in censoring our online content, the stephenconroy.com.au story is perhaps a true indication of the way the Australian Government intends to use these new powers.

Conroy officially announced future mandatory internet filtering on the 15th Dec 2009, and then quickly disappeared for the holiday break. On the 18th Dec 2009, the Australian Domain Name Administrator (auDA) issued notice to the owners of stephenconroy.com.au, demanding evidence of eligibility to hold such a domain name.

auDA gave them a leisurely 3 hours to satisfy the demand from time of notice issue. The website was taken offline upon the deadline expiring.

The website owners quickly re-established their online presence at Stephen-conroy.com where Australian authorities have no jurisdiction.

The best thing about this site is that a photo of Minister Conroy shares different random words of wisdom each time a visitor loads the page. My favourite is this one -

Other captions I quite like:

"What do you mean basically every respected academic and technical mind in the country is screaming NO? They’re all wrong. God told me so."

"The first rule of mandatory internet censorship is that you don’t oppose mandatory internet censorship."

"The people who are telling the real TRUTH about my filtering plan are DECEPTIVE…"

"Prepare to be censored, BITCHES!"

There is more good information regarding the filtering issue and some nice protest action at www.internetblackout.com.au

A Parliamentary petition against internet filtering can also be signed at Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA).



Update to previous post:

gamers4croydon has upgraded their website which can now be viewed here. They have now been officially registered as a political party and have announced their running candidates, hooray!

Related posts:

Dear Minister Conroy

Minister of enlightenment turns off the lights

Censordyne

F**king Censorship

Technical ways to get around censorship

Russian Mob Hacks Dentist

Censor this

Australian web filter blacklist

iiNet pulls out of Gov trials

Dear Minister Conroy

I forwarded correspondence to Australia's Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, on 17/12/09 in relation to the announcement of compulsory internet filtering.

Original correspondence included:

Dear Minister Conroy

I am outraged with the announcement that compulsory internet filtering will proceed.

There are currently around 110 million operational websites online with in excess of 25 billion indexed pages. How does one review 25 billion pages and counting? Even if only 1% of those pages were “prohibited content”, no organization could hope to apply a meaningful filter solution; it would be like trying to arrest a locust plague with a butterfly net.

It is clear from the outset that this policy has nothing to do with “protecting citizens/children” and has everything to do with government censoring any internet content that they so choose, in a targeted manner, as this is the only manner feasible.

I was not aware that websites are assigned classifications (and I'm a website owner), so I investigated. The Australian Classification Board provides classifications on internet content to the ACMA on request, if and only if, the ACMA receives a complaint about internet content. According to the ACMA website; “The ACMA can only take action about material that is prohibited, or potentially prohibited, under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.”

Scanning through, it would appear that the Broadcasting Services Act, amended Nov 20, 2009, already contains the provisions for compulsory internet filtering.

In summary, the Act bestows the ACMA with the power to enforce that all ISPs deny access to any internet content that is rated X 18+ or refused classification (RC).

Already RC is applied to an ever increasing number of films by the Australian office of censorship (Classification Board), making them illegal in Australia, and all video games are RC by default if they cannot meet the MA15+ standard.

Dictating that adults should not be free to choose adult entertainment has no place in a "democracy"

If we really lived in a democracy, a majority voice would prevail. That majority voice has for the past year, been strongly advising you against this policy, and yet you remain unmoved in a position contrary to common sense. Why don't you just come out and say you hold no regard for public opinion if that is the case?

I received reply on the 4th Jan 2010 in the form of an attached PDF – “Cyber-safety and internet service provider filtering”.

While I appreciate the response, the PDF (outlining the filtering policy), does little in addressing any of the concerns I submitted.

Further, the PDF contradicts the Broadcasting Services Act.

From the “Cyber-safety and internet service provider filtering” (PDF) I received:

“For families that wish to have a wider range of material filtered, including potentially X18+ content and gaming sites, the Government will establish a grants program to encourage ISPs to offer these services on a commercial basis.”

