Thursday, April 29, 2010

Rudd retreats on web filter legislation

Looks like the MISP is on the back burner (how many back burners does Rudd have? Clearly he owns a Big Stove) till after the election:

Monday, April 26, 2010

Some interesting articles from the ARIN6902 Diigo site

Couple of things my fellow students have posted on Diigo recently that relate to the protest movements and ISP filter themes of this blog.

Firstly, some US stats on filtering software:


Next, an article from the OZ about our Government's 10th place ranking with Google for requesting content removal:


And finally, an article on Lifehacker listing 10 ways to access blocked content:


happy surfing...

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Larvatus Prodeo writes for EFA

Great Larvatus Prodeo post over the weekend, written for Electronic Frontiers Australia about the internet filter. Quite long, but here is a key quote:

“The Internet ... is part of that secular movement towards the democratisation of social relations; and of knowledge. It’s precisely because the Internet affords so much promise for those who wish to decide their destinies in common, to learn, to form an informed judgement and habit of thought that its freedom from state interference is so important at the level of principle.”

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Hackers: not just geeks, but activists

Thanks to Elizabeth Gan for posting this article from the Toronto Star on the ARIN6902 Diigo list. It's about 'white hat' hackers who are helping to make the online world a better place. Of relevance in this article to my little blog about protest movements against internet censorship, is the work of Nart Villeneuve from the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab:

Nart Villeneuve, the chief research officer of Citizen Lab, is a self-taught coding expert. As an undergrad, he used his white hat skills to research Internet censorship by the Saudi Arabian and Chinese governments.

“I didn’t think you could make a living detecting Internet censorship,” Villeneuve says. He’s since unearthed two major cyber espionage rings and continues to study how governments monitor their citizens.

(from http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/791274--hackers-not-just-geeks-but-activists)

On Nart's site, he posts some very interesting articles about internet censorship, well worth a further read, especially his posts tagged 'censorship circumvention'

Meanwhile the Citizen Lab site covers the lab's broader work on "advanced research and development at the intersection of digital media, global security, and human rights".

Monday, April 12, 2010

US ambassador critical of Conroy's internet filters

Follow up article to Ambassador Bleich's appearance on Q&A last night, where he said the "internet has to be free" and that there were other means of combating nasty content such as child pornography. "We have been able to accomplish the goals that Australia has described, which is to capture and prosecute child pornographers ... without having to use internet filters" Surely a strong American stance against the MISP means no MISP...?

Net filters a 'modest measure': Conroy

Is Conroy backing down or just trying a new approach? the Minister has described the MISP as a 'modest measure' in a speech to the Sydney Institute last night, in an effort to make it sound like a perfectly normal - or uncontroversial - thing to do...

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Piers Ackerman vs. ISP filtering

Even Piers Ackerman thinks the Government's proposed ISP filtering is a bad idea! Possibly the first time I've ever been on the same side of a debate as Ackerman, makes me feel a little nauseous. Granted, this is really just another avenue of Rudd/Labor bashing for him, but it shows that there are people on both sides of the political divide who oppose internet censorship.

Ackerman's main points of concern are that the filtering would likely hobble the broadband scheme (in terms of speed) and is against the interests of business and our US allies - recurring issues in much of the discourse surrounding this debate. He also mentions some costs, which I haven't seen come up much so far - $43 billion for the broadband network, and $125.8 for the filtering scheme.

He also mentions an app called the Onion Router that allows anonymous access to web content, which I will look into and explore in an upcoming post. Happy Friday...


Wednesday, April 7, 2010

The Empire Strikes Back

on Punch today (April 7 2010) Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, responded to Eliza Cussen's article 'Top 10 Internet Filter Lies' from 25 March.

