What the blogosphere is saying this month about the Rudd-Conroy plan to censor the Australian Internet

First up, ACMA is already using its soon-to-be executive muscle to bully Australian-hosted websites into not linking to sites on its 'blacklist'. One of the sites disbarred — among many others — is a perfectly legitimate anti-abortion site that at worst could be described as 'cheesy'. ACMA's bullying is on the pricy side, too — AUD$11,000 a pop. The blacklist (as you would expect) has been leaked, while Conroy himself is now planning to 'monitor blogs'. Quite apart from the egregiousness of this exercise in censorship, it is important to realise that Ruddy is trying to bypass parliament with this stuff, so that they don't have to deal with that pesky Senate (Xenophon and the Greens as well as the Opposition in this case). Government by executive order, anyone? Skepticlawyer 23 March 2009

Is Conroy a fundy? Will this site be on his list 'cause we all know that you can't be good without religion. *Palm/Head*
You don't have to look online for sexual predators, look no further than your local church. Atheist Nexus 21 March 2009

Stephen Conroy is a Cnut 21 March 2009

STEVE CONROY BELONGS ON THE BACK BENCH AND FAILING BEING ABLE TO GET THAT RIGHT, MAY POSSIBLY FIND PURPOSE AND MEANING AS A DOOR STOP. Thinkers Podium 23 March 2009

It was only a matter of time, but it's finally happened. The DBCDE has alienated enough of its private sector partners that one of them has leaked the blacklist. Websinthe 19 March 2009

Apparently, Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is wetting his bed over the thought that his fellow Australians might think somewhat less of him for so enthusiastically promoting the idea of an Internet filter. Kerplunk 23 March 2009

Guys, we're in trouble.
My assistant was reading the internet to me this morning, and do you know what she said? She said that the average punter doesn't think the filter is going to work. We're spending a couple of hundred million dollars on this thing! If John and Jane Easy-to-Scare think we're wasting money in the middle of the GFC, we're f##ked, okay? F##ked.
We've got to get these shmucks back on-side.
Leaking the list was a good start. Lots of scary-sounding websites, "violent"-this, and "rape"-that, and whoever came up with the dentist? Genius. That is the kind of attention-to-detail that makes me proud to be part of this shadowy conspiracy. People are scared of the dentist; visits are painful and expensive and wasn't someone raped at a dentist once? Why, it's almost as if "false-positives" in the list are a good thing! Nicely done.
In 1960, I bet if you told an American that men would walk on the moon, they'd have said you were crazy, then robbed you at gunpoint. But as soon as the Americans faked that moon landing, all those doubting pieholes became true believers.
I want you guys to find out what can we learn from the American experience, and how we might apply those learnings to the trial. I want it on my desk by the end of the day.
Look, we're doing good work. The Lord's work. We can't allow these Mountain Dew-sucking deviants to keep running circles around us. Get your shit together, get me some answers, then get me a latte and a mini-muffin.
Lots of love,
Fake Stephen Conroy Department of the Internets 20 March 2009 [apologies to the fake Stephen Conroy but obscenities are masked because existing voluntary filters being used by some ISPs make North Coast Voices emailing posts option difficult to use successfully otherwise]

Here's a summary of the views of many in the real and virtual world. Senior nanny Conroy is a dipstick, an unresponsive loon, an ill-mannered and unpleasant smear tactician, an intellectual thuggee, and a morally derelict moralist dedicated to calling opponents of his oppressive, inept, useless and futile proposed filtering regime supporters of paedophilia.

Never has one man so singlehandedly struggled to institute a policy reviled by so many without actually listening to anything anyone was telling him, for reasons that have to remain inexplicable and mysterious, even when far-fetched notions that he belongs to Opus Dei or just wants to suck up to Steve Fielding are trotted out.

He's no more capable of sophisticated policy analysis of the new world of the intertubes, new media and new digital content than a Balmain member of the Labor party armed with a hammer and a baseball bat. If it's a nail, bash it with the baseball bat. If it's the intertubes, hit it with the hammer. The Michael Duffy Files 23 March 2009

Senator Conroy has a lot to answer for. Between trying to destroy filter the internet and keeping the whole NBN process clouded in secrecy (so nobody can criticise his handling of it, we suppose), there are a lot of arguments and issues that the Minister needs to answer for. And considering he's going to be a guest on the ABC's Q&A program next Thursday, this could be our chance to ask him the tough questions.

So, this is a call to arms. All of you Gizmodians who are interested in asking why Senator Conroy has so badly mishandled everything he's touched so far should head over to the Q&A website and ask their questions. Melbourne readers should also try and get into the audience for the show. And everyone make sure you watch Q&A next Thursday to watch just how Conroy responds to the difficult questions. Gizmodo 20 March 2009

...Conroy's filter proposal represents the greatest assault on free speech and an open society in the country's history. By its very nature, it is categorical and self-concealing, far beyond the sleazy and capricious "sedition" laws of the Howard government. For the left and the libertarian right it has to be recognised not only as an utter priority, but as the point on which a political realignment occurs. Crikey 19 March 2009

It is disappointing that the Communications Minister's department, and the Age, are so ignorant that they think Whirlpool is a blog. Whirlpool discussion forum 22 March 2009

Stephen Conroy needs to remember that half-truths are as bad as outright lies

The Federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Central Propaganda , Senator Stephen Conroy, has reached the stage where he will say almost anything to shepherd his mandatory national ISP-level Internet censorship into being.

