Government Is Trying to Censor The Internet

[Keith]

Congress may sneak through Internet kill switch in defense bill
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0828/congress-internet-kill-switch-defense-bill/

A federal cybersecurity bill that critics say creates a presidential "kill switch" for the Internet could be added on to a defense spending bill and passed without much debate, technology news sources report.

Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE), one of the sponsors of the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, told GovInfoSecurity.com that the Senate is considering attaching the bill as a rider to a defense authorization bill likely to pass through Congress before the mid-term elections.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
If this "kill switch" bill gets passed as a rider to a defense spending bill, the sponsors of this shouldn't be ready to gloat quite yet.

Intelligent people with reasoned and logical criticisms of US domestic and foreign policies are going to find a way of getting around this. In the long run, it will be a nuisance, but not a show-stopper.

Net Neutrality: 7 Worst Case Scenarios
http://mashable.com/2010/08/27/net-neutrality-worst-case/

Many consumer advocacy groups, web companies and startups are ranting about the perils of losing net neutrality. Net neutrality, they say, is what made the Internet what it is today by giving small companies the opportunity to become big companies, and it rightly puts the user in full control of what he views on the Internet.

[Keith]

Zionists Boast: "Our Internet Warfare Squad Controls The Web"
http://www.mpacuk.org/story/031109/zionists-boast-our-internet-warfare-squad-controls-web.html

The Zionist state is accelerating its Hasbara campaign, by forming Internet Warfare Squads, their sole remit: to post pro-Israel responses on websites worldwide. This assault on free speech and effectively muzzling any criticism of Israel is a tool which will be used in the public relations war, the Zionist thought police are only a click away.

[Keith]

Obama Demands Access to Internet Records, in Secret, and Without Court Review
http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/08/obama-demands-access-to-internet.html

The Obama administration is seeking authority from Congress that would compel internet service providers (ISPs) to turn over records of an individual's internet activity for use in secretive FBI probes.

In another instance where Americans are urged to trust their political minders, The Washington Post reported last month that "the administration wants to add just four words--'electronic communication transactional records'--to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval."

[Keith]

'Fascism coming to a computer near you'
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=12220&title=-fascism-coming-to-a-computer-near-you

Google's South Korean headquarters have been raided because of allegations that the internet giant stole private information from the nation's citizens. Google's CEO Eric Schmidt, a member of the Bilderberg group, has called for a new internet that will have a slow lane for porn and shopping but the value added content is only for those who can pay. Wayne Madsen adds that the Obama administration wants to shut the internet down to those who cannot pay for it or don't have enough political influence.

[Keith]

Google and Verizon Usher in the Internets
http://the-new-american-republic.blogspot.com/2010/08/google-and-verizon-usher-in-internets.html

Monday's announcement that Verizon and Google will create a distinct wireless experience put net neutrality discussions not so much on the back burner as in the recycling bin.

Although early speculation suggested that the corporate giants were going to create the equivalent of an E-Z Pass lane for content providers willing to pay for higher content speeds, the actual plan is to create not just what amounts to a distinct "set of pipes" to funnel high-bandwidth content, but to also clearly define the wireless Internet as a rules-free zone that allows providers to determine what content reaches consumers.

Hawaii Internet Slow Down could last a Month or More!
http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2010/07/28/hawaii-internet-slow-down-could-last-a-month-or-more/

This should not come as a surprise because basic bandwidth speeds have not increased here significantly in many years. We have waited and waited for promised increased speeds and it has never happened. This incident makes it very obvious that they do not have the infrastructure in place to handle increased speeds. If one fiber cable is damaged resulting in this massive decrease in available service it is obvious that they have not been investing in infrastructure . This should be a wake up call to Oceanic.

[Keith]

Virus Attacks Siemens Plant-Control Systems
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703954804575381372165249074-lMyQjAxMTAwMDAwODEwNDgyWj.html

Computer hackers have designed a virus that targets industrial control systems built by German engineering giant Siemens AG, activating a kind of malicious software that analysts say represents a growing corporate-espionage threat.

The virus, dubbed Stuxnet, is spread by devices plugged into USB computer ports. It is programmed to try to steal data from computer systems that are used to monitor large automated plants built for anything from manufacturing to power generation to water treatment. Siemens is one of the world's largest makers of such industrial automated systems, though it doesn't break out its annual revenue from such sales.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
BULL BISCUITS!

As this article confirms, plant control systems are not tied into the public internet. The virus has to be inserted using a USB device.

So why would hackers, who are into money, porn, identity theft, and cramming Viagra ads into your mailbox going to waste their time on a virus for a refrigerator factory assembly line control system?

Folks, this is a hoax. The government needs to find a way to control the internet because they are in a panic that the world sees them for what they really are. So they are going to have "Terrorists" at you (as if terrorists could destroy this nation any more badly that Federal fiscal policy already has) to trick you into accepting more locks and controls on your computer and internet. For your own good, of course.

But stop and think about it. There is no financial reason for hackers to waste their time with factory computers (which are actually rather boring). Real enemies of the United States are not going to waste their time on refrigerator factory assembly line control systems. They would go after military systems which are already secure. Or they would go after the NCA comm systems (again, already secure) or even the IRS computers.

This claim that factory computers are under threat is just more bovine excrement to limit freedom of speech and justify handing several million dollars to some congresscritters donor who is in computer security.

[Keith]

The Trust Crisis with Regulating Net Neutrality
http://www.activistpost.com/2010/08/trust-crisis-with-regulating-net.html

Since it was reported that Google and Verizon are close to a deal on so-called "net neutrality," the policy debate has heated up in Washington. Of course the debate has very little to do with the actual mechanics of how net neutrality will work, rather who will get the control to regulate it.

However, now that the FCC has abandoned negotiations on a "net neutrality" compromise, it is looking like the Congress will ultimately establish the rules -- handed down to them by their corporate masters. It seems the Elite's fight over who controls the dial has been decided. One thing is for sure, whoever controls the speed dial on the Internet will control the entire Web and subsequently all flow of information.

[Keith]

Elite Cyber Group Comes Over Ground To Recruit Hackers
http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?id=1378373
 
Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
A private contractor wrapped in the flag is hiring hackers to attack websites the government does not like.

[Keith]

White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

[Keith]

Google and CIA Invest in Future of Web Monitoring - Pre Crime
http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/07/google-and-cia-invest-in-future-of-web.html

The investment arms of the CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time  and says it uses that information to predict the future.

Were right there as it happens, Ahlberg told Danger Room as he clicked through a demonstration. We can assemble actual real-time dossiers on people.

[Keith]

False Flag Cyber Attack Could Takedown The Internet
http://globalgulag.freesmfhosting.com/index.php?topic=125
 
An increasing clamour to restrict and control the internet on behalf of the government, the Pentagon, the intelligence community and their private corporate arms, could result in a staged cyber attack being used as justification.

[Keith]

Obama's War on the Internet: The Ministry of Truth
http://uruknet.com/?p=m68096&hd=&size=1&l=e

The Ministry of Truth was how George Orwell described the mechanism used by government to control information in his seminal novel 1984. A recent trip to Europe has convinced me that the governments of the world have been rocked by the power of the internet and are seeking to gain control of it so that they will have a virtual monopoly on information that the public is able to access.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/

Intelligent, inventive people are always going to find a way around any kind of attempted "total control" of information; anyone remember the "Samizdat" in the old Soviet Union?!?

That system of interlinked faxes put the lie to any official bit of bull biscuits being offered as "truth" by the Kremlin.

It will be the same with any attempted "total control" of the net; people will find ways around it.

[Keith]

Obama's War on the Internet: The Ministry of Truth
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1020

By Philip Giraldi

The Ministry of Truth was how George Orwell described the mechanism used by government to control information in his seminal novel 1984. A recent trip to Europe has convinced me that the governments of the world have been rocked by the power of the internet and are seeking to gain control of it so that they will have a virtual monopoly on information that the public is able to access. In Italy, Germany, and Britain the anonymous internet that most Americans are still familiar with is slowly being modified. If one goes into an internet caf? it is now legally required in most countries in the European Union to present a government issued form of identification.

[Keith]

More info on government-ordered shutdown of 73,000 Wordpress blogs.

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=964013

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
Read the quotes from Burstnet carefully. This sounds like something other than a DMCA case, as the ISP says "this was not a typical case, in which suspension and notification would be the norm."

Note that Burstnet will not tell the owner of the affected site the nature of the problem, or which government agency ordered the shut down.

[Keith]

And of course the Australian Government and Opposition ultimately want exactly the same as Lieberman.

Liebermans Model For America: Purging The Internet of Dissent
http://www.prisonplanet.com/liebermans-model-for-america-purging-the-internet-of-dissent.html

Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,? Lieberman told CNN?s Candy Crowley last month.

However, Chinas war is not against foreign terrorists or hackers, its against people who dare to use the Internet to express dissent against government atrocities or corruption. Chinas system of Internet policing is about crushing freedom of speech and has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns as Lieberman well knows.

Its a system concentrated around state oppression of any individual or group that seeks to use the Internet to draw attention to political causes frowned upon by the authorities.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
Very few members in Congress show a more cavalierly open and complete contempt for the Constitution and Bill of Rights than does Senator Lieberman.

[Keith]

Spot on. No matter who wins the election the filter will be back and the old mantra will be screamed from the rooftops. We have a mandate to do what we want to do and you can mind your own business.
 
Conroy's filter ain't dead, just resting
July 12, 2010

THE AGE

It's a little premature to celebrate the demise the Australia's mandatory internet filtering plans.

There was much jubilation late last week as the digerati claimed a victory over the government's "back down" on plans to implement mandatory ISP-level internet filtering. Don't be fooled, Conroy has in no way capitulated to the demands of the Twitterverse. He's just dreamed up the idea of yet another review, so the Gillard government can sweep the filter under the carpet until after the next election.