Cussen's 10 'lies' were:

Lie # 1: The filter will help in the fight against child pornography
Lie # 2: The filter won’t slow connection speeds
Lie #3: Conroy’s filter will stop your kids viewing harmful stuff online
Lie #4: The filter has been proven in Government trials
Lie #5: This plan is no different to what is already done with books and films
Lie #6: The ISP filter is similar to ones in other Western democracies
Lie #7: The filter will not make the internet more expensive
Lie #8: If you’re anti mandatory filtering you’re pro child porn
Lie #9: The filter would be impenetrable
Lie #10: An ISP filter is the best option out there

Conroy's response, 'Don't believe the myths on the ISP filter' doesn't directly address each 'lie' point by point, but does cover most of them - how convincingly is up to the individual reader. As usual however, the most telling analysis is in the comments section of each article. Commenter 'Adam Diver' singles out this line from Conroy's article, "we have never said ISP-level filtering alone would help fight child pornography or keep children safe online" then asks, "So whats the point then Conroy?". What indeed? Commenter 'David' responds to 'Adam Diver' with the following interesting questions:

"Exactly Adam. If the filter isn’t going to work in preventing child porn and keep children safe then what is it for? Placation of conservative religious lobbies like the Australian Christian Lobby? They have demonstrated a level of knowledge about the filter unknown to the general public in the past…

Or maybe the filter is designed to empower content providers and marketing bodies in suring up the internet as a regulated medium with greater financial reward and capital…

I think the biggest kicker, and Conroy didn’t address this, is the lack of transparency and safety measures to prevent scope creep in the filter rules. Even if this does occur what is the capacity for the public to know? The list is secret and those employed to build and monitor the list will certainly be bound by contracts of confidentiality.

The whole filter is a massive trojan horse (of the ancient Greek variety not the computer virus)."

So if the filter won't perform the main task it is intended for, then what is it actually for?

Monday, April 5, 2010

Facebook v. ISP filtering... via Abbott

The Open Internet for Australia Facebook page has a special plea to all members to contact Tony Abbott and convince him of the folly of ISP filtering today after his comments on the ABC's Q&A last night. Also an interesting follow up article on the OZ. From the transcript of last night's show:

YIKEN YANG: Criticism of the internet filter policy being pushed by Chairman Rudd and Stephen Conroy is growing, with even Google weighing in on the debate. The opposition has been notoriously quiet on this issue and I was wondering what the stance of the Liberal party was. Thanks.

TONY ABBOTT: Well, look, I want to see protections in place. I don’t want to see our kids exposed to really terrible stuff on the internet. On the other hand, I don’t want to see the internet destroyed by a filtering system that won’t work, so I guess for me it’s a factual issue. Can you have a filtering system that is effective, that doesn’t lull parents into a false sense of security, and which doesn’t, in the process, make the internet ineffective as the kind of marvellous research tool and educational device as it is.

TONY JONES: And what’s the answer: you don’t know at the moment?

TONY ABBOTT: I don’t know at the moment. I just don’t know.

TONY JONES: Joe Hockey has got a pretty clear view on this. He says he regards the - in his speech, in defence of civil liberties, he said he regards the internet filter as a real problem because it is one of those things that puts the government on top of the freedom - in this case the freedom of the internet.

TONY ABBOTT: Yeah. As I understand it, the proponents of the filter are only trying to stop access to material that it would be a crime to possess anyway. That’s my understanding. Now, we haven’t seen legislation from the government. We certainly haven’t seen the kind of technical assurances that we’d need, so let’s wait and see how this thing develops, Tony.

No surprise to see that Abbott is waiting to see how this pans out - why come out with a position on it either way and draw attention away from all the flak Conroy is copping? Anyway, the Facebook page goes on to provide links to the 'lobby a Lib' section of the EFA site, then provides the contact details for Abbott's office too, which I'll repost here for good measure:

You can call Tony Abbott’s office on (02) 9977 6411.

Or you can send him an email at Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au.

Or you can write to him at:

The Hon Tony Abbott

PO Box 450

Manly NSW 2095


Can this issue gain enough traction with the so-called 'general' public to become an election winner/loser? The release of the responses to the Government's call for submissions on 'measures to increase accountability and transparency for Refused Classification material' shows that the business community, techies and other 'netizens' are firmly against the plan, but I wonder what the tabloid and talkback media consumers are thinking? Note to self, check the Daily Telegraph's website and Google to see if Alan Jones and his ilk have said anything of substance (a relative term I know...)