It is hardly believable that he imagines that any sensible person believes that the Rudd Government will spend over $44 million dollars on such a limited filtering scheme (as set out in media quotes below) and the possible re-implementation of a government free filtering software offer.

Given the number of half truths Senator Conroy has already uttered concerning his Internet filtering plan, I would not trust him not to be secretly relying on regulatory provisions to widen his net, once legislation was passed, and implement the wider form of censorship many legitimately fear.

According to The Sydney Morning Herald on 2 June 2009:

Results of the trials are due to be published in July but, in response to a freedom of information request, the Government has admitted that "there are not success criteria as such"...............
The ACMA blacklist of prohibited URLs, which forms the basis of the Government's censorship policy, contained 977 web addresses as at April 30, according to ACMA.
The Government initially planned to censor the entire blacklist but, after widespread complaints that the list included a slew of legal R18+ and X18+ sites, the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, backtracked, saying he would only block the "refused classification" (RC) portion of the blacklist.
According to ACMA, 51 per cent of the blacklist, or 499 URLs, is RC content.
Based on the Government's budgeting of $44.5 million to implement the filtering scheme, this means the policy will cost $90,000 per URL.

Smart Company reports:

Conroy's office also confirmed that "unwanted content" - which the Government previously said it would block under the scheme - will now be blocked on a voluntary basis by internet service providers. The "unwanted content" refers to some material that is rated R18+ or X18+.
"ISPs can offer to filter additional content if they choose to, as an optional service for families," the spokesperson said.
"The Government is also considering optional ISP content filtering products for those families who wish to have such a service."
The decision comes after Conroy said last week in a Senate estimates hearing that the list of sites to be blocked may be submitted to an independent body for regular review, a decision welcomed by the ISP industry.
Conroy's office also confirmed that "unwanted content" - which the Government previously said it would block under the scheme - will now be blocked on a voluntary basis by internet service providers. The "unwanted content" refers to some material that is rated R18+ or X18+.
"ISPs can offer to filter additional content if they choose to, as an optional service for families," the spokesperson said.
"The Government is also considering optional ISP content filtering products for those families who wish to have such a service."
The decision comes after Conroy said last week in a Senate estimates hearing that the list of sites to be blocked may be submitted to an independent body for regular review, a decision welcomed by the ISP industry.

Some of Conroy's misleading statements entered into Hansard about his original plan:

1. On 10 November I released an expression of interest, seeking the participation of ISPs and mobile telephone operators in this live pilot. The pilot will specifically test filtering against the ACMA black list of prohibited internet content, which is mostly child pornography, as well as filtering of other unwanted content.

2. The list could contain 10,000 potentials. When you look around the world at Interpol, the FBI, Europol and other law enforcement agencies and you look at the size of the lists that they are actually using at the moment, 1,300 would not be sufficient to cover the URLs that we would have supplied to us with the purpose of blocking. So let me be clear about this: the pilot will seek to test network performance against a test list of approximately 10,000 sites.

Stephen Conroy lies and Kevin Rudd supports these lies with his silence

Did anybody bother to count the number of times that the Federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, assured Australians that they would have the option of 'opting out' of any Internet ISP filtering scheme the Rudd Government foolishly put in place?

Hands up the number of people who telephoned the Minister's office and were also told that they could 'opt out' of ISP filtering?

Well it seems as though we have all been lied to by an arrogant Labor minister in an increasingly paternalistic Rudd Government.

Global Voices Advocacy on Friday:

The issue of internet censorship generally involves countries deemed non-democratic or "repressive" (something I discuss in my new book, The Blogging Revolution.) We regularly read reports about the regimes in China or Iran blocking countless "subversive" websites for overtly political gain.

Alas, a growing number of nations in the West are examining the possibility of censoring sites that allegedly harm society. France and Germany are leading the way and the United States is not far behind.

We can now add Australia to the list.

Computer World reported on 13 October 2008:

Australians will be unable to opt-out of the government's pending Internet content filtering scheme, and will instead be placed on a watered-down blacklist, experts say.

Under the government's $125.8 million Plan for Cyber-Safety, users can switch between two blacklists which block content inappropriate for children, and a separate list which blocks illegal material.

Pundits say consumers have been lulled into believing the opt-out proviso would remove content filtering altogether.

The government will iron-out policy and implementation of the Internet content filtering software following an upcoming trial of the technology, according to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

A spokesman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the filters will be mandatory for all Australians.

"Labor's plan for cyber-safety will require ISPs to offer a clean feed Internet service to all homes, schools and public Internet points accessible by children," Marshall said.

"The upcoming field pilot of ISP filtering technology will look at various aspects of filtering, including effectiveness, ease of circumvention, the impact on internet access speeds and cost."

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) contacted by Computerworld say blanket content filtering will cripple Internet speeds because the technology is not up to scratch............

Newton said advisers to Minister Conroy have told ISPs that Internet content filtering will be mandatory for all users.

The government reported it does not expected to prescribe which filtering technologies ISPs can use, and will only set blacklists of filtered content, supplied by the Australia Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

EFA chair Dale Clapperton said in a previous article that Internet content filtering could lead to censorship of drugs, political dissident and other legal freedoms.