From Broadcasting Services Act 1992
Amended Nov 20, 2009
Vol 2:

If, in the course of an investigation under Division 2 of Part 3 of Schedule 7, the ACMA is satisfied that Internet content hosted outside Australia is prohibited content or potential prohibited content, the ACMA must:

Give each Internet service provider known to the ACMA a written notice (a standard access-prevention notice) directing the provider to take all reasonable steps to prevent end-users from accessing the content.

Prohibited Content:

For the purposes of this Schedule, content (other than content that consists of an eligible electronic publication) is prohibited content if:

(a) The content has been classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board; or

(b) Both:

(i) The content has been classified R 18+ by the Classification Board; and

(ii) Access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system.

Naturally, I submitted another email to the office of Minister Conroy, as follows:

Minister Conroy, are you oblivious to the laws relating to your own portfolio (X 18+ is prohibited online content), or are you intentionally misleading the public when you claim “ISPs will be encouraged to offer filtering” of X18+ content?

I think it appropriate that you actually answer this question and not send another PDF in response which 1) tells me what I already know, and 2) raises even more questions.

I also expect an answer to the following, and will continue to send correspondence until I receive reply that does address my questions.

1) How can you claim that “a defined list of URLs can be filtered with 100 per cent accuracy” when it was revealed in trials that the web pages of a Queensland tour operator, boarding kennel and a dentist, as well as online gambling sites, You Tube links, regular porn and fetish sites and Wikileaks pages had all been included in the ACMA’s secret “defined list”?

2) There are currently approximately 25 billion indexed web pages world wide, how do you propose a meaningful “defined list” solution for that volume?

3) All video games are classified RC by default in Australia if they cannot meet the MA15+ standard, why are you proposing that adults should not be free to choose adult entertainment?

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy can be contacted via: minister@dbcde.gov.au Please email the Minister to express your own concerns.

Censorship issues have inspired the birth of a new political party in South Australia, gamers4croydon.

We are committed to running candidates in next year's (2010) South Australia election, with specific emphasis on the Croydon electorate.

Why?

There are several reasons, but the main and driving reason is to exert pressure on the Attorney General for South Australia, Michael Atkinson, as he is currently the only Attorney General voting 'no' against the introduction of an R18+ classification rating for videogames in Australia.

Trivial, right? No!

This is about every adult's right to engage in whatever kind of lawful entertainment they see fit. This is about fighting censorship and enabling freedom of expression through art. This is about bringing Australia into line with every other progressive country in the world and letting our adults play adult-oriented material.

Read more from gamers4croydon...

Minister of Enlightenment turns off the lights

Its official, Australian Minister of National Enlightenment and Propaganda, Comrade Conroy announces the death of the internet as we know it in Australia.

ABC News, Dec 15 2009

The Federal Government will introduce compulsory internet filtering.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced the changes today following a controversial trial to filter the internet which was conducted earlier this year.

Senator Conroy says some internet content is simply not suitable in a civilised society.

"It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material," he said.

He says the Government will not determine what is blacklisted on the internet in Australia; rather an independent body will determine what sites are rated as RC for refused classification.

Legislation will be introduced into Parliament next year which will require all ISPs to block material which has been refused classification in other countries.

The filtering trial attracted criticism from some who said it would not work and would slow internet speeds.

But Senator Conroy says the trial has been successful.

"Our pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100 per cent accuracy," he said.

"It also demonstrated that it can be done with negligible impact on internet speed."

Grants will also be offered to ISPs to voluntarily block other content.

After the legislation is passed the filter will take 12 months to implement.

Senator Conroy says the Government will take steps to ensure the filter is transparent and people know why material is being blocked.

In May 2008, the Government said it would spend $125.8 million over four years on several measures to strengthen cyber safety, including the filter.

Analyzing this lunacy:

1) "Some internet content is simply not suitable in a civilized society, it is important that all Australians are protected from this material".

I was under the mistaken impression that individuals in civilized society had the capacity and freedom to autonomously discern good from bad, and accordingly make a decision to consume or not consume, thank you Senator for correcting my misguided perception.