Plans for internet filtering have in no way been abandoned, just conveniently delayed until a review of Refused Classification guidelines can be conducted by state and territory censorship ministers - well after this year's election. It's a classic Yes, Minister move - making it look like you're doing something just to shut people up. The new Gillard government has pulled this trick in several areas recently to neutralise troublesome issues in the lead up to the Federal election.

I say "troublesome" issue not "crucial" because mainstream Australia still doesn't give a rat's arse about the filter - Conroy has done a great job of pushing the idea that if you're anti-filter then you're pro-kiddie porn. Mainstream Australia - ie most voters - don't care about internet speeds or online censorship, they just care about protecting "the kids". The blogosphere can rant and rave all it wants, it's the equivalent of holding a protest march in your own backyard - no-one's paying any attention except the few people who already believe in the cause. You can shout online as much as you want, but this election will fought over the usual issues - the economy, the environment and illegal immigration. I think Stilgherrian's recent blog post over at the ABC - The political naivety of the digital elites - should be mandatory reading for anyone who cries "hands off my internets".

That's not to say there aren't a few promising signs in Conroy's statement for last week. For example he's promised;

?       an annual review of content on the blacklist by an "independent expert".

?       clear avenues of appeal for people whose sites are blocked.

?       content will be added to the blacklist by the Classification Board, instead of the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

?       affected parties will have the ability to have decisions reviewed by the Classification Review Board.

?       people will know when they surf to a blocked page as a notification will appear


These changes address some of the key concerns of filtering opponents, but in this pre-election environment I'd take anything Conroy says with a grain of salt. He's free to completely re-write the rules after the election and the Refused Classification review. Remember politicians don't really care about doing anything, they just care to be seen to be doing something. Last week's "back down" by Conroy was a textbook move to make both sides of the debate think they'll eventually get their own way. Yet if you know anything about politics, you'll know the filter is merely on hold.

 

 
 
www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Many Laws are enacted and designed to influence voting patterns. Governments have burdened us with thousands of Laws as we have become the nanny State. This is not to say that Privacy Law doesn't need strengthening.And it is not to say peoples privacy should not be protected.
 
However it is one thing to change the Privacy Law, but another to make sure it is monitored and enforced. Then there are the escape clauses which allow serious criminals and minor Law breakers to escape a guilty verdict and punishment. Anybody who has had anything to do with bodies such as the Privacy Commission and who has presented them with clear breaches of Law know full well these bodies are window dressing to make us think the Law is on our side but which are there to win votes and con us into thinking the Law and Governments are on our side. Usually the Privacy Commission will buck pass and find all the excuses under the sun to not prosecute.
 
The Law is an ass.
 
DAILY TELEGRAPH

Australia's 22-year-old Privacy Act gets internet-era update

 

BY Natasha Bita
From: The Australian
July 12, 2010


An overhaul of the Privacy Act will see serious sanctions for breaches by major companies / AAP Source: AAP

Civil penalties imposed for breaches
Privacy act must be modernised - minister
BUSINESSES will risk stiff fines for invading Australians' privacy, as the 22-year-old Privacy Act steps into the internet era.

Special Minister of State Joe Ludwig, who is in charge of the legislative overhaul, said yesterday that he supported the introduction of "serious sanctions" for privacy breaches.

"We will make sanctions available (to the Privacy Commissioner) for the first time," he told The Australian. "I agree we do need the ability of the commissioner to have a sanctions regime in place to deal with serious or systemic breaches of privacy."

Senator Ludwig said amendments to the Privacy Act would introduce civil penalties - to be imposed by the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court - for "serious breaches when other enforcement measures are not sufficient".

"They will be serious sanctions," he said. "It is essential we have a robust system in place to protect the privacy of individuals."

Senator Ludwig said it was too early to speculate on the amount of the fines, although they would be high enough to act as a deterrent.

He said the Privacy Act must be modernised as it did not deal adequately with privacy issues posed by the internet - including e-commerce, social networking sites and search engines.

"With the invention of social networking sites like Facebook, it doesn't essentially keep pace," he said of the act. "We will drag it into the 21st century."

Internet giant Google escaped punishment last week for secretly harvesting Australians' personal data.

Privacy Commissioner Karen Curtis ruled on Friday that Google had breached the Privacy Act by collecting personal information from unsecured WiFi connections while it photographed houses for its Street View service.

Google published an apology on its official blog

Australia Delays Internet Censorship and Filtering Under Pressure
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=623865

[Keith]

Well may the Federal Opposition and Mr Abbott call this a backflip. Where does the Opposition stand on the proposed internet filter and why has it been so silent on the matter? Why? Simply because it wants a similar filter in place but will let the Government do the dirty work. Mr Abbott is again opposing for opposings sake and has not produced the Oppositions position on this filter.


Gillard dodges flak on filter
DAN HARRISON
July 10, 2010

THE AGE

AS JULIA Gillard clears the decks  for an election that could be called as soon as next weekend, she has moved to limit the political fallout from Labors controversial plans to filter internet pages by putting the proposals off indefinitely.

The politically motivated deferral  which the opposition immediately branded a humiliating backdown follows other recent policy reversals, softenings and adjustments as the government rushes to allay the concerns of various constituencies before the poll.

The latest U-turn is Ms Gillards new asylum policy, embracing offshore processing.

As government insiders worked behind closed doors to develop new policy to win back  environmentally concerned voters dismayed by its decision to shelve its emissions trading scheme, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy yesterday announced the filter would be postponed to allow for a review of classification rules, to ensure they adhere with community standards.

The delay means the filter, which was originally promised in 2007, will now probably not start until 2012 at the earliest.

The announcement comes one week after Ms Gillard and her deputy, Wayne Swan, announced a compromise deal with mining companies for a 30per cent resources tax, after the government had said it was committed to a 40 per cent tax.

Earlier the government was forced to scrap its home insulation program after it was linked to four deaths and many house fires. It was also forced to set up a taskforce to investigate complaints about its school building program.

The filter proposal part of Labors 2007 election pitch would require internet service providers to block websites on a  secret ??blacklist?? maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

It has sparked fierce opposition from the internet industry and free-speech advocates, who argue it will be ineffective in preventing distribution of child pornography and could  block innocuous material.

Senator Conroy  said he had discussed the filter proposal with  Ms Gillard and the government remained committed to it.  But he said they both acknowledged community concerns that the filter could get in the way of legitimate internet use.

He said the government would introduce a number of measures to meet concerns about transparency.  Sites identified by public complaints would be classified by the classification board, and decisions could be appealed to the classification review board.

Where possible, the Australian Communications and Media Authority would be required to contact the owner of a site before it was added to the blacklist. The authority would publish a breakdown of sites on the blacklist by category. An independent expert would be appointed to conduct an annual review of the processes around adding websites to the blacklist.

Meanwhile, three internet service providers have volunteered to block a list of child abuse websites.
The three firms ? Telstra, Optus and Primus account for about 70 per cent of Australian internet users.

Senator Conroy praised the ??socially responsible?? approach of the three companies and encouraged others to match them.
 
Internet Industry Association chief executive Peter Coroneos said it would develop a voluntary code of practice for internet service providers to block child pornography.

Opposition communications spokesman Tony Smith said yesterday?s move vindicated coalition concerns about Labor?s proposal.

Colin Jacobs, head of free speech group Electronic Frontiers Australia, welcomed the delay but expressed disappointment the government had not dropped the policy altogether.

 

 
www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Liebermans Internet Kill Switch Bill Hits Roadblock
http://www.prisonplanet.com/liebermans-internet-kill-switch-bill-hits-roadblock.html

It appears that the effort to pass a cyber-security bill is going to get a bit more tough then expected.

Late last month, officials from Cisco, IBM and Oracle sent a letter to the main sponsors of the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, S. 3480  Senators Joe Lieberman (DI-Conn.) Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Tom Carper (D-Del.). The letter raised concerns about some provisions of the bill

Webmaster's Commentary:  http://whatreallyhappened.com/

GOOD!

[Keith]

Parents are responsible for the safety and behaviour of their children. You and I are not responsible for the safety and behaviour of other peoples kids.
 
The Government and it's apologists are using the emotive issue of the safety of children to get it's spooky internet filter through the Parliament. The real intent of this proposed internet filter has more to do with Government control, with the nanny state, than it has to do with the safety of kids.
 
In the current climate all the Government has to do is scream child safety and everybody in sheepland out there goes into hysterics and does whatever the Government wants, and the Government knows this and is playing on it to get what it wants.
 
The problem today is we have many hapless, hopeless and stupid parents in the community who don't care what their kids do, online or off-line. You cannot legislate to protect idiots and fools from themselves.
 
And don't forget. Most child abuse, whatever form it may take [ remember it can be sexual, physical, emotional and financial ] happens in the HOME, not on the internet. So as Julian Burnside QC cynically said let's then put a camera in every home to capture the great plague which is child abuse in the home.
 
THE AGE

Internet filter 'won't protect kids'

ARI SHARP

July 9, 2010

PROTECTING children online could be harder with a mandatory internet filter in place, a coalition including state schools, librarians and key players in the internet industry has warned.

The recently formed Safer Internet Group argues that the federal government's proposed filter is a simplistic solution to shielding children from harmful content on the internet.

''We believe that real online safety can be delivered without the implementation of a mandatory internet filter, which locks parents and the industry out of keeping kids safe online,'' the group wrote in a submission to a parliamentary committee on cyber safety.

''The mandatory filter gives parents a false sense of security regarding online safety.''

The group's membership includes the Australian Council of State School Organisations, the Australian Library and Information Association, the Internet Industry Association, Google, Yahoo! and iiNet.

In place of the internet filter, the group has proposed a five-step approach that includes education, policing of illegal material and targeted research on the internet and young people.

''Real cyber safety can only be delivered with a multi-pronged approach that privileges effective responses to online threats over gimmicks, and which promotes tools and technology that really work.''

The group's representative, Sue Hutley, appeared before the joint select committee on cyber safety in Melbourne yesterday to push the group's case.

Speaking later, a Liberal backbencher on the committee, Alex Hawke, attacked the filter's key advocate, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.