"Once the public has allowed the system to be established, it is much easier to block other material," Clapperton said.

According to preliminary trials, the best Internet content filters would incorrectly block about 10,000 Web pages from one million.

But wait for it - here's the anomaly according to The Australian:

THE federal Government says it may be flexible with mobile internet providers in its mandatory ISP filtering policy....

Telstra spokesman Andrew Maiden said network filters were becoming increasingly difficult for carriers to install as more phones had the smarts needed to let users explore beyond the confines of their carrier's "walled garden", where content was much easier to control.

ZNet reported last Tuesday:

Internet service providers (ISPs) are sitting on the fence on whether to participate in the government's upcoming live trial for ISP-level filtering of undesirable internet content, with their involvement depending heavily on the terms of the trial.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is set to kick off the expressions of interest process for the live trial before the end of this month, following the completion earlier in the year of testing and review of content filtering software, the results of which were published in July. He faces concerns on costs and performance consequences of filtering measures.

NB:

* Don't bother trying to access Senator Conroy's January 2008 media release in which he promised the 'opt out' feature in his Internet censorship proposal - you will receive a 404 notice and immediately be re-directed to http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/ and surprise, surprise, media release 70 is no longer to be found.

Nor can one find his reported media release of 30-31 December 2007 on the same subject.

* No Clean Feed (which protests Minister Conroy's plan) is currently receiving complaints that the NSW Government is blocking its website. I can verify that entering this site will frequently see Internet Explorer close it within a minute.

If Stephen Conroy holds dual citizenship - it's time Kevin Rudd advised this little dictator to go home before he loses the electoral base the Prime Minister needs to get re-elected in 2010.

Mark Newton tells it like it is on Conroy's mad national censorship plan

It is no secret now that Senator Stephen Conroy has decided that he will go forward with a plan to impose national ISP-level mandatory censorship on Australia's access to the Internet, despite the many problems which have been highlighted concerning this repressive course of action.

Nor is it a secret that one of Conroy's advisers, Ms. Belinda Dennett (belinda.dennett@aph.gov.au or ph: 0417 011 991) attempted to silence informed dissent by Mark Newton commenting in a private capacity on the Minister's grand plan for a Great Wall of Australia .

The Age on 24 October 2008 reported:

On Tuesday, a policy advisor for Senator Conroy, Belinda Dennett, wrote an email to Internet Industry Association (IIA) board member Carolyn Dalton in an attempt to pressure Newton into reining in his dissent.
"In your capacity as a board member of the IIA I would like to express my serious concern that a IIA member would be sending out this sort of message. I have also advised [IIA chief executive] Peter Coroneos of my disappointment in this sort of irresponsible behaviour ," the email, read.
It is understood the email was accompanied by a phone call demanding that the message be passed on to senior Internode management.

Mark wrote a letter to the Minister for Youth and Sport, Kate Ellis, on 20 October 2008 comprehensively outlining problems with a mandatory filtering scheme and included the following on Senator Conroy:

While I approve of the general thrust of the Cyber Safety proposal, I have serious objections to the "clean feed" section, which will erect an online Government censorship regime in Australia for the first time.
I also have significant objections about the professional conduct of Senator Conroy as he has pursued this issue.

The Senator has attacked critics by comparing them to child abusers

2;
refused to provide details of his policy then maligned opponents for their "speculative" remarks 3;
lied to the Australian voting public about the availability of an "opt-out" in December 2007 4;
and failed to consult with the 21 million Australian stakeholders who will be most affected by this plan, in contravention of the Prime Minster's oft-repeated aim to implement a "Government for all Australians" 5.

Rather than addressing the serious policy objections which I outline below, Senator Conroy has preferred to respond with aggressive, offensive, extremist bluster.

Bravo, Mark!

Senator Conroy and Mr. Hyde

You've just gotta love that Senator Conroy, he is both a blogger's and journo's dream at the moment.
His thin secular veneer over a heart of Opus Dei (if Wikipedia is to be believed) turns this hapless pollie into a modern day version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

The Age yesterday:
THE Government will begin trawling blog sites as part of a new media monitoring strategy, with documents singling out a website critical of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy for special mention.
Soon after Senator Conroy praised Singapore's Government for reducing monitoring of blogs, tender documents issued by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy reveal it is looking for a "comprehensive digital monitoring service for print and electronic media".
The department later attached a clarification confirming the term "electronic media" included "blogs such as Whirlpool".
Whirlpool, the only blog site mentioned, has criticised Senator Conroy's plans to filter internet content and his handling of the Government's $15 billion national broadband network. It is a community-run internet forum devoted to discussing broadband internet access.
Senator Conroy this month told a conference in Germany that it was a "really positive sign" that the Singaporean Government had given up monitoring blogs.
But the documents suggest the Australian Government is just about to start. Senator Conroy's spokesman said it was "only natural" that the tender include services for monitoring relevant blogs.
"Whirlpool is a long-established online platform for news and information covering a wide range of topics across the telecommunications sector," the spokesman said. "It and other websites provide valuable insight into the industries in which we work."