In all seriousness, protecting the children just doesn’t wash. There are currently around 110 million operational websites online with in excess of 25 billion indexable pages, plus a few more pages that haven’t been indexed by Google or Yahoo.

How in the f*ck do you review 25 billion pages and counting? Even if only 1% of those pages were “prohibited content”, no organization (government or otherwise) could hope to apply a meaningful filter solution, it would be like trying to arrest a locust plague with a butterfly net.

It is clear from the outset that this policy has nothing to do with “protecting citizens” and has everything to do with creating additional government authority for the purpose of censoring any internet content that they so choose, in a very targeted manner, as this is the only manner feasible.

2) "Government will not determine what is blacklisted; rather an independent body will determine what sites are rated as RC".

Independent in the way that the “Peoples Daily” is an independent newspaper in the People’s Republic of China. The “independent body” comrade refers to is otherwise known as the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), a government organization.

3) "Legislation will be introduced into Parliament next year which will require all ISPs to block material which has been refused classification in other countries".

I assume that should read something like “Legislation will be introduced into Parliament next year which will require all ISPs to block material from other countries which has been refused classification in Australia.”

After all, (don’t quote me on this) but I would suspect that classification codes are not quite up to par in Uzbekistan or Uruguay. Conversely, any content outside the Chairman Mao fan club is RC in China.

My next thought was, are websites actually classified in Australia? I mean, I have never seen a website with classification info, like the logos that appear on DVD movies.

Upon investigation, as near as I can tell from available info, the Australian Classification Board provides classifications on internet content to the ACMA on request, if and only if, the ACMA receives a complaint about internet content. According to the ACMA website: “The ACMA can only take action about material that is prohibited, or potentially prohibited, under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.”

As for legislation being introduced next year, it would appear that media law imposing “access prevention notices” on ISPs is already active, as gleaned from the Act, thanks ACMA for the tip.

In summary, the act (amended just weeks ago) bestows the ACMA government organisation with the power to enforce that all ISPs deny access to any internet content that is rated X 18+ or refused classification (RC).

If, in the course of an investigation, the ACMA is satisfied that Internet content is prohibited content or potential prohibited content, the ACMA must:

Give each Internet service provider known to the ACMA a written notice (a standard access-prevention notice) directing the provider to take all reasonable steps to prevent end-users from accessing the content.

See below at bottom of this post for important excerpts and a link to the Broadcasting Services Act.

Already RC is applied to an ever increasing number of films by the Australian office of censorship (Classification Board), making them illegal in Australia, and all video games (online or other wise) are RC by default if they cannot meet the MA15+ standard.

4) "Our pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100 per cent accuracy."

Hugh, come again? Back in March it was revealed with much fan fair in the main stream media, that the web pages of a Queensland tour operator, boarding kennel and a dentist had all been included in this “defined URL list” being trialled.

In addition, online gambling sites, You Tube links, regular porn and fetish sites and Wikileaks pages were also found in the black list.

Wikileaks reported at the time:

"Apparently without irony, ACMA threatens fines of up to $11,000 a day for linking to sites on its secret, unreviewable, censorship blacklist. This week saw Australia joining China and the United Arab Emirates as the only countries censoring Wikileaks. We were not notified by ACMA."

Comrade Conroy guest starred on ABC TV and made rather bemusing claims about the Russian Mafia hacking the web-page of the dentist in a pathetic attempt to justify why the blacklist filter had been less than “100% accurate”.

Minister of National Enlightenment and Propaganda, Stephen Conroy.

See - Russian Mob Hacks Dentist

5) "Grants will also be offered to ISPs to voluntarily block other content."

Perhaps the most nefarious line in the ABC article, WTF does this mean, block other content?

Before closing comments on this article, the ABC was swamped with 350 of them. Scrolling through, I detected about 7 comments in favour of the filtering, but I suspect one of those was Minister Conroy, who under the handle Kex wrote:

I think it's a good compromise between protection and freedom of expression. The commitments to transparency are a pretty good inclusion as well.

