Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

ISP Censorship...

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by Tweetster, Jun 29, 2011.

  1. ..Interesting development:

    ..."THE Australian Federal Police has started preparing its first ISP censorship notices under a voluntary internet filtering scheme targeting online child abuse material.
    The voluntary filter program appeared to be in trouble late last week as Telstra wavered on the commitment it gave the federal government to support the scheme last July.

    However, yesterday the carrier confirmed it would commit to a scheme to block a narrowly focused list of material maintained by Interpol and vetted by the AFP...."

    Source & content:

  2. The Govt negotiating with Telstra over the NBN, which will compete with it, and they waver on playing ball with this ISP censorship proposal...

    Who'd have thought..?
  3. How many leaps away from a Chinese system are we?
  4. ...so anyway, wouldn't the more sophisticated proxy surfers make the filtering obsolete? Presumably they're blocking sites via ip and or name... which proxies can hide.

    So really this is really about protecting the genuine IP surfing mum and pop and kid from inadvertent exposure to the objectionable material.
  5. #5 Mouth, Jun 29, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2015
    Yup, vote buying. Most criminals use ssh tunnels to offsite proxy servers anyways. Totally bypasses any measures here.
  6. That might not be such a bad thing in the end. As much as allowing the evil child abusing scum to get access is abhorrent, it is also the avenue through which the police manage to track down a lot of them and get convictions.
  7. The only thing filtering internet at an ISP level will do is decrease overall performance and force us all to run encrypted pipes. It's a plain waste of time. if someone wants to 'protect' their children, don't let them use a computer to begin with.
  8. The vast majority of CP material is not available through standard web pages, as they are easily tracked and taken offline. The majority of people that engage in the crap do so over P2P sharing networks, coordinating their filth through protected IRC channels.

    Bringing in a filter under the pretext that it will help to bring a stop to this sort of behaviour is ridiculous.

    Blocking a whole heap of websites that may have contained CP at some stage or other is fine for me as long as it is only for this purpose, the list is reviewed often so that unsuspecting people who have had their sites hacked can be taken off the list, and the list should be made public. The only problem with bringing in this filter is that once in place it is easy for the government to increase scope to material it deems RC, and then we are on the path to matching the likes of China and Iran.

    Not making the list public is pointless, as the addresses of censored servers can be uncovered with a simple script.

    Giving the millions of dollars wasted on filtering proposals to the Fed's instead and let them use it to boost investigations that will actually help to stop things.
  9. The main problem I see is that, although now the filter will not be seen by many, and will only block the worst of worst and I don't believe the government has plans to block politically sensitive information, Simply having it in place places pressure on the government from their financial backers and advocacy groups to use it.
    How long 'till a private company who wins a court case pressures the government to make laws to order the blocking of content it deems proprietary? How long 'till American companys demand we use the net to enforce American copyright laws in Australia (It has already happened) How long till a christian lobby group starts pressuring the government to block things it deems inappropriate? Like Pro gay marriage sites? By simply having it there, people are going to want it used for this and that.
  10. Yes, though it will be more of an inconvenience than anything. Unfortunately for those wishing to control the flow of information, there will always be projects like Tor - so really all we need to be concerned about is performance degradation. Though considering we should all have 100Mb links by then, it probably won't matter...

  11. Not really. What it does do is provide a handy list of things the govt doesn't want you to see. By using a spider and checking for sites that do not resolve or resolve somewhere else specifically you build up a list of everything the government has blocked. You then take this list, trawl it for things that are blocked and shouldn't be and embarrass the authority by publishing their stuff ups.

    It's a scheme that is designed to fail.

    John Gilmore got it right back in 1993: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
  12. Not really. You don't need to keep the minority dumb, just the majority.
    Simply by blocking information to the majority, A company can achieve what it aims to do. After all, they have been dealing with a minority who know things they are doing for years.
  13. This story I found last week makes it appear somewhat sinister.


    Sounds ok, I have no problem with filtering out Child Abuse/p0rn sites, but this next bit raises some alarm bells

    Is this not the blacklist that had dentists, gambling sites, gay/lesbian sites etc.
  14. TOR will not stop the government from seeing what you are trying to access. It is an anonymizer, and any packets sent into the TOR network can still be inspected by filtering appliances.

    The only way to get around it is to also have a fully encrypted tunnel through the TOR network as well (HTTPS will not be secure under the governments proposed scheme). You have to also make sure that your DNS requests aren't sent outside of the TOR network or the tunnel because this can also give you away.

    It is also considered very inconsiderate for people to route large amounts of traffic through the TOR network (stuff like torrents, or P2P is very much frowned upon!).

    Most free proxies will track your information and hand it over to relevant authorities if asked, so they aren't good anonymizers.

    Something like the iPredator service offered by Pirate Bay which was in response to laws introduced in Europe would be the ideal simple solution.
  15. Wouldn't even a passworded .rar file with a meaningless name on any file sharing site get around it? That's requires almost zero IT knowhow to do.
  16. If the torrent is tracked via the same method used to catch people file sharing at the moment, then no.

    If your just trying to exchange personal information, then transferring a file encrypted with PGP or TrueCrypt using AES with a nice long complex key is the better way to go.
  17. But how would such a file even be spotted on a generic file sharing site (not even Torrents) like Rapidshare, Megaupload etc?
  18. It's different with the rapidshare case. In this instance they would need to persue the owners of this service instead.
  19. So a member of the public finds a site with child pornography on it. You alert the police and/or ISP.

    Why is this extra step needed? Theres a 100% chance this extra power and ability will be abused.
  20. Then the police turn up and arrest you, because by discovering/viewing the material you have committed an offence....good isn't it?