The Whirlpool discussion boards are of course already having fun at ol' Hyde's expense:

User #144693 968 posts iCE654 BAN CENSORSHIP! Whirlpool Enthusiast

NufffRespeKtZ writes... I wonder when Whirlpool will appear on their blacklist. Probably next week. I mean after all, WP links to a page that links to a page which links to a another page which links to a page with a link to dentist porn. A new term should be inserted into the Oxford dictionary; Dentist Porn A fictitious term which originated in Australia during the first decade of the 2000 millennium. It is used to refer to something that has been blocked/censored ridiculously and arbitrarily without explanation. Context example: A moderator deleted a post which didn't contain any breach of the rules. Oi, Mr moderator, you deleted dentist porn wtf!!?!?

herring anchor Reply to this post Send whim posted Saturday at 12:50 am

Citizen bloggers shouldn't panic just yet - no matter how far Teh Bolta throws his red herrings

This was Teh Bolta last Thursday; “You do realise that the Gillard Government may be thinking of laws to censor those of you who blog and tweet.“

And as usual you can find his faithful echoes out in the blogosphere trying to whip up a conspiracy.

However, nowhere do they explain how citizen blogs published on domains registered in other countries can be regulated or adjudicated by Australian Government agencies or the Press Council - outside of being placed on the mandatory ISP filter domain/website blacklist that Conroy has spectacularly failed to get off the ground. Google Inc (owner of one of the more popular hosting domains) for one was not impressed by Conroy's chilling policy.

Neither do they tell us on what their censorship fears are based when it comes to this new independent inquiry.

Despite the not-so-secret wish list of that notorious political anal retentive the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, it’s professional journalists and their ilk writing online newspaper articles/opinion ‘blogs’ (and perhaps even their broadcasting compatriots published in the online print version of radio or television programs and journalists with publisher-endorsed promotional Twitter accounts) whose pages will fall squarely within the terms of reference set out in the 14th September 2011 press release sent out by the Minister when he announced an independent inquiry into the Australian media:

Announcing the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry, Senator Conroy acknowledged the pressures brought about by the advent of digital technologies and the 24 hour news cycle were threatening the traditional business models that support the essential role of the media in our democratic society……

"The Media Inquiry I am announcing today will focus on print media regulation, including online publications, and the operation of the Press Council.

"The Government believes a separate and distinct examination of the pressures facing newspapers and their newsrooms, including online publications, will enhance our consideration of the policy and regulatory settings Australia needs to ensure that the news media continues to serve the public interest in the digital age," Senator Conroy said.

The Inquiry will be conducted independently of Government, led by Former Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, Ray Finkelstein QC, with the assistance of Dr Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Journalism at Canberra University and a former practising journalist.

"The Government is delighted that these eminently qualified Australians have agreed to undertake this important task on behalf of the Australian people," Senator Conroy said.

The Inquiry will provide its findings to the Convergence Review early next year, and the Government will take a considered approach to the recommendations of both.

Terms of Reference

An independent panel will be appointed to inquire into and report on the following issues, while noting that media regulation is currently being considered by the Convergence Review:

a) The effectiveness of the current media codes of practice in Australia, particularly in light of technological change that is leading to the migration of print media to digital and online platforms;

b) The impact of this technological change on the business model that has supported the investment by traditional media organisations in quality journalism and the production of news, and how such activities can be supported, and diversity enhanced, in the changed media environment;

c) Ways of substantially strengthening the independence and effectiveness of the Australian Press Council, including in relation to on-line publications, and with particular reference to the handling of complaints;

d) Any related issues pertaining to the ability of the media to operate according to regulations and codes of practice, and in the public interest.

The panel will be required to provide a report to Government by 28 February 2012, while working with the Convergence Review committee to ensure that findings are able to be incorporated into the ultimate report of the Convergence Review by end March 2012.

A hole in Conroy's censorship net?

The Federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, attended a Senate estimates committee hearing last Monday 23 February 2009.

Quite rightly much has been made of his continuing refusal to rule out censoring legal but 'unwanted' content if the Rudd Government's national mandatory ISP-level Internet filtering scheme is implemented.

However, there is another little gem in Monday's transcript of the Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts: Estimates which indicates that Conroy's proposed vastly expanded blacklist may be vulnerable at the outset:

Senator MINCHIN—I do not mean any criticism by this, because I think it is beyond your control, but there is another issue that I want to raise with you. It has been drawn to my attention that primarily because in answering this complaint by email you obviously referred to the site in question, which is understandable, the complainant, as I understand it, made the address of that site widely available via the publication of your email. Are you concerned that that is a significant flaw in your very worthy and, I think, comprehensive endeavours to ensure that the blacklist itself is not published or made available more widely than is absolutely necessary?

Ms O'Loughlin—That is a difficult question. In general, we were disappointed that that was distributed further, but we do not have the capacity to stop a complainant from making their complaint public.

Senator MINCHIN—But do you acknowledge that this is potentially a major hole in the security of the contents of the blacklist?

Ms O'Loughlin—In many respects, our main concern is the totality of the blacklist. That is something that we are distributing and we can make sure that there are appropriate security provisions in place for it. I think it is difficult for us then to take a step further and require complainants to keep their complaints to themselves. They know the consequences of the listing. We are disappointed by it, but it is difficult for us to do much more than encourage people not to distribute those things much further.

Senator Conroy—Just to clarify: this is the existing blacklist under the existing law that was in place for most of the period of the former government. It is the existing blacklist and the existing law that we are having a discussion about.

Senator MINCHIN—Yes, I accept that, Minister. I also accept that, if there is a loophole here, it has existed for some time, but perhaps it is just now being exploited. So is not an offence in any way, under any law or regulation, for anybody to publish a site, a page or whatever it is that has been blacklisted as a result of a complaint made.