And then there were the super delusional. -

Comment by Delta:

Hmmmm reading most of these posts seems a lot of people are into the hard core porn, sexual abuse and the like, well what ever turns you on....

Remember it’s designed to protect young children and people who have a clean and decent outlook on life.

Overwhelmingly though, about 343 from 350 comments expressed outrage and a desire to burn the government at the stake.

It would appear from the comments however, that the public is oblivious to just how sinister the filtering announcement really is.

It’s not merely a dumb filter programmed with a black list; our government has been less than forthcoming in disclosing the technologies which will be utilized under the legislation. Most ISPs in the trial were all using appliance based products with signature blocking capabilities able to filter P2P, IMs, anonymous proxies and online gaming.

See - ISPs reveal clean-filter technologies

Conroy may be less articulate than a baboon’s asshole and apparently arrogant enough to fly in the face of all considered and professional advice on this issue, but this is not about the Rudd government, this is a world wide attack on public freedom to access information.

In the UK, a new Digital Economy Bill is currently under review in the House of Lords. It contains a provision (clause 11), which begins:

The Secretary of State may at any time by order impose a technical obligation on internet service providers if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate….

The definition of a "technical obligation" and "technical measure" are inserted by clause 10:

A "technical obligation", in relation to an internet service provider, is an obligation for the provider to take a technical measure against particular subscribers to its service.

A "technical measure" is a measure that— (a) limits the speed or other capacity of the service provided to a subscriber; (b) prevents a subscriber from using the service to gain access to particular material, or limits such use; (c) suspends the service provided to a subscriber; or (d) limits the service provided to a subscriber in another way.

See - government-wants-new-powers

Authorities in the UK are claiming these measures are designed for combating copyright infringement, probably less insulting to the intelligence of the public than the story about protecting children, but my point is governments are not behind this attack on our freedoms, they are just facilitating it.

The Howard Gov (previous Aust Gov) was in the process of implementing this action and an Abbott Gov (new leader of opposition Gov) would not deviate from this course either.

Governments are not elected; they are selected, by the people who own them and whom the government is always answerable to, the few who really run this world from behind the curtain. These are the people we need to dethrone.

Protest action is already alive and well, in September; Prime Minister Kevin Dudd’s own official website was attacked and shut down, allegedly by the group “Anonymous” who had given prior warning that government websites would be targeted.

See - Rudd website attacked in filter protest

For more info on the trials, click here.

See also - EFA, Net censorship trial report brings more questions than answers




Broadcasting Services Act 1992
Amended Nov 20, 2009
Vol 2

Extracts:

Schedule 5 - Online services

This Schedule sets up a system for regulating certain aspects of the Internet industry.

• If the ACMA is satisfied that Internet content hosted outside Australia is prohibited content or potential prohibited content, the ACMA must:

(a) if the ACMA considers that the content is of a sufficiently serious nature to warrant referral to a law enforcement agency—notify the content to an Australian police force; and

(b) Notify the content to Internet service providers so that the providers can deal with the content in accordance with procedures specified in an industry code or industry standard (for example, procedures for the filtering, by technical means, of such content).

• The ACMA has a reserve power to make an industry standard if there are no industry codes or if an industry code is deficient.

• The ACMA may make online provider determinations regulating Internet service providers.

If, in the course of an investigation under Division 2 of Part 3 of Schedule 7, the ACMA is satisfied that Internet content hosted outside Australia is prohibited content or potential prohibited content, the ACMA must:

Give each Internet service provider known to the ACMA a written notice (a standard access-prevention notice) directing the provider to take all reasonable steps to prevent end-users from accessing the content.

The ACMA may, by written instrument, declare that a specified arrangement is a recognised alternative access-prevention arrangement for the purposes of the application of this Division to one or more specified end-users if the ACMA is satisfied that the arrangement is likely to provide a reasonably effective means of preventing access by those end-users to prohibited content and potential prohibited content.