''Senator Conroy should examine the evidence that the committee has heard, in particular that the best way to protect internet users online is to train children and adults to learn to use the filter between their ears,'' Mr Hawke said.

At a broadband event in Sydney, Senator Conroy defended the filter, saying the government was in the final stages of deciding on accountability and transparency measures for the filter, which is intended to block refused-classification content.

He sought to separate debate about the filter from debate over classification rules, which has so far led to fears euthanasia and drug advocacy sites could be caught up as well as child pornography.

''Debate around what's in and what's out of different classifications is very legitimate debate and one that we welcome,'' Senator Conroy said.

As well as proposing a mandatory filter, the government has committed $126 million over four years to its cyber-safety plan. This includes expanding the federal police's online child sex investigations, establishing an online helpline for children and more research.

The parliamentary committee has also heard from the Australian Education Union, which used its submission to argue in favour of an online ombudsman to help users communicate with website operators, rather than a mandatory filter.

 

 
 
www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

ISP filtering legislation on the way
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/filtering-legislation-on-the-way/story-e6frgakx-1225889109550

THE federal government hopes to introduce legislation to enable its controversial internet filter by the end of the year.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the legislation would be this year "sooner rather than later''.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/

 

"YOU WILL SEE ONLY WHAT WE WANT YOU TO SEE, DUMBKOPF!!!!"

[Keith]

And pigs might fly. Ms Gillard the people are well used to the tricks and scheming of politicians. And these days no Government goes in with a big bang change over night policy, but rather Governments have learned that massive change, control, manipulation and social engineering are better done bit by bit, because most people don't notice the bit by bit stuff.
 
Gillard backs internet filter
ABC NEWS

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she is happy with the policy aim of the Government's proposed internet filter, but understands there are concerns about it.

The Government plans to introduce a mandatory filter to block sites that contain illegal material.

Ms Gillard says images of child abuse or child pornography should not be accessible on the internet.

But she has acknowledged the concerns raised by critics of the plan.

"I understand that there's a set of concerns, technical concerns about internet speed, and also concerns that this somehow [moves] into taking away legitimate use of the internet," she said.

"It's not my intention that we in any way jeopardise legitimate use of the internet."

 
 
www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

The Lights Are Going Out For Free Speech On The Internet
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2010/07/lights-are-going-out-for-free-speech-on.html

Type the keywords ?Internet censorship? into Google News and you will immediately understand to what degree the world wide web is under assault from attempts by governments globally to regulate and stifle free speech. From Australia to Belarus, from Turkey to Vietnam, from Pakistan to Egypt, from Afghanistan to Iran, huge chunks of the Internet are going dark as the Chinese model of Internet regulation is adopted worldwide.

But why should Americans concern themselves with countries halfway across the globe adopting Chinese-style net censorship? Because under Senator Joe Lieberman?s 197-page Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, the United States would formally mimic China?s ?great firewall? of web censorship.

 
 
www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

A very serious and fundamental question needs to be asked by the Veteran community regarding the proposed internet filter. Let's backpedal a little and rehash some history.
 
From late 1999 to 2007 a vigorous, honest and confronting web campaign was conducted across Australia to force the then Howard Government to properly index the TPI pension [ the Special Rate ]. The result, after years of campaigning, was that before election 2007 both sides of the Parliament committed to indexing the TPI payment to a fairer and more community representative model, and today, thanks to the work of all involved in the mainly web based TPI Campaign, we now see the SR indexed to the movements in the CPI or MTAWE, whichever is the greater.
 
It is important for us to remember how many people went out on some very big limbs, how confronting the web based campaign was and how activism directed in the right direction achieved results.
 
Without that campaign the TPI would still be indexed to the CPI alone.
 
We in the Veteran community now need to ask the very serious question about any further web based campaigns, and if the Government of the day will arbitrarily decide that websites such as the old TPI Campaign website [ and my Aussie Digger website which took over the roll of the original campaign site ] are " suitable " to be viewed. In other words an internet filter such as the one proposed could easily be tweaked to silence legitimate campaigns throughout the Veteran community if the Government of the day decided it was losing votes because of the publication of honest, confronting and accurate information.
 
Don't scoff at this. The danger is there.
 
The Veteran community understands we have ratbags in our ranks such as the vicious and vile mad galahs who should be ignored and who do not use the web maturely and responsibly. But their ranks are thin and the likelihood of groups such as them gaining widespread footing in our community is very slim indeed. And under the current Law the authorities already have the power to act against individuals like the lunatics in the galah movement and shut them down.
 
We don't need an internet filter to filter out and where necessary charge  the rabid ratbags in the community right across the board.
 
Is the Internet Filter Australia's Berlin Wall
From WikiLeaks
December 17, 2009
By GAVIN HEATON (Servant of Chaos)[1]

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Is_the_Internet_Filter_Australia%27s_Berlin_Wall

[Keith]

Are the Russian Spies a Pretext for the Internet Kill Switch?
http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2010/07/01/are-the-russian-spies-a-pretext-for-the-internet-kill-switch/

Off-the-cuff, you kinda have to wonder if this is some sort of pretext for the Orwellian ?internet kill switch?, which would really concentrate the dissemination of information and ?opinion? among the state-sanctioned media outlets, who would of course remain fair and impartial as they repeat the ruling party?s propaganda, and it would be the coup de grace for whatever vestiges remain of our freedoms of speech and information.

[Keith]

US Senator Lieberman wants to kill the internet ? for Israel!
http://www.redress.cc/americas/mocathail20100702

Maidhc ? Cathail views US Senator Joseph Lieberman?s efforts to undermine American civil liberties, in particular his current attempt to destroy the internet, perhaps in order ?to protect his treasonous cronies from the American people?.

?If the United States looks increasingly like a police state Senator Lieberman has to take much of the credit for it.?

 
Guess Who Wants to Kill the Internet?
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19973

It would be hard to think of anyone who has done more to undermine American freedoms than Joseph Lieberman.

Since 9/11, the Independent senator from Connecticut has introduced a raft of legislation in the name of the ?global war on terror? which has steadily eroded constitutional rights. If the United States looks increasingly like a police state, Senator Lieberman has to take much of the credit for it.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/

It is because the net gives people access to information and alternative viewpoints that makes it so terrifying to those in power.

However, should the "kill switch" be thrown, the "silicon curtain" will probably be not much more effective than has been the "great firewall of China", because enterprising and intelligent users will always find a way around it.

[Keith]

Cybersecurity Measures Will Mandate Government ?ID Tokens? To Use The Internet
     

Gargantuan move against Internet freedom accelerates into high gear

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com
Monday, June 28, 2010

The move to shut down and regulate the Internet under a new government-controlled system has accelerated into high gear with the announcement that the government?s cybersecurity strategy revolves around issuing Internet users with ID ?tokens? without which they will not be able to visit websites, the latest salvo against web freedom which, in combination with Senator Joe Lieberman?s ?kill switch? bill, will serve to eviscerate the free Internet as we know it.

Under the guise of ?cybersecurity,? the government is moving to discredit and shut down the existing Internet infrastructure in the pursuit of a new, centralized, regulated world wide web.

It is important to stress that ?cybersecurity? has nothing to do with protecting the infrastructure of the United States and everything to do with taking over the Internet. Cybersecurity is about attacking non-compliant Internet users, not defending against hackers. Non-compliance equates as using the Internet as a political tool to dissent against the policies of the U.S. government. Having already tried and failed in flooding the web with paid disinformation agents http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15287 the government is now turning to its only recourse, exploiting hyped or outright staged cyberattacks as an excuse through which to implement an Internet 2 system controlled and regulated solely by the authorities.

We are constantly told that the Internet needs to be subject to government control because cyberterrorists could hack in and bring down the national power grid. However, the vast majority of the U.S. power infrastructure is not connected to the Internet. It will only be connected to the Internet if the government accelerates the implementation of ?smart grid? technology, so in this sense, the government itself is leaving the power grid more vulnerable to hackers by its own programs.

Threats against computer networks in the United States are grossly exaggerated. Dire reports issued by the Defense Science Board and the Center for Strategic and International Studies ?are usually richer in vivid metaphor ? with fears of ?digital Pearl Harbors? and ?cyber-Katrinas? ? than in factual foundation,? writes Evgeny Morozov http://bostonreview.net/BR34.4/morozov.php a Belarus-born researcher and blogger who writes on the political effects of the internet.

Morozov notes that much of the data on the supposed cyber threat ?are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies ? which need to justify their own existence ? and cyber-security companies ? which derive commercial benefits from popular anxiety.?

Should the government go ahead and try to exercise the powers it is now on the verge of acquiring, we?d expect to see the Internet shut down for a few days in order to prevent some kind of contrived cyberattack blamed on terrorists. Sure, there will be problems, but large corporations will raise little dissent safe in the knowledge that the Lieberman legislation gives them immunity from civil lawsuits and also ensures they are reimbursed for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.

After a series of shutdowns, the government will simply demand that every corporation or individual who wants to operate a website first obtain a license and an individual Internet ID. Such licenses will be revoked for anyone who engages in ?hate speech,? which is now so broad a term that it encompasses offending anyone on the Internet.

The result will be a sterile and regulated Internet which more closely resembles cable TV than the true open source, outpost of free speech that we have come to know and love.

This exact strategy was outlined in a paper published by Obama?s cybersecurity co-ordinator Howard Schmidt, which was compiled with the aid of the National Security Council.

The strategy revolves around, ?The creation of a system for identity management that would allow citizens to use additional authentication techniques, such as physical tokens or modules on mobile phones, to verify who they are before buying things online or accessing such sensitive information as health or banking records,? reports the FInancial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f416e31e-80af-11df-be5a-00144feabdc0.html

Only with this government-issued ?token? will Internet users be allowed to ?able to move from website to website,? a system not too far removed from what China proposed and rejected for being too authoritarian.

It is imperative that everyone redouble their efforts to bring attention to this matter because Lieberman?s bill is on the verge of passing the Senate and it will hand the government total control over the Internet unless we can alert enough organizations from across the political spectrum to oppose this monstrosity in unison.