It is evident that Senator Conroy will have to broaden his censorship net to make it unlawful for correspondence with the Australian Communications and Media Authority to be published, if he doesn't want any part of his precious blacklist to be leaked.
It appears likely that that he is be considering this option.

There is no end to the stupidity flowing from the Rudd-Conroy Great Firewall of Australia.

The Australian Federal Government's Yellow Pages of Evil

Adelaide Now has this opinion piece by Mark Newton:

The blacklist would need to be distributed to several hundred ISPs, and would be accessible to several thousand technical staff. The information security implications of this are obvious. Taking such a sensitive, secret resource and distributing it to thousands of people guarantees that the blacklist would eventually leak.

When it leaked, it would be published on the internet. If the list is even half as accurate as the minister claims it will be, the effect of that publication will be to make what has beeen dubbed "The Australian Federal Government's Yellow Pages of Evil" available to every child-exploiting abuser on the planet, directing criminals in all corners of the world to a smorgasbord of illegal content.

The Labor Government would need to explain why it thought that unknowable quantities of "collateral damage" all over the world was an acceptable price to pay for Australian internet censorship.

Of course, that somewhat alarming outcome is predicated on the trustworthiness of Senator Conroy's claim that only the most outrageously illegal material would be blocked. A diligent enquirer might wonder whether that is true.

In a Senate Estimates Committee hearing on 20 October, 2008, Senator Conroy confirmed that ACMA's existing prohibited online content list would form the basis of the mandatory "illegal material" censorship scheme. The problem is the ACMA-prohibited online content list doesn't actually restrict itself to illegal material.

In addition to the illegal material Senator Conroy would like to ban for adults, the list also contains material the Office of Film and Literature Classification has refused to classify, but which may still be legal to possess (if not to sell, hire, exhibit, or import) in Australia, as well as material rated X18+, also R18+ material not protected by an adult verification service, and some MA15+ material. Material in these categories is mostly legal in Australia.

The ACMA-prohibited online content list also contains a class of material that hasn't been examined by the OFLC, but which, in the opinion of ACMA bureaucrats, "would be" classified into one of the categories of prohibited content.

But because the blacklist is secret, unaudited, and specifically exempted by legislation from the Freedom of Information application process, the OFLC would never get a chance to check the accuracy of these classifications - unless they downloaded the list once it was leaked. That brings us to the most pernicious of unintended consequences: nobody would know (at first) what had been banned.

Our society accepts that it is up to the courts to determine what is illegal. We do not then expect faceless public servants to be the real arbiters of an internet content blacklist. Yet Senator Conroy, who has established a remarkable track record of being wrong in this area, expects Australians simply to take his word for it when he says that "illegal material is illegal material".

IT is clear that a great many Australians disagree, despite Senator Conroy's hysterical accusations that to do so is to endorse child pornography. In a nation that has enjoyed uncensored access to online services (including those that predate the internet) for over three decades without ill effect, imposing a national censorship regime such as the one proposed by Senator Conroy is a radical act requiring radical justification.

We are over a year into this debate, and still none of these concerns has been addressed. It time for the Labor Government to abandon this policy. To the Government I ask: "Please, won't somebody think of the adults?"

Snapshot is of ISP filtering poll at mid-morning 6 January 2008, click image to enlarge.

Welcome to Senator Conroy's World Wide Wait

The Age on Thursday last:

THE Federal Government is planning to make internet censorship compulsory for all Australians and could ban controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia.

Australia's level of net censorship will put it in the same league as countries including China, Cuba, Iran and North Korea, and the Government will not let users opt out of the proposed national internet filter when it is introduced.

Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy Minister Stephen Conroy admitted the Federal Government's $44.2 million internet censorship plan would now include two tiers - one level of mandatory filtering for all Australians and an optional level that will provide a "clean feed", censoring adult material.

and in The Australian IT section:

INTERNET speeds could slow by 30 per cent under the Government's proposed web filtering scheme, even though it will do little to block illegal content.

That's the warning from technical experts, who also say the plan could expose users' financial details during online banking sessions and see popular websites including Facebook and YouTube banned.

The warnings came after Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy Minister Stephen Conroy confirmed the Federal Government planned to introduce a mandatory internet filter, shelving plans to allow Australians to opt out of the scheme.

Internet service providers, who would administer the filter, have been asked to conduct live trials of the filter before the end of the year.

But System Administrators Guild of Australia president Donna Ashelford said the plan was deeply flawed and would slow internet access down by about 30 per cent according to the Government's own laboratory trials.

Despite this, the national web filter would only censor web content, Ms Ashelford said, and could not deal with the remaining 60 per cent of internet traffic, much of which occurred over peer-to-peer networks such as BitTorrent and LimeWire.

"The bulk of internet traffic is over peer-to-peer networks and the bulk of illegal content is trafficked is over peer-to-peer networks," she said. "There is no choke point at which they can block that material. I do not believe this is an issue that has a technical solution."

Electronic Frontiers Australia board member Colin Jacobs warned the web filter could also unwittingly make the internet unsafe for financial transactions by breaking the secure encryption used by banks online.

Five of the six web filters tested by the Australian Media and Communications Authority this year were able to filter websites using the secure protocol HTTPS, which would leave financial details exposed to the internet service provider in charge of operating the filter.