Industry codes and industry standards

• Compliance with industry standards is mandatory.

Matters that must be dealt with by industry codes and industry Standards

General matters

(1) The Parliament intends that, for the Internet service provider section of the Internet industry, there should be:

(a) an industry code or an industry standard that deals with; or
(b) an industry code and an industry standard that together deal with;

(j) subject to subclause (8A), action to be taken to assist in the development and implementation of Internet content filtering technologies (including labelling technologies);

(m) procedures directed towards the achievement of the objective of ensuring that, in the event that a participant in the Internet service provider section of the Internet industry becomes aware that an Internet content host is hosting prohibited content in Australia, the host is told about the prohibited content.

Other matters

(d) subject to subclause (8A), procedures to be followed by Internet service providers in dealing with Internet content notified under paragraph 40(1)(b) of this Schedule or clause 46 (for example, procedures to be followed by a particular class of Internet service providers for the filtering, by technical means, of such content).

(8A) If the Minister is satisfied that Internet content filtering is not viable in relation to access to Internet content using a particular device (for example, a mobile telephone handset), the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that paragraphs (1)(j), (k) and (l) and (2)(d) do not apply in relation to access to Internet content using that device.


Schedule 7 - Online services

11. Eligible electronic publication

For the purposes of this Schedule, if:

(a) content consists of:

(i) an electronic edition of a book, magazine or newspaper; or

(ii) an audio recording of the text, or abridged text, of a book, magazine or newspaper; and

(b) a print edition of the book, magazine or newspaper is or was available to the public (whether by way of purchase or otherwise) in Australia; then:

(c) the content is an eligible electronic publication; and

(d) the print edition of the book, magazine or newspaper is the corresponding print publication in relation to the eligible electronic publication.

Division 1 - Prohibited content and potential prohibited content

20. Prohibited content

Content other than eligible electronic publications

(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, content (other than content that consists of an eligible electronic publication) is prohibited content if:

(a) the content has been classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board; or

(b) both:

(i) the content has been classified R 18+ by the Classification Board; and

(ii) access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system; or

(c) all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(i) the content has been classified MA 15+ by the Classification Board;

(ii) access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system;

(iii) the content does not consist of text and/or one or more still visual images;

(iv) access to the content is provided by means of a content service (other than a news service or a current affairs service) that is operated for profit or as part of a profit-making enterprise;

(v) the content service is provided on payment of a fee (whether periodical or otherwise);

(vi) the content service is not an ancillary subscription television content service; or

(d) all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(i) the content has been classified MA 15+ by the Classification Board;

(ii) access to the content is not subject to a restricted access system;

(iii) access to the content is provided by means of a mobile premium service.

Eligible electronic publications

(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, content that consists of an eligible electronic publication is prohibited content if the content has been classified RC, category 2 restricted or category 1 restricted by the Classification Board.

21 Potential prohibited content

(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, content is potential prohibited content if:

(a) the content has not been classified by the Classification Board; and

(b) if the content were to be classified by the Classification Board, there is a substantial likelihood that the content would be prohibited content.

Censordyne

Get Up.org - Censor This?

Related post - f**king censorship

F**king Censorship

The ominous clouds of censorship are descending upon the online Australian community, and not surprisingly, it is not being reported because well, it’s being censored.

At the beginning of this year, the Australian Gooferment began trials of web filtering technology with six participating ISPs, or so we were told. The number of ISPs being conscripted for this “trial” seems to grow by stealth at any given time. Shortly after the six companies involved were identified, iiNet announced it was pulling out of trials, but iiNet was not one of the six listed ISP companies that were disclosed.

It went almost entirely unnoticed that one of Australia’s largest ISPs, Optus, commenced trial participation on May 22. And the number of ISPs working for our oppression continues to expand under the radar, there are now apparently nine. It would appear that the technologies under consideration for managing the looming end to our freedoms, are also being silently upgraded, probably due to the great blacklist leak cock up.