The true nature of the cybersecurity agenda was revealed when Lieberman told CNN?s Candy Crowley that his 197-page Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PDF) http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=4ee63497-ca5b-4a4b-9bba-04b7f4cb0123 legislation was part of an effort to mimic China?s control of the Internet.

?Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,? said Lieberman.

The Senator?s reference to China is a telling revelation of what the cybersecurity agenda is really all about. China?s vice-like grip over its Internet systems has very little to do with ?war? and everything to do with silencing all dissent against the state.

Chinese Internet censorship is imposed via a centralized government blacklist of any websites that contain criticism of the state, porn, or any other content deemed unsuitable by the authorities. Every time you attempt to visit a website, you are re-routed through the government firewall, often making for long delays and crippling speeds.

China has exercised its power to shut down the Internet, something that Lieberman wants to introduce in the U.S., at politically sensitive times in order to stem the flow of information about government abuse and atrocities http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSPEK340617 During the anti-government riots which occurred in July 2009, the Chinese government completely shut down the Internet across the entire northwestern region of Xinjiang for days. Similarly, Internet access in parts of Tibet is routinely restricted as part of government efforts to pre-empt and neutralize unrest.

Major websites like Twitter, Google and You Tube have also been shut down either temporarily or permanently by Chinese authorities.

News websites in China now require users to register their true identities in order to leave comments http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/06/china-websites-real-name-registration This abolition of anonymity is used to chill free speech in that it prevents the user from engaging in criticism of the state for fear that they would be tracked down by authorities.

Chinese authorities are now going further than merely maintaining a ?blacklist? of banned websites by instituting a ?whitelist? of allowed websites http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BL19620091222 a move that ?could potentially place much of the Internet off-limits to Chinese readers?. Websites not pre-registered with the government would be completely blocked to all Internet users, meaning ?millions of completely innocuous sites? would be banned. This equates to requiring government approval to set up a website, which would obviously not be granted if the person or organization making the application has a history of or is likely to engage in dissent against the state.

President Obama himself has criticized Chinese Internet censorship http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/16/barack-obama-criticises-internet-censorship-china as a hindrance to the free flow of information and allowing citizens to hold their governments accountable, and yet Lieberman wants to hand Obama similar powers.

Given the nature of Chinese Internet regulation, with has nothing to do with ?war? as Lieberman claims and everything to do with political censorship and covering up information about state oppression, we should be alarmed that the Senator wants to see America move in the same direction.

The real agenda behind government control of the Internet has always been to strangle and suffocate independent media outlets who are now competing with and even displacing establishment press organs, with websites like the Drudge Report now attracting more traffic than many large newspapers combined. As part of this war against independent media, the FTC recently proposing a ?Drudge Tax http://www.infowars.com/ftc-backs-off-drudge-tax/ that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.

In addition, the FCC has rolled a censorship plan into its Net Neutrality scheme http://www.infowars.com/fccs-stealth-plan-to-censor-internet-content/ in a stealth attempt to impose Internet regulation.

Under the FCC?s regulatory control consumers would be forced to buy an Internet/TV/Phone connectivity box that the government approves. ?Everyone will pay rates for service that the government sets. And everything passing through your Internet, TV, or phone would become subject to the FCC?s consistent regulatory whim,? writes Americans for Tax Reform?s Kelly William Cobb http://atr.org/fccs-grand-plan-control-internet-tv-a5081

Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2010/080410net.htm and Australia http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/170407internet.htm and move toward a greatly restricted ?internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID?s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website, and this is precisely what the National Security Council has proposed for the new cybersecurity measures that are set to be implemented over the next few years.

 

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[perthpaul]

City of Cockburn Council at Midday 24th June sent a group Bcc Email to 618 families listed in their database as follows:
Dear Parents
 
Attached is your monthly Child Care Usage Report 17/5/2010 to 13/6/2010
 
Regards
 
 
Margaret Hew
Child Development Officer IHC
City of Cockburn Family Day Care Scheme
 
Date: 24 June 2010

Normally this would not concern me except for the fact that on that same attached file were everybody's same data, that contained 727 Statements of all the Parents and Children's Names, Home Addresses, Centrelink CRN No's & a detailed Monthly Financial Summary of each family.

The following morning I showed up to Centrelink Spearwood, WA at 9pm I was there for 45 min whilst they considered what to do.

They stated to me that they called their Privacy Officer in Perth Office that instructed them to tell me that this matter does not concern them because it did not originate from them. That is where I have a problem with the Centrelink CRN number being present on the Document.

Further to the CRN number we have enough numbers and percentages in one document that would be easily transferred to a spreadsheet and you can work out how much each family earns etc.

So I said thanks for your help then walked out and reported all this to a staffer at Melissa Parkes Fed Labor MP office, who then rang Centrelink on my behalf.

What happens now Centrelink does not care for these 618 families PRIVACY, Security Breach with regard to opening us up to Identity Fraud possibilities, no phone calls have been returned to me from Centrelink. 

So the key to fix this is to change everybody's Centrelink CRN Numbers because You can't change Names & Address, but the CRN can be, you would think.

It?s the same procedure if you lost your Bank Card; reissue a new number/card.

The DANGER here is the CRN number. Once you have this you just Click I've forgotten my password or CAN and have a modified Password Hacking Program that you set upon the task.

http://www.sharewareconnection.com/titles/email-password-hacking-program.htm

There are people out there that specialise in this sort of thing. Organised Crime, Hackers that sort.

Corporations would love to see this information in order to build onto their Marketing Databases.

The big question is can or will Centrelink do this for these affected families listed on this document, and fast.

I was also a victim of Identity Fraud whilst I was serving in East Timor in 2002-3 with 5/7 RAR, and I do not want this to happen to me or anyone else again.

So I then Email all of this to the Following:

Julie.Bishop.MP@aph.gov.au
Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
Chris.Bowen.MP@aph.gov.au
Julia.Gillard.MP@aph.gov.au
Wayne.Swan.MP@aph.gov.au
senator.evans@aph.gov.au
melissa.parke.mp@aph.gov.au

I have not yet received any calls from Centrelink to this point in time yet as to just what the hell they are doing about this matter.

[Keith]

 
Cybersecurity Measures Will Mandate Government ?ID Tokens? To Use The Internet
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cybersecurity-measures-will-mandate-government-id-tokens-to-use-the-internet.html

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com
Monday, June 28, 2010

The move to shut down and regulate the Internet under a new government-controlled system has accelerated into high gear with the announcement that the government?s cybersecurity strategy revolves around issuing Internet users with ID ?tokens? without which they will not be able to visit websites, the latest salvo against web freedom which, in combination with Senator Joe Lieberman?s ?kill switch? bill, will serve to eviscerate the free Internet as we know it.
Under the guise of ?cybersecurity,? the government is moving to discredit and shut down the existing Internet infrastructure in the pursuit of a new, centralized, regulated world wide web.

 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

UK regulator: net neutrality rules bad for consumers
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/is-the-united-kingdoms-internet-a-two-sided-market.ars

Britain's telecommunications regulator says its "preliminary view" is that "there is currently insufficient evidence to justify regulation to prohibit certain forms of traffic management." In other words, Ofcom sees no need for open Internet rules, given the agency's view that nothing has happened in United Kingdom cyberspace to merit them.

[Keith]

 
President Obama promised much hope and change in the minds and hearts of many around the World. However he has failed to deliver and in several ways his Administration is more rabidly anti the people and anti human rights than the "worst President " in US history George Bush.
 
Politicians always do things for a reason. This proposed Bill is about one thing. More control over the average citizen, and as pointed out in the below article, if passed it will affect the internet right around the World.
 
THE AGE

 

Obama internet 'kill switch' bill approved

ASHER MOSES

June 25, 2010



The architect of the bill ... US Senator Joe Lieberman. Photo: AP

The US senators pushing a controversial new bill that some fear would give President Barack Obama the powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet have rejected claims it would give Obama a net "kill switch".

The bill, titled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, has been unanimously approved by the US Homeland Security committee and will be put to a vote on the Senate floor shortly.

Lobby groups and academics quickly rounded on the bill, which seeks to grant the President broad emergency powers over the internet in times of national emergency.

Any internet firms and providers must "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by a new section of the US Department of Homeland Security, dubbed the "National Centre for Cybersecurity and Communications".

The critics said that, rather than combat terrorists, it would actually do them "the biggest favour ever" by terrorising the rest of the world, which is now heavily reliant on cyberspace.

Australian academics criticised the description in the bill's title of the internet as a US "national asset", saying any action would disrupt other countries as most of the critical internet infrastructure is located in the US.

This week, 24 privacy and civil liberties groups sent a letter raising concerns about the legislation to the sponsors, including that it could limit free speech and free inquiry, Computerworld reported.

"We are concerned that the emergency actions that could be compelled could include shutting down or limiting internet communications," the letter reads.

But the architects of the plan, committee chairman Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins, have this week released a "Myth v. Reality" document that hits back at these criticisms.

They say the threat of a catastrophic cyber attack is real and not a matter of "if" but "when". Cyber crime was also costing the US economy billions of dollars annually and the bill would "modernise the government's ability to safeguard the nation's cyber networks from attack and will establish a public/private partnership to set national cyber security priorities".

The senators rejected the "kill switch" claim, arguing that the President already had authority under the Communications Act to "cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication" when there is a "state or threat of war".

They said under the new bill the President would be far less likely to use the broad authority he already has under current law to take over communications. It would provide "a precise, targeted and focused way for the President to defend our most sensitive infrastructure".

Any action would be limited to 30-day increments and the President must use the "least disruptive means feasible" to respond to the threats. Action extended beyond 120 days would need Congressional approval.

The bill would not give the President the authority to take over the entire internet, target specific websites or conduct electronic surveillance.

"Only specific systems or assets whose disruption would cause a national or regional catastrophe would be subject to the bill's mandatory security requirements," the senators wrote.