"If they sit in the middle and get between your web browser and the bank's server it really breaks open the security and leaves the details open to attack," he said.

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy is reported:

"I will accept some debate around what should and should not be on the internet — I am not a wowser," Senator Conroy told The Age. "I am not looking to blanket-ban some of the material that it is being claimed I want to blanket-ban, but some material online, such as child pornography, is illegal."

In response to arguments that the proposal would affect basic civil liberties and the principle that households should be able to be their own internet policeman, he said: "We are not trying to build the Great Wall of China.

"We are not trying to be Saudi Arabia, and to say that is to simply misrepresent the Government's position." [my emphasis]

What a pity that Senator Conroy has already been exposed for lying to the Australian people on the matter of his national ISP-level filtering plans.

His present assurances are not worth a penny and, this can be confirmed by his evidence before the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communication and the Arts this month, where he and his department finally admit that nowhere in the free world has mandatory ISP-level filtering been legislated.

However, even before Conroy imposes the Great Wall of Australia we will have to endure his national pilot scheme which will censor as laid out in evidence to the same Senate estimates committee:

Senator LUDLAM—So within the constraints of not having briefed your minister yet, how much can you tell us about how you see that project rolling out in terms of timetables for the live trial and then what happens after that?
Mr Rizvi—At a very broad level, the purpose of the pilot is to look at two streams of potential filtering.
The first stream of filtering is in terms of just filtering the ACMA black list and different methodologies for filtering the ACMA black list. What we will seek to test is the impact of that type of filtering in terms of a range of criteria. We will also test more sophisticated types of filtering that go beyond just simply testing the ACMA black list through to filtering larger black lists and also looking at other types of filtering including dynamic filtering, filtering using key words—those sorts of methodologies—to see what the impact of that type of filtering is in terms of both the ISP and the customer.

Oh lucky, lucky Australians with Internet connections - every possible form of censorship (including it seems 'little black box' hardware) will be tried on hundreds of thousands of unwilling guinea pigs whose very livelihoods and businesses may grind to a snail's pace because the Internet servers involved are likely to have a collective technical nervous breakdown.

Australians are so impressed with Conroy's plan for a little digital bookburning that Courier Mail readers responded to Thursday's poll in this way by 4pm yesterday:

Poll Results

Q. Do you support the planned internet filter?

Yes 9% (452 votes)
No 90% (4493 votes)

Sum votes:
Total votes: 4945 votes so far **Poll was still open at time of time of writing**

** Thankyou to Michael Meloni at Somebody Think of the Children for posting the above new 'portrait' of the Minister which I cheerfully filched for this entry.

Nationals MP Luke Hartsuyker gets caught telling untruths yet again

It would seem that the Federal Nationals  MP for Cowper on the NSW North Coast and Shadow Communication spokesperson, Luke Hartsuyker, has been caught out yet again distorting the truth.

The political battle over NBN’s twin satellites contract was essentially confined to competing media releases by Hartsuyker and the current Federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

Perhaps mainstream media is also growing tired of this local politician’s blatant propaganda, as it appears that his claim barely rated a mention in the national press.

It was left to Delimiter  publishing online to actually  blow the whistle on the ‘satellite lie’.

That Mr. Hartsuyker persists in his shallow and obvious distortions on a range of issues indicates a low opinion of voters in his electorate whom he apparently believes are too silly to ever question his ‘facts’.

Here is Hartsuyker’s media release of 8 February 2012:

Conroy’s breathtaking hypocrisy on regional Australia

 The hypocrisy of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is breathtaking, Shadow Regional Communications Minister Luke Hartsuyker said today.

This afternoon the Minister distributed a media release claiming the Coalition was abandoning regional Australia because we had the hide to question whether the Government needed to spend $620 million on two new satellites. Far from abandoning regional Australia, the Coalition had the OPEL plan which would have delivered fast broadband to 98 per cent of Australia by June 30 2009.

The OPEL contract included a mixture of technologies, including satellite. It was axed by Minister Conroy and Prime Minister Rudd in 2008, leaving in limbo the broadband needs of many regional communities. Labor also scrapped the Coalition’s $2 billion Communications Fund, which would have ensured the provision of regional telecommunications services into the future.

Given the reckless spending of this Government, the Coalition will continue to scrutinise NBN expenditure. The issue here is not about who is more committed to regional Australia’s broadband needs, but rather whether the Government is providing taxpayers with value for money. Ultimately any cost blowouts or waste will only lead to higher broadband costs for consumers. [my bolding]

This is actually what the Coalition promised when it last formed federal government:

Australia Connected is a comprehensive and complete broadband solution for Australia that involves:

·         A new national high speed wholesale network : The awarding of a $600 million competitive grant will deliver a mix of fibre optic, ADSL2+ and wireless broadband platforms to rural and regional areas. This rollout has been boosted with an additional $358 million in funding to ensure coverage to 99 per cent of the population;

·         A new commercial fibre optic network : Facilitating a fibre network build in cities and larger regional centres via a competitive bids process and subsequent enabling legislation; ·         Australian Broadband Guarantee : A safety net that ensures Australians living in the most remote or difficult to reach areas (the remaining one per cent) are entitled to a broadband subsidy of $2750 per household;

·         Creation of BroadbandNow: A new one-stop consumer help centre with telephone and web information to assist consumers understand the technology options available to them and provide ready information about how to get connected; and the

·         Preservation of the $2 billion Communications Fund : To ensure the funds are protected in perpetuity by legislation for the benefit of regional and rural Australians and to provide for an income stream for future upgrades. [Coalition Communications Minister Senator Helen Coonan,media release,18 June 2007]

The Optus and Elders joint venture, OPEL Networks Pty Ltd (OPEL), has secured $958 million in funding from the Australian Government.