If this article is correct, “trials” now utilize an appliance-based product which through signature-blocking, is capable of filtering peer-to-peer (P2P), instant messaging, anonymous proxies and online gaming.

And speaking of online gaming, the Gooferment is reportedly now promising to block websites hosting and selling video games that are not suitable for ages 15 years and under.

Australia is the only developed country in the world without an R18+ classification for games, meaning any titles that do not meet the MA15+ standard, are banned from sale. To date this has only applied to physical copies of games, but the Minister’s office for communication suppression, has suddenly confirmed that this fucked up state of affairs will be under the "filtering plan" extended to downloadable games, flash-based web games and sites which sell physical copies of games.

WTF? Australia’s “filtering trial” is now a “filtering plan”, a concrete one by all indicators, and what happened to this trial, now plan, being all about stamping out child pornography and therefore a necessity to our best interests?

Colin Jacobs of Electronic Frontiers Australia says: "This is confirmation that the scope of the mandatory censorship scheme will keep on creeping".

One critic says extending filtering to computer games would place a cloud over online-only games such as World of Warcraft and Second Life that have previously been exempt from such nonsense. ISP engineer Mark Newton says: “It'd only take one game user anywhere in the world to produce objectionable content in the game environment to make the Australian Government ban the game for everyone”.

Minister for communications suppression, Senator Stephen Conroy, has been nominated for the annual internet villain award in Britain for these acts of bastardry.

Related articles:

Australian web filter blacklist

iiNet pulls out of govt trials

censor this!

Russian Mob hacks Dentist

technical ways to get around censorship

Technical ways to get around censorship

Content filtering technologies rely on list-based blocking, often in conjunction with blocking techniques that use keyword matching. Filtering systems are prone to two inherent flaws: over-blocking and under-blocking. In response to state-directed Internet filtering and monitoring regimes, many forms of circumvention technologies have emerged to allow users to bypass filtering restrictions.

This paper aims to inform users who have made the decision to use circumvention technologies of the available options and how to assess which is best suited to the specific needs of the user.

read more | digg story


see also - Boing Boing

If your employer or corrupt, undemocratic, dictator-based government uses a filtering service such as Secure Computing's SmartFilter to block access - try the following workarounds....

Russian Mob Hacks Dentist

Australia’s Communications Minister Stephen Conroy on ABC television, in explaining why a Dentist’s website made its way into the ACMA blacklist, had the following to say:

"Russian Mob targeted Queensland small businesses last year. What they did was identified websites that had blank pages underneath the main page. What they would do is put some material that would be refused classification on that one page on that site and then they would spam all those people that would be interested in looking at this material.

We were advised by international agencies that this is what was happening and so it was blocked internationally, it was never blocked in Australia and then it went away. So the dentist that people say, well how could you possibly block a dentist? Because the Russian Mob hacked the site, well not the site directly but they actually entered into using his web address. So I don’t have a problem with wanting to combat the Russian Mob, no I’m not exaggerating."

If anyone can make sense of this gibberish, please let me know.

As a Webmaster, if the Mafia inserted material into a "blank page underneath the main page" of my website page, it would be very easy and quick for me to delete this material, assuming Stephen was slightly confused and referring to some sort of real content substitution by hacking, and not actually expecting us to believe in imaginary blank pages existing "underneath" other pages. I'm worried now, I'll go check my server, make sure there are no blank pages laying about for the Mob to identify.

If the rather contradictory elaboration, to the blank page theory, of the Mob not actually hacking the site directly but "entering into using the web address" was true, again we will make an assumption and translate: redirecting name servers from the real site to the mob site through hacking, then a Webmaster, or indeed host admin as well, could have this unfortunate situation rectified hastily and simply. Why list the attacked site in a Net filter blacklist, why not just notify the site owner or host? I’m glad Minister Conroy was not exaggerating.

The other startling contradiction, "it was never blocked in Australia," again taking the liberty to guess what the hell he was talking about and assume that he meant never put on the blacklist, then how was he combating the Russian Mob again? My favourite part though was "and then it went away" Huh?