Source: smh.com.au

 

 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

The last thing any Government wants you to know is the truth. We all know there are rabid lunatics, criminals and sickos peddling their wares on the internet. But they do this across society. So, what do you do in society to stop this? Shut society down? Or make Laws and enforce them?
 
Published on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 by Save the Internet http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/06/22/fate-internet-decided-back-room

The Fate of the Internet. Decided in a Back Room
by Tim Karr

 

The Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704895204575321283834920928.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_tech just reported that the Federal Communications Commission is holding "closed-door meetings" with industry to broker a deal on Net Neutrality ? the rule that keeps control over the Internet with the people who use it.

Given that the corporations at the table all profit from gaining control over information, the outcome won't be pretty.

The meetings include a small group of industry lobbyists representing the likes of AT&T, Verizon, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and Google. They reportedly met for two-and-a-half hours on Monday morning and will convene another meeting today. The goal according to insiders is to "reach consensus" on rules of the road for the Internet.

This is what a failed democracy looks like: After years of avid public support for Net Neutrality ? involving millions of people https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=356 from across the political spectrum ? the federal regulator quietly huddles with industry lobbyists to eliminate basic protections and serve Wall Street?s bottom line.

We?ve seen government cater to big business in the same ways, prior to the BP oil disaster and the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. The Industry's regulatory capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture of the Internet is now almost complete. The leadership of the one agency tasked with oversight of communications policy now thinks they can wriggle free of their obligation to protect the open Internet if only industry agrees on a solution.

Congress is holding its own series of meetings and, while they?ve been ambiguous on the details, many remain skeptical on whether the process will lead to an outcome that serves the public interest. After all, this is the same Congress that is bankrolled by the phone and cable lobby in excess of $100 million http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Why is this so startling even for the more cynical among us? The Obama administration promised to embrace a new era of government transparency http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/transparencyandopengovernment/ It?s the tool we were supposed to use to pry open policy-making and expose it to the light of public scrutiny.

In that spirit, President Obama pledged to "take a backseat to no one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd8qY6myrrE&feature=player_embedded in his support for Net Neutrality. He appointed Julius Genachowski http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/obamas-fcc-pick-another-g_b_171710.html to head the FCC -- the man who crafted his pro-Net Neutrality platform in 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mW1qccn8k&feature=related

But the mere existence of these private meetings reveals to us a chairman who has fallen far short of expectations. Instead Genachowski is shying from the need to fortify the Internet?s open architecture in favor of deals made between DC power brokers.

These deals will determine who ultimately controls Internet content and innovation. Will phone and cable companies succeed in their decade-long push to take ownership of both the infrastructure of the Internet and the information that flows across its pipes? Will they cut in a few giant companies like Google and the recording industry http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/06/att-willing-to-spy-for-nsa-mpaa-and-riaa.ars to get their way?

Whatever the outcome, the public ? including the tens of millions of Americans who use the Internet every day and in every way ? are not being given a seat at the table.

Genachowski?s closed-door sessions come after six months of public comments on whether the agency should proceed with a rule to protect Net Neutrality.

During that period, more than 85 percent http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?z=h6be1&name=09-191 of comments received by the agency called for a strong Net Neutrality rule. Look at it this way: If a candidate received more than 85 percent of the vote, wouldn?t she have a mandate to decide on the public?s behalf?

In Chairman Genachowski?s alternative view of reality, though, the public is immaterial, and industry consensus supreme.

Timothy Karr oversees all Free Press campaigns and online outreach efforts, including SavetheInternet.com and its work on public broadcasting, propaganda, and journalism.

 

 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

And don't forget Canberra is firmly on the side of censorship. Not just Labor, but the Libs too.

Lieberman: China Can Shut Down The Internet, Why Can?t We?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/lieberman-china-can-shut-down-the-internet-why-cant-we.html

Senator Joe Lieberman, co-author of a bill that would give President Obama a ?kill switch? to shut down parts of the Internet, attempted to reassure CNN viewers yesterday that concerns about the government regulating free speech on the web were overblown, but he only stoked more alarm by citing China, a country that censors all online dissent against the state, as the model to which American should compare itself.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/

Unflipping believable, but perfectly predictable, understanding Lieberman's agenda.

Spose you see what's going on here? Sen Conroy, fresh from a Cabinet meeting, regularly phones his counterparts across the globe, all of whom are intent on stopping those terrorist and paedophile BLOGGERS from getting the truth and accurate information out to their populations.
And Sen Conroy's policies are all supported by Tony Abbott and the Opposition.
 
Internet Freedom under pressure in Denmark
http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2010/05/31/internet-freedom-under-pressure-in-denmark/

On 27 May the Danish Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision which obliges internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to websites that may contain - or link to other sites which contain - material which infringes copyrights (the Pirate Bay in this instance).

The decision has rightly been criticized as a setback for internet freedom in Denmark. The decision attaches undue weight to the interests of copyright holders while ignoring obvious dangers of abuse, restrictions on internet freedom and access to information and the lack of any due process.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

 

[Keith]

 
And the same goes for Australia. Putting aside the hubris about the fake war on terror which bombards the media and pollie speak, if the US and Australia want to keep their citizens safe, then get those who are paid to secure the nation at home to do their job and stop telling us we must invade other countries to make us safe. The opposite is true. As now retired and Howard controlled AFP Chief Mick Kelty said before he was gagged by Howard. Invading Iraq would make Australians less secure, not more secure. Blind Freddie understands this to be a fundamental truth.
 
Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/18/napolitano-internet-monitoring-needed-fight-homegrown-terrorism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Text+-+Politics%29

Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.

As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens, the government needs to constantly balance Americans' civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
Memo to Homeland Security Chief Napolitano: what you are proposing has nothing to do with the security of this country, and you know it.

The best possible approach to the security of the US is to not be mucking about in other people's countries in order to obtain, by force, resources and/or access to those resources, the US government somehow claims as their own. Of course, not doing that would be...logical.

What this "monitoring" is ultimately going to devolve into is the absolute suppression of any logical, reasonable difference of opinion with that of the government on its domestic or foreign policies.

 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

 
From: Chris Brooks
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 1:34 PM
Subject: Internet security


KT  For your info   , something new and interesting.

https://www.google.com/

Cheers

Chris Brooks

[Keith]

This internet censorship proposal is not about protecting children. It is about Government control of our daily lives. Parents are responsible for their kids behaviour in the home, and might I suggest outside the home. Somebody else's kids behaviour is not my responsibility or your responsibility.

Nobody wants to see any criminals protected in any area of society including online and the security agencies and various Police forces in Australia have plenty of power and Legislation at their fingertips to do their jobs and stop the crooks and crims. Police even have the authority to remove you from your home or off the street , secret you away, deny you access to legal representation, deny your family access to you and hold you without charge over long periods and not tell anybody what they have done. So far most Australians seem to have gone along with this. And the authorities can do this within the bounds of the existing Law. The Policing and security authorities also have powers to eavesdrop on your phone, emails other communications devices and they have the authority to bug your home and premises and place you under round the clock observation. What more does the Government want. Surely this is enough to monitor suspects and gather evidence and then lay charges if proof becomes available.

There is nothing wrong with such methods, apart from the holding incognito powers without charge, providing there are strong and sustainable reasons for these powers to be invoked. We all want the real crooks stopped in their tracks and brought to justice and we all want a secure country. No problem there.

So why does the Government want more power over the internet? The only reasonable conclusion is they want more control over your life. Leave average citizens alone and get on with catching the crooks.

And the Federal Opposition does not get off scot free. It has failed to declare where it stands policy wise on these matters.

It seems the only clear stand against these proposals comes from The Greens.

 

Toxic net filters 'shelved until after election'
ASHER MOSES
June 18, 2010 - 12:36PM

Conroy net filter 'Portector' parody

Kogan Technologies mocks the Government's 'shocking' Cyber Safety policy by offering a cheaper and more effective alternative.

The internet censorship policy has joined the government's list of "politically toxic subjects" and will almost certainly be shelved until after the federal election, Greens communications spokesman Scott Ludlam says.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - already facing a voter backlash over several perceived policy failures - is expected to call the election before the end of the year and the feeling of many in Canberra is that next week will be the last sitting week of Parliament.

Parliament is not due to sit again until August 24, leaving little time to introduce the legislation and have it debated and passed in time for the election.



Pushing for filters to be opt-in ... Labor Senator Kate Lundy. Photo: Elliot Woods

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has said he expects legislation to enable his internet filtering policy, which will block a secret blacklist of "refused classification" (RC) websites for all Australians, to be tabled in the second half of the year.

He has said delays have been due to issues working out transparency and accountability measures.

Senator Ludlam said in a phone interview that these issues were only part of the reason for the delay, saying the policy was now "on the list of politically toxic subjects that you don't in your right mind run during an election campaign".

Senator Conroy's spokeswoman has repeatedly refused to deny claims that the legislation would be shelved until after the election, saying only that she did not yet know when the election would be.

The scheme has attracted immense opposition from Senator Conroy's political opponents, the internet industry including several ISPs, Yahoo and Google, academics, lobby groups, some childrens' welfare groups including Save The Children, the US government, Reporters Without Borders and even Labor MPs.

The opposition has failed to state a definitive position on the matter since Tony Abbott took over as Opposition Leader, and his communications spokesman, Tony Smith, has refused to comment despite several requests from this website.

However, it is likely the legislation would not be passed even if it was introduced in the near future, as the Greens are committed to opposing it and several Opposition heavyweights, including Joe Hockey, have criticised the net filtering policy in speeches.

"The industry are telling them that what they are intending to do is formidably difficult - the government won't be able to draft a bill saying 'OK ISPs, you go and make this happen', because the ISPs are pushing back telling the government 'No, you tell us how you think you can make it work,'" Senator Ludlam said.

"I don't believe he will be able to get the chamber time from his colleagues [before the election] unless he's fairly sure that he's going to be able to pass it; the government at the moment don't have time to burn a couple of days of chamber time only to have it voted down.

Senator Ludlam is on the newly formed cyber-safety committee but, in the round-table meetings, "nobody brought it [the filters] up because they're dealing with issues that are front and centre as far as child safety is concerned and the filter won't help them".