This comprises $600 million from the previously announced Broadband Connect Infrastructure Program and an additional $358 million in funding to further extend high-speed affordable broadband services to rural and regional Australians.

The OPEL network will cover 638,000 square kilometres extending across all States and Territories. OPEL will deploy 1361 broadband wireless sites and install ADSL2+ in 312 exchanges.

Optus will also activate 114 new exchanges with ADSL2+ as part of its existing commitment to provide competitive broadband services. The total number of new exchanges to be activated with ADSL2+ by OPEL and Optus will be 426.

OPEL will initially deliver wireless broadband speeds of up to 6 megabits per second (Mbps) rising to 12 Mbps by 2009 using an internationally deployed broadband wireless technology appropriately designed for Australian conditions. Broadband delivered by ADSL2+ will have speeds of up to 20 Mbps.

Through OPEL, Optus and Elders will contribute $917 million towards the project through upgraded infrastructure, cash and in kind contributions.

Paul O'Sullivan, Chief Executive, Optus said: "This is a major win for competition and choice in rural and regional Australia… [OPTUS, media release,18 June 2007]

For the record here is Federal Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy Stephen Conroy’s media release response of 9 February 2012:

The National Party needs to come clean on their own broadband policy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, said today.

"In a media release, Nationals MP Luke Hartsuyker, the Shadow Minister for Regional Communications, demonstrated he doesn’t understand what used to be Coalition policy, or what now masquerades as policy," Senator Conroy said.

"His claims that OPEL would have ensured more than 98 per cent of Australians had access to speeds of up to 12 Mbps are simply not true.

"Mr Hartsuyker further claims in his release that OPEL included satellite, which it did not…….

When you can't even believe what you read about the Internet censorship debate

On Tuesday 31 March 2009 the SBS TV program Insight ran a debate/group discussion called Blocking the Net.

Whirlpool forums in their turn have been discussing this program with surprising results:

Conroy, McMenamin and Pillion simultaneously popped arteries and started shouting when I pointed out that Norway, Denmark, Finland, Thailand and Australia had all had their lists leaked and the UK had been shown to be vulnerable to reverse engineering; then asked what kind of idiots would take that data then say, "I know! Stunning idea! Lets make an extra-special-uber-bad list of the worst of the worst child porn material! This time we'll be able to keep it secret for sure!"

I think they edited it out because Insight likes to present reasoned debate and the debate became distinctly unreasonable for about ten seconds after that point. Total meltdown from the "pro" side.

– mark (Newton)

It was an unfortunate and rather ironic lapse on Insight's part to censor the discussion on Internet censorship.

However, it was sheer idiocy for Senator Conroy (probably the most monitored federal minister in the Rudd Government right now) to blank out parts of his CommsDay Summit 2009 speech as delivered and post an amended version on his ministerial website.

This is a ZNet report on what Senator Conroy decided to omit:

"I saw iiNet's defence in court under oath ... they have no idea if their customers are downloading illegally music or movies," he said today at the Commsday summit in Sydney. "Stunning defence, stunning defence," he continued in what appeared to be a sarcastic comment.

"I thought a defence in terms of 'we had no idea' ... belongs in a Yes Minister episode."

As for the Minister's assertion reported on Monday:

Senator Conroy said other forms of technology could be used to crack peer-to-peer pedophile rings.
"If I stood up anywhere and said 'hey, this filter will block peer-to-peer' then rightfully I should be ridiculed,'' he said.
"I've never said that ... it is not designed to deal with peer-to-peer.''

That flatly contradicts what he said officially on the short-lived official DBCDE blog:

The Government understands that ISP-level filtering is not a 'silver bullet'. We have always viewed ISP-level filtering as one part of a broader government initiative for protecting our children online.

Technology is improving all the time. Technology that filters peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic does exist and it is anticipated that the effectiveness of this will be tested in the live pilot trial.

On Insight Senator Conroy complained that he was misunderstood and his intentions misrepresented.
If that were to be the case he would only have himself to blame.

Sadly, the fact of the matter is that the Minister is erratically surfing a strong public opinion wave and desperately trying to avoid a wipe-out.
He tweaks his narrative whenever it suits or whenever the debate becomes politically uncomfortable for him.
There is no truth reliable information coming from his office.

The true nature of Stephen Conroy?

"This week, I spent longer inside the mind of media minister Stephen Conroy than I would necessarily recommend.

The reason was as we've written in various posts his performance at the Senate Estimates Committee.

Reading the transcript has, I must admit, made me change my mind about him.

You see, when he was saying some of the more extreme stuff about his proposed internet filter over the last few months, I assumed it was just politics. I thought he was grandstanding on family values while of course knowing that it wouldn't fly.

But when you read his thoughts (you can find the 131 page transcript here if you like), it's enough to make you think again about him both as a person and as a minister.

