[AusNOG] Google creepier than Conroy?

[Narelle]

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Mark Newton <newton at internode.com.au> wrote:
>
> While we're all talking about this, lets consider how much private data
> is likely to be captured by censorware if the guy Google is supposed to be
> creepier than gets his way.
>
> All data addressed to all virtual servers on the same IP address as a
> blacklisted URL is a reasonable starting point for consideration.


This is not what I understand the filtering proposal  to comprise.

For the record, I am opposed to the proposal.

Here is a rough process description from what I can glean:
1. Australian resident/visitor/citizen sees a web page s/he deems offensive
2. Complaint sent to ACMA
3. If ACMA agrees it is offensive and the site is located within
Australia a take down notice will be issued
   See http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=INT_IND_CONTENT_ABOUT

4.  Where the material is likely to be RC - refused classification -
it will be referred to the censors who would then review the content
and advise. This is reportedly a group of six people only. See
http://www.classification.gov.au/

5. If it is deemed to be RC material, and it is located outside
Australia, the URL will be added to the secret blacklist.

General
1. All ISPs would be required to block access to all blacklisted URLs
and interface to an automated blacklist distribution system.
2. No site owner would be advised if their URLS are added to the list
3. The list will be periodically checked to ensure it is still RC
4. RC material is defined under Federal legislation and is generally
extremely violent and nasty, but also includes material inciting an
Australian criminal offense
5. the Classification Board is an independent body
6. This uses an existing set of processes to censor materia

What it isn't
- IP addresses aren't supposed to be on the list
- non http traffic won't be included, ie P2P FTP, live chat, streaming
etc will pass fine
- human beings have to review and refuse the classification
- the blacklist content won't be generated in an automated fashion,
again people classify material not computers


There are plenty of unknowns in this, eg who would pay for the
filtering technology (recoverable? like interception gear?), how
people get their sites removed from the list...

imho it is far more likely that such a system would be abused by
individuals or corporations being nasty, than Australian governments
adding politically driven material willy nilly (if you'll excuse the
anti-pun).

Examples of that include:
- the Canadian ISP that allegedly blocked web pages relating to an
industrial dispute with its staff
- ISPs blocking access to competitor products (see Comcast case)


Those of you that have an issue with this on the basis of freedom of
speech should be running campaigns about the existing censorship laws
and the existing censorship processes as it is them that are
supposedly to be applied.

Frankly I don't think campaigns like http://www.timetotellmum.com/ are
particularly constructive. Nor is it helpful to cry evil evil, even if
the approach seems to work in so many other political campaigns! And
no, it isn't appropriate to liken with paedophiles all who oppose the
mandatory installation of web filters.

The Safer Internet Group is close to releasing a whole bunch of stuff
which I hope will be a lot more constructive.


hope this helps...




-- 


Narelle
narellec at gmail.com