One of the main issues raised by critics of the filter is that it would impose mandatory internet censorship on all Australians and would inevitably catch content many regard as innocuous. Leaked versions of the blacklist have seen a Queensland dentist, pet-care facility and school cafeteria consultancy caught up among the child porn and sexual abuse sites.

Senator Conroy argues he is just porting censorship models http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/internets-not-special-says-communications-minister-20100401-rg7h.html?autostart=1 applied to other mediums over to the internet but the key difference with offline mediums is that citizens know what is being blocked and why. Prominent critics feel the current policy will be the thin end of the wedge, with little stopping successive governments from expanding the scope of the filters.

Labor Senator Kate Lundy has been pushing Senator Conroy to scrap the mandatory aspect of the scheme and make it opt-in. She wrote in a blog http://www.katelundy.com.au/2010/06/08/my-thoughts-on-an-opt-in-filter/ post this month that she was working to change the policy "to better achieve the policy goals of protecting children through empowering and educating parents".

She is pushing for two key amendments:

1. Protect in legislation the availability of an unfiltered, open internet service.

2. Require all internet subscribers to make an active choice as to whether they want an unfiltered, RC filtered or additionally filtered internet service (with the latter being personally customisable at any time).

Senator Lundy said although she originally discussed making the filters opt-out, "it has become clear that the community has a preference for [an] opt-in approach, rather than an opt-out compromise".

Today, Senator Lundy said: "I have received a lot of support and constructive feedback both publicly and privately about the amendments I am proposing to this policy, and I look forward to presenting the federal Labor caucus with a constructive alternative approach that upholds the principles of open government, net neutrality, and empowers parents to take responsibility for the cybersafety of children in their care."

The filtering policy has attracted international criticism and ridicule, most recently in Time magazine http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995615,00.html which covered the policy in detail and wrote: "Australia may soon become the first Western democracy to join the ranks of Iran, China and a handful of other nations where access to the internet is restricted by the state."

It has also been the subject of several spoof videos, including one dubbed "censordyne", created by the online activist group GetUp!. Much to the group's dismay, it was banned from being shown http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/qantas-censors-anticensorship-ad-20090714-djgo.html as an ad on domestic Qantas flights into Canberra, although it got a good run online.

Today, online electronics seller Kogan Technologies released its own parody clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-enBtKjgcU featuring a supposed new product developed by two alleged engineers, Con and Roy, which will provide an alternative to the government's proposed filter.

Made from "the finest 8000-thread count Egyptian cotton", the "Portector" goes "on sale" for $2999 today.

Source: smh.com.au

 

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

The Government is taking orders from Washington again I see. The adage that if you are not doing what you shouldnt be doing then you have nothing to fear is a cop out. The truth is Governments want to snoop on citizens going about their lawful business. This is wrong. But soon it may be lawful. The Criminal Law already contains enough provisions to net the crooks and unsavory in society. Any news powers are just for the Government to control your life. You who have probably never even had a parking fine. Governments have to get out of our bedrooms and computer rooms and mind their own business. If the security agencies and Police are doing their jobs they will keep the country as safe as possible and as lawful as possible. And they now have all the powers they need to do this job.

 

Web snooping policy shrouded in secrecy
ASHER MOSES
June 17, 2010 - 12:56PM



Wants details of your net communications ... Attorney-General Robert McClelland. Photo: Glen McCurtayne

The federal government is hiding controversial plans to force ISPs to store internet activity of all Australian internet users - regardless of whether they have been suspected of wrongdoing - for law-enforcement agencies to access.

Political opponents and other critics of the scheme have described the draft policy as "alarming" and accused the government of going "on a fishing expedition for as much data on the public as they can get". One ISP executive has described the plan as "a nanny state gone totally insane".

The Attorney-General's Department has been holding consultations with industry about implementing a "data retention regime", similar to that adopted by the European Union after terrorist attacks several years ago.

Reports last week suggested data that ISPs would be required to store included contents of communications such as web browsing history.

Yesterday, a spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland denied web browsing histories would be stored, saying the government was only seeking to identify "parties to a communication", such as senders and receivers of emails and VoIP calls.

However, it is difficult for the public to get a clear picture of the policy because the government has sworn all parties to secrecy.

Peter Coroneos, chief executive of the Internet Industry Association, criticised the government for not being transparent and open with the public about its intentions. Coroneos said he was forbidden by confidentiality agreements from discussing any details of draft proposals he has been provided.

"The decision at this stage to keep the process under wraps is the decision of the government. It's not the decision of the industry," he said in a phone interview.

"We still argue that there be an open and transparent process here."

Greens communications spokesman Scott Ludlam also criticised the lack of transparency, saying in a phone interview he had a researcher investigating the scheme to "try and work out how it fits in to the government's supposed grave concerns and fears about online privacy".

"To me there seems to be some profound contradictions going on there," Senator Ludlam said, adding that the policy "on first glance looks quite alarming".

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has recently fired barbs at Facebook and Google over privacy failures and their alleged disregard for the sanctity of users' personal information.

Colin Jacobs, spokesman for the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said the government appeared to be trying to access whatever passes through any ISP in this country, while displaying "no regard whatsoever for our privacy or our civil liberties".

"What has emerged in recent days has been a clear picture of a government on a fishing expedition for as much data on the public as they can get," Jacobs said.

"It's not just a fishing expedition, it's casting a driftnet for the communications of all Australians regardless of whether they have ever been suspected of the slightest wrongdoing.

"Combined with the censorship policy, a pretty unhappy picture is emerging of this government's attitude towards our digital lives."

Some commentators have said the copyright lobby would inevitably try to use the scheme to hunt down and prosecute illegal file sharers, but Sabiene Heindl, head of the music industry's anti-piracy arm, Music Industry Piracy Investigations, said: "We have no present intention to do that."

McClelland's spokesman defended the lack of transparency, saying the government had consulted broadly with industry about the plan but "it would not be appropriate to disclose policy discussions which are the subject of consultations with the industry".

"These consultations have involved identifying the parties to a communication, where and when that communication is made and the communication's duration," the spokesman said.

"It does not include the content of a communication such as people's conversations or contents of an internet banking session, for example."

It is understood that earlier reports that web browsing history would be included were based on earlier drafts of the policy which stipulated content such as this would be logged and stored. The government appears to have since stepped down on this aspect of the scheme, although nothing is set in stone.

ZDNet.com.au, which originally reported that web browsing history would be logged, has stood by its original report, quoting sources yesterday as saying claims that URL history would not be retained were "not accurate".

"The government has not as yet made any decision in relation to a data retention regime. However, any arrangement will strike the appropriate balance between individual privacy, commercial imperatives and community expectations that unlawful behaviour is investigated and prosecuted," McClelland's spokesman said.

Coroneos, who is able to comment more generally on similar data retention regimes adopted by EU states, said the industry in Australia already had a track record of assisting law-enforcement agencies and questions the need for a "blanket" regime covering the communications of all internet users.

"[Users] have legitimate privacy expectations and assume that their online communications and browsing activities are private unless they've been clearly informed otherwise," he said.

"Secondly, there's a question of whether the harm being being addressed is outweighed by the economic or social burden of the measures proposed. Are we cracking a nut with a sledgehammer here?"

Coroneos also raised concerns about security of the information that will be stored by ISPs and the expected high costs of implementing any scheme, which would inevitably be passed on to end users.

Source: smh.com.au

 

  
Ah how Governments want to keep you ignorant and in the dark. Looks like we are now siding with that perfect example of corruption and cronyism, Indonesia.

Internet a risk to nation, says Indonesian minister

June 17, 2010



A television grab of Indonesian singer Nazril Ariel and his model girlfriend Luna Maya during an interview. Photo: AFP/Tv One

Indonesia's communications minister said a celebrity sex video scandal showed the internet was a threat to the nation and vowed to issue a decree to curb its use.

"We want to minimise the negative impact from the internet as it will destroy this nation," Communication and Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring, from the Muslim-based Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), told reporters.

The mainly Muslim country has been titillated and scandalised in equal measure by the appearance on the Internet of two explicit clips showing a popular local rock singer having sex with two models and television presenters.

The stars have claimed they are being defamed but have not denied it is them in the videos, amid a police probe that could see them jailed for lengthy sentences under a controversial anti-porn law passed in 2008.

Sembiring has condemned the celebrities and used the scandal to revive his ambitions to restrict access to morally suspect sites on the Internet, after an earlier plan was shelved due to widespread opposition.

He said the decree would be dusted off and issued soon after receiving the backing of lawmakers in the parliament's Commission I, which is in charge of communications and information affairs.

The decree would make it illegal to distribute or provide access to pornography or gambling services on the Internet, as well as anything that spreads religious hatred or threats, and any news deemed "misleading".

Web content which "humiliates the physical condition or abilities... of other parties" also could be blocked, along with anything which violated privacy by, for example, disclosing someone's educational background.

Sembiring said he would also implement a request from the commission to require all Internet cafes and schools to install software to filter websites with content listed as negative.

"This is very good... we will implement it soon," he said.

Critics say the measures have not been thought through and represent a throwback to the era of information control under the dictatorship of military strongman general Suharto, who was ousted in 1998.

2010 AFP

 And the scaredy cats and those who want to hide something in our Parliament want to shut the net down? Onya Iceland.
 
WikiLeaks Inspired "New Media Haven" Proposal Passes In Icelandic Parliament
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25743.htm

Safe Haven For Investigative Journalists Everywhere

Reykjavik, Iceland; 4:00 UTC, June 16th 2010.

The WikiLeaks advised proposal to build an international "new media haven" in Iceland, with the world's strongest press and whistleblower protection laws, and a "Nobel" prize for
for Freedom of Expression, has unanimously passed the Icelandic Parliament.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/

This has nothing to do with actual cybersecurity, and everything to do with making dead certain that the only information characterized as "news" by the corporate media is the only thing Us citizens will be able to read or hear about what is going on in the world.