(A slight declaration of interest at this point - unlike Rupert Murdoch, I've sat next to Conroy at dinner, within a few days of him being appointed. At that stage he seemed thoroughly affable, if more interested in talking about soccer than media policy.)

But the person who comes across in the transcript is a sneering, sarcastic grudge-bearing point scorer. And one who won't give a straight answer to a straight question, at that."

More from Tim Burrowes writing for MUmBRELLA here.

Stevo continued to cement his reputation as the federal pollie most loose-with-the truth (after el supremo o' teh lie Tony Abbott) when he was caught out by one Aussie ISP - "Don't claim we support filter, iiNet tells Conroy".

SMH online poll around 7am last Monday

By 6.30am on the second day 1st June 2010 the poll count was 85,271 - still running 99% against the Rudd-Conroy plan to censor the Australian Internet.

Telstra having a bob each way on Conroy's national Internet filtering scheme

I have to say that I breathed a sigh of relief when I read that Telstra was not participating in the Rudd Government's live trial of a mandatory national ISP-level filtering scheme.

The Age reported last Tuesday:

AUSTRALIA'S largest internet service provider has said it will not participate in trials of the Federal Government's controversial national internet filter.

Telstra's BigPond said yesterday it would not be part of the pilot, which will run for six weeks from this month, citing "customer management issues".

It wouldn't say what the issues were but Telstra is believed to be worried about the effect on its reputation of any inconvenience to customers.

I was also rather surprised at this position because I had thought that Telstra would eventually come on board after it had wrung a few unrelated concessions from the federal government.
After all, that is its modus operandi.

However, it quickly became apparent that Telstra is actually running true to type and hedging its bet.
It also announced that it was; separately evaluating technology that allows the blocking of defined blacklists .

According to iNet News:

It is understood the Federal Government has invited some 400-plus ISPs to participate – so Telstra's decision is undoubtedly a blow to Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy's proposal.

The minister most concerned, Senator Stephen Conroy, must really be scratching for participants about now with only iNet and Optus definitely joining the trial and the sign-on date having past last Monday.

Let us hope that the version of an Internet filter which Telstra envisions is a voluntary opt-in plan, because anything else is likely to see a mass migration of its customer base.

The lighter side of Conroy's stubborn refusal to understand the severe limitations of his censorship plan is the fact that he has started a community consultation blog on the subject (which of course he intends to moderate to within an inch of its life whilst allowing pseudonym comment so that his staff may influence comment trends).

I decided to make a brief sober comment in relation to Minister Tanner's welcome post on this new blog and, surprise, surprise, I'm still waiting for my comment to be published.
Due to the time lag between lodging a comment and the same comment passing moderator's inspection, this clumsy attempt at e-consultation may yet wither on the vine.

APC's article on teh blog, The 10 sins of Senator Conroy the blogger, is here.

Are hot days melting the Internetz?

Almost marching side by side with rising summer temperatures across Australia since late January - early February has been the strange behaviour of my Internet connection.

Now either (i) the heat is so severe that the Internetz are melting, (ii) I've suddenly developed the most wayward Internet connection, or (iii) some of the 6 ISPs identified as taking part in Conroy's ISP-level filtering trial (or a number of the other 10 small ISPs rumoured to be involved) are currently gearing up.

I telephoned Senator Conroy's Canberra office on Thursday 15 January and was told that the ISP applications of expression of interest were still being assessed and that the entire matter was behind a Chinese wall as it involved a commercial tender process and therefore was commercial-in-confidence.
I was further informed that the ISP-level filtering trial would not start for a couple of weeks at least.
This would of course take the staggered startup for the live trial right into the high volume of Net traffic as business entered its first full trading month for 2009.

Last Monday 9 February when I telephoned again I found the Senator's office was in a whimsical I don't THINK it's begun yet mood.

However, on Wednesday 11 February Senator Conroy finally announced that the trial was all go with six ISPs involved: Primus, Tech 2U, Webshield, OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1.
Though he was careful not to give a start date for the trial. Here are Senator Conroy's weasel words in the media release.

So who do I believe here - the first staffer's very polite Sergeant Shultz defence, Conroy's sidestepping, or my suddenly erratic Internet connection?

Examples of the high number of Windows/Internet Explorer messages I have been seeing so far this past week:

The Requested Page Could Not Be Found

Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage

Proxy Error

The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
The proxy server could not handle the request *******************************.

Reason: Error reading from remote server

The webpage cannot be found

HTTP 404

Most likely causes:

There might be a typing error in the address.

If you clicked on a link, it may be out of date.

(Er, say again. It was the Google search engine I was trying to access)

403 Forbidden (WTF. It was an international news site)

403 Forbidden (For heaven's sake it was a picture of a beach, minus people!)

Server Error

The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your request.
Please try again in 30 seconds.
Please see Google's Terms of Service posted at http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html
(Oh dear, and all I was trying to do was read Still LIfe with Cat)

The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error.
Please contact the website administrator.

Navigation to the webpage was canceled

Information Alert
Status : 504 Gateway Time-Out
Description : Unable to connect to origin web server. The web site you are attempting to access is currently unreachable. This may be due to a network outage, or the web site might be experiencing technical difficulties.

You are not permitted to browse this view (The Attorney-General's department has a hissy fit?)

And no, before anyone suggests it, my PCs don't appear to be infected with anything according to the checks I've run.