This government is absolutely terrified of an independent blogosphere, which is getting the truth out there on many critical events taking place around the world and in this country, and wants total cyber control to prevent this from continuing to happening.

 

New Bill Gives Obama Kill Switch To Shut Down The Internet

      

Government would have absolute power to seize control of the world wide web under Lieberman legislation



Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The federal government would have ?absolute power? to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative kill switch to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed? by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined, reports ZDNets Declan McCullagh.

The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.

Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created the potential for absolute power, while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bills emergency powers ?include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.

The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, Would it had been better if wed have never invented the Internet while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.

The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.

If theres an ?incident related to a cyber vulnerability after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private companys tab, writes McCullagh.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)



Tom Gann, McAfees vice president for government relations, described the bill as a very important piece of legislation.

As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.

We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.

The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a Drudge Tax that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.

Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted ?internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual IDs and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.

The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.

 You know all those "Nigerian Scam" emails you got? Guess where they came from!
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/court-israelis-suspected-in-nigerian-scam-can-be-extradited-to-u-s-1.296597

[Keith]

Isn't it ironic how the Europeans have announced just such a policy. This is the global village and internationalism at it's worst. Governments around the world co-ordinating and duplicating policy to control us. Australia will decide what is in it's best interests and we will decide this without foreign intervention.
 
There is ample Law available to Australian Federal authorities to phone tap, intercept emails and bug premises. And a whole host of other activities. There is no need for further Law, though it is true that as the landscape changes some Law needs some minor tweaking.
 
This proposal by the Federal Government , if true as reported, is a clear breech of privacy and citizens international rights to live without fear and live with personal security. Australia is a signatory to the International Charter on Human Rights.
 
The fake War on Terror is the golden opportunity for the Worlds Governments to up the ante and make Laws to control their citizens daily lives more than they already do, and they have done it under the mantra of protecting us from those terrible terrorists. What a load of hogwash. There have always been terrorists [ witness the Hilton bombing ] and there have always been radical groups who want to disrupt society. Read your history.
 
This proposal is about controlling your life. It is not about saving you from those pesky terrorists. And don't forget. We fought Wars to protect the innocent until proven guilty principle. We did not fight our Wars to behave like the Nazi control freaks or the Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union.
 
 
From: Terry DAVIES
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 8:44 AM
Subject: THE federal government wants your personal internet data
 
ARTICLE: SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/national/government-plans-to-monitor-without-court-authorisation-20100611-y3lq.html

Government plans to monitor without court authorisation

DYLAN WELCH NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT

June 12, 2010

         

THE federal government wants your personal internet data, and it does not want to have to apply to a court to get it.

A revelation that the federal government wants Australia's 400-odd internet service providers to log and retain customers' private web browsing data so law enforcement officers can access it during criminal cases has alarmed the industry.

Currently law enforcement officers need court-approved search warrants before they can record someone's personal data via their ISP.

The proposed regulation would mean companies would be forced to store certain information for several years in case it was needed later.

''Once you store that information, you increase the risk of abuse of that information,'' a source who works for an ISP said. ''We can put our hands on our hearts and say we're good guys and we don't do anything wrong, but can we say that of every other player in the market? Compliance would be a big question.''

The proposed regulation was broached with the industry late last year during consultations with the Attorney-General's Department and is believed still to be in in its early stages.

The spokesman for the internet rights group Electronic Frontiers Australia, Geordie Guy, said it was ironic that the government was trying to encourage ISPs to retain data at the same time as it was chastising Google for doing a similar thing.

''The Attorney-General's Department has instructed the [federal police] to look at Google and their conduct in terms of sniffing wireless data ? How they can expect to have any credibility when they are looking at instructing ISPs to do exactly the same thing, I'm not sure,'' Mr Guy said.

The government's plans were revealed yesterday in an article by the online technology magazine ZDNet.

Australia is not the first country to consider compulsory data retention for its ISPs. In 2006 the European Union adopted a policy requiring some states to retain data for between six and 24 months.

Yesterday a spokesman for the Attorney-General's Department confirmed it was looking at the the new regulation. ''The Attorney-General's Department has been looking at the European directive on data retention to consider whether such a regime is appropriate within Australia's law enforcement and security context,'' the spokesman said.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Facebook has been getting away with privacy and reputation murder for years. Now it is getting away with literal murder. This is the type of company and online activity Sen Conroy should focus on and he should leave innocent old grandmas who read something naughty or counter the current wisdom alone. I know the proposed censorship legislation has been shelved. But what will the Government do after the election?  Anyway it does not make sense to spend 40 odd billion on a broadband network and then censor the internet.
 
Murder prompts Facebook revolt
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/technology/nona-belomesoff-murder-prompts-australian-facebook-revolt/story-e6frep1o-1225867931363

11:00PM Alex Dickinson AUSTRALIANS have joined a worldwide Facebook revolt after the vicious murder of a NSW teenager and new privacy features that allow retailers to spy on profiles.

Web warning: Teens told: Remove Facebook pics
Top tips: Spy-proof your Facebook
 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Study Claims Unlawful Broadband File Sharing is Good for Sales
 

By: MarkJ - 6 May, 2010 (4:42 AM) - Score: 1580 - Categories: Fixed Line Broadband, Statistics, Illegal Downloads

A new study by the University of Amsterdam, which sought to identify the short and long-term economic and cultural effects of unlawful file sharing by broadband ISP customers, claims that such activity appears to be considerably less harmful than Rights Holders maintain and could even be beneficial to music, film and video game sales.

Download the study (.PDF):
http://www.ivir.nl/publications/vaneijk/Communications&Strategies_2010.pdf
 

About 44% of the Dutch Internet population over the age of 15 that had Internet access (4.7 million people), admit to file sharing on one or more occasions in the previous 12 months. Music is the most downloaded entertainment product: 40% of those who have Internet access do so.

The figures are apparently in tune with results from France and the USA. Films (13%) and Games (9%) follow music at some distance. File sharers are predominantly young (15-24 years), male, particularly when it comes to films and games. A notable finding is that a large number of file sharers are unable to say what method or technology they use for downloading (e.g. P2P, Newsgroups, FTP etc.).

Most file sharers said they only engaged in downloading and did not upload, though the study believes this to be improbable as most P2P programs upload automatically. It seems likely that many file sharers are unaware that they are uploading. Just 1 in 20 sharers admit to adding new uploads themselves.

Buying and file sharing also turned out to go hand in hand. Music sharers ended up being just as likely to buy music as other people: 68% of file sharers also purchase music. File sharers buy as much music as non-file sharers. However, file sharers spend more money on merchandise and go to concerts significantly more frequently.

As for films, file sharers turn out to buy significantly more DVDs than nonfile sharers. On average, file sharers and non-file sharers go to the cinema equally often. Game sharers also buy games, and significantly more frequently too.

Interestingly 63% of music file sharers went out to buy the music they first got for free online. Their main reasons for buying are loving the music ? a key motive for over 80% ? or wishing to support the artist (over 50%). Owning the CD sleeve and booklet are mentioned by a third of eventual buyers, as well as the higher quality of the CD. 48% of film sharers will buy a previously downloaded film at a later date, citing such reasons as liking it a lot or wanting the extra features the DVD offers.

Survey Quote:

"All in all, these figures show that there is no sharp divide between file sharers and others in their buying behaviour. On the contrary, when it comes to attending concerts, and expenses on DVDs and games, file sharers are the industry's largest customers. Note that no causal relationship is implied here. Aficionados of music, games or films will typically buy more, get into related products more but also download more."


The study concludes by saying that, conversely, only a small fraction of the content exchanged through file sharing networks comes at the expense of industry turnover. It claims that this renders the overall welfare effects of file sharing robustly positive.

Interestingly the survey is somewhat scathing of the creative industry, blaming it for causing today's problems by being "unable to stem the tide of unlicensed music file sharing with their conservative strategy of abstaining from innovation, promoting legal measures against supposed offences and digital rights management."

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Rudd retreats on web filter legislation

Nicola Berkovic
From: The Australian
April 29, 2010


KEVIN Rudd has put another election promise on the backburner with his controversial internet filtering legislation set to be shelved until after the next election.

A spokeswoman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said yesterday the legislation would not be introduced next month's or the June sittings of parliament.

With parliament not sitting again until the last week of August, the laws are unlikely to be passed before the election.

Labor promised before the last election it would force internet service providers to block access to illegal content such as child pornography and X-rated images.

But the US government, Google and free speech advocates have said any efforts to censor the internet would slow download speeds, stop the free flow of information and be ineffective.

Senator Conroy's spokeswoman said the government was not deterred by this criticism.

The government was still consulting with internet service providers and considering public submissions; once that process was complete, it would introduce the legislation into parliament, the spokeswoman said.

Australian Christian Lobby managing director Jim Wallace was disappointed.

"The minister has done an excellent job on this . . . and I would like to see it legislated because it was an election promise," he said.

Opposition communications spokesman Tony Smith said Senator Conroy should come clean on when he would release the legislation.

NICOLA BERKOVIC

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Cyberattacks: Washington is hyping the threat to justify regulating the Internet

Networks have been under attack -- and successfully handled by operators -- as long as theyve been around. Be wary of calls for more government supervision of the Internet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Jerry Brito and Tate Watkins
posted April 29, 2010 at 1:31 pm EDT

Arlington, Va.

We marched into Baghdad on flimsy evidence and we might be about to make the same mistake in cyberspace.

Over the past few weeks, there has been a steady drumbeat of alarmist rhetoric about potential threats online. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this month, chairman Carl Levin said that cyberweapons and cyberattacks potentially can be devastating, approaching weapons of mass destruction in their effects.

The increased consternation began with the suspected Chinese breach of Googles servers earlier this year. Since then, press accounts, congressional pronouncements, and security industry talk have increasingly sown panic about an amorphous cyberthreat.

Bush administration cybersecurity chief Michael McConnell recently warned that the United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are losing.

According to McConnell, now a vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton, ?our power grids, air and ground transportation, telecommunications, and water-filtration systems are in jeopardy. More recently, Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D) and Olympia Snowe (R) wrote about ?sophisticated cyber adversaries with the potential ?to disrupt or disable vital information networks, which could cause catastrophic economic loss and social havoc.?

Yet none of the prognosticators of disaster presents any evidence to sustain their claims. They mention the Google breach, but that was an act of espionage that, while serious, did not lead to catastrophe.

There have been and continue to be many cyberattacks on government and private networks, from the Korea attacks to the denial-of-service attacks during the Georgia-Russia war. To be sure, these attacks are a serious concern and we should continue to study them.

But so far, these types of events tend to be more of a nuisance than a catastrophe. The biggest result is that websites are down for a few hours or days.

This shows that security should be a serious concern for any network operator. It does not show, however, that these attacks can lead  much less have ever led  to the types of doomsday scenarios that politicians imagine. There is no evidence that these attacks have ever cost any lives or that any type of critical infrastructure has ever been compromised: No blackouts, no dams bursting, no panic in the streets.

The cyberalarmist rhetoric conflates the various threats we might face into one big ball of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This week for example, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency announced that a cyberattack could be the next Pearl Harbor.

Cyberwar, cyberespionage, cyberterrorism, cybercrime ? these are all disparate threats. Some are more real than others, and they each have different causes, motivations, manifestations, and implications. As a result, there will probably be different appropriate responses for each.

Unfortunately, the popular discussion largely clumps them into the vague and essentially meaningless ?cyberthreat? category.

Lets take a deep breath.

Before we can effectively address any of these amorphous cyberthreats, we must first identify what, specifically, these threats are and to what extent the federal government plays a role in defending against them.

The war metaphor may be useful rhetoric, but it is a poor analogy to the dispersed and different threats that both public and private information technology systems face.

The fact is, as long as we have had networks, they have been under attack. But over the past 20 years network operators have developed effective detection, prevention, and mitigation strategies.

This is why we should be wary of calls for more government supervision of the Internet. Last week, as part of its National Broadband Plan, the Federal Communications Commission began an inquiry into whether to establish a voluntary cybersecurity certification program. Through the program the FCC would certify communication service providers based on a set of cybersecurity standards developed directly by the FCC, or indirectly through a third party.

More ominously, Senators Rockefeller and Snowe have introduced the Cybersecurity Act of 2010 that aims to change how the Internet works in the name of security. It would also create a national system of licensing for security professionals, and would dole out millions of dollars in cyberpork to ?regional cybersecurity centers? and other programs.

At the heart of calls for federal involvement in cybersecurity is the proposition that we reengineer the Internet to facilitate better tracking of users in order to pinpoint the origin of attacks. The Rockefeller-Snowe bill looks to develop such a ?secure domain name addressing system.

Thats a slippery slope.

And there?s the fact that we have seen a wasteful military-industrial complex develop before, and in this rush to protect we might be seeing a new one blossoming now. The greater the threat is perceived to be  and the less clearly it is defined  the better it is for defense contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton, which last week landed $34 million in Defense Department cybersecurity contracts.

That money could certainly be put to better use right now.

Anyone concerned about net neutrality or civil liberties  in particular online privacy and anonymity  should take notice. Before the country is swept by fear and we react too quickly to the ?gathering threat? of cyberattacks, we should pause to calmly consider the risks involved and the alternatives available to us.

Rather than pass a sweeping ?cyberdefense? bill right away, Congress should take the time to untangle the different threats that confront us and make sure they are addressing each appropriately. If not, we will be saddled with an overreaching one-size-fits-all result.

Giving the military and federal agencies the tools to protect their online assets might be an appropriate first response. But reengineering the Internet and imposing standards and licensing on the most innovative sector of our economy should give us pause. There is no reason to rush to action.

Jerry Brito and Tate Watkins are technology policy researchers at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

 
Draft of Secretive International Copyright Treaty Leaked -- Confirms Fears About Internet Freedom
 

On the table: losing internet access due to infringement allegations, and widespread data sharing across national borders.

April 19, 2010  |

Negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) resumed last week in Wellington, New Zealand, with Canada, the United States, the European Union, and a handful of other countries launching the eighth round of talks. While even the most optimistic ACTA supporters do not expect to conclude an agreement before the end of the year, the next five days may prove to be a pivotal point in the negotiations since over the past several weeks, there have been two major leaks that could dramatically alter the still-secret discussions.

The first leak was an internal Dutch government document chronicling the positions of each ACTA participant on treaty transparency. The level of ACTA secrecy is highly unusual for an agreement focused on intellectual property issues, leading to a steady stream of parliamentary resolutions and political demands for transparency coming from around the globe.

US insists on keeping treaty secret

The standard response to transparency criticisms from many governments (including Canada) was to claim that they favored releasing the ACTA text to the public, but that other unnamed countries did not. Since there was no consensus, the text could not be released.

The Dutch leak succeeded in blowing the issue wide open by identifying precisely which countries posed barriers to transparency. The document identified the U.S., Singapore, South Korea, and a trio of European countries as the remaining holdouts. Once publicly identified, the European countries quickly reversed their positions. The E.U. now unanimously supports the releasing of the text alongside Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Switzerland. With the outing of the transparency issue, it will fall to the U.S., which is widely viewed as the critical stumbling block, to justify its insistence on keeping the treaty secret.

Maintaining support for secrecy also faces a second pressure point -- the second major leak was a copy of the draft agreement itself. In other words, while countries maintain official positions of treaty secrecy, a draft is readily available for anyone with Internet access. Because the text has not been officially released, however, government officials have refused to comment on substantive provisions revealed by the leaked document.

Identifying the opposition to transparency may have been welcome news, but the availability of the leaked text was more bittersweet. On the one hand, ACTA watchers were grateful for the opportunity to see first-hand what has been discussed behind closed doors for the past three years.

Three strikes and you're out

On the other, the text confirmed many fears about the substance of ACTA. If adopted in its current form, the treaty would have a significant impact on the Internet, leading some countries to adopt three-strikes-and-you're-out policies that terminate subscriber access due to infringement allegations, increasing legal protection for digital locks, mandating new injunction powers, implementing statutory damages provisions worldwide, and engaging in widespread data sharing across national borders.

Moreover, ACTA may live as an institution that potentially replaces some of the responsibilities currently performed by the United Nations' World Intellectual Property Organization. Canada drafted the institutional chapter, which envisions an oversight council, secretariat, dispute resolution, and technical assistance to developing countries.

While some countries insist ACTA will not change their domestic laws, the leaked text suggests that this is very unlikely since there remains considerable disagreement on some provisions. In fact, the New Zealand round of talks may mark the first time countries seriously begin to bargain on key provisions, setting up a week that may go a long way to determine the future scope of the treaty.

Michael Geist, whose column on digital policy and law runs every Tuesday on The Tyee, holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.

[Keith]

This Government is terrified of the internet. It is set on a course to deny the free passage of information, views and opinion which may interfere with it's activities and policies.It does not want the searchlight of information panned over it's activities, particularly the Afghanistan commitment.
 
There is no need for this agreement mentioned below, particularly with European countries. Australia should think and act for itself and not bow to pressure or example from other states.
 
The fact is that the security agencies, police services and other intelligence organisations in Australia already have the power under The Crimes Act to search premises on warrant, intercept communications on warrant and haul in suspects or monitor them for further evidence. In fact they now have the power to lock you up almost indefinitely and interrogate you without charge, and in a place unknown, without legal representation and without informing your families and legal friends.
 
Leave our freedoms alone and start concentrating on the real crooks and criminals in society.
 
 
From: Terry DAVIES
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:48 PM
Subject: Fed Govt seeks private data from ISP's
 
 

SOURCE: CHANNEL NEWS AUSTRALIA

http://www.channelnews.com.au/Content_And_Management/Industry/K6L8N4M2

 

Federal Government To Lean On ISPs For Private Customer Data

By Computer Daily News | Sunday | 02/05/2010

Australian Internet service providers could be forced to surrender previously private information about their subscribers under a deal negotiated by the Rudd Government.

 

Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith at the weekend said Australia has decided to "accede" to an agreement known as the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime.

Among other things, this calls for enactment of procedures that compel authorities to force service providers to surrender information about their subscribers, and to intercept and record traffic.

Parties to the convention also agree to facilitate extradition of cyber criminals sentenced to at least one year imprisonment in another country.

The convention is said to encompass issues like illegal interception and system interference, forgery, fraud, child pornography, and "offences related to the infringement of copyright".

However it's far from certain that the Rudd Government can force these procedures through Parliament. They are certainly most unlikely to be put forward ahead of the coming election.

Should it bring the legislation on, the Government faces opposition from privacy and civil rights advocacy groups including the small, but increasingly strident, Electronic Frontiers Australia.

[Keith]

Spy software watches BlackBerry email/photos
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Spy_software_watches_BlackBerry_ema_04272010.html

US software firm Retina-X Studios on Tuesday released a more vigilant version of its Mobile Spy program that captures every email and picture from BlackBerry smartphones.

[Keith]

 
These are the issues you should be addressing Sen Conroy. Not preventing adults from legally reading and seeing what they want to see and read. And parents are responsible for the behaviour of their children.
 
Apr 23 09:37
 
Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/

If we want moral children we must give them moral leadership, by which I mean the leadership by example of moral people, not simply do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do tyranny from corrupted politicians and corrupted clergy.

We proselytize our children to be fair, honest, and altruistic yet they see around them politicians who lie, bankers who cheat and priests who molest with impunity. The resulting cognitive dissonance lies at the root of most behavioral issues in young people. They are told it is an horrendous crime to steal a copy of a music file yet watch as the Government steals country after country from the rightful owners with lies and congratulates itself for cleverness. Kids are smart; they see that theft and murder are rights reserved to the state, while servitude is their position in life. The kids are watching as their parents near the end of a lifetime of work only to see the accumulated wealth of that lifetime of labor vanish into the pockets of the bankers. The kids are smart enough to see their own futures in the worn faces of their elders, and they are angry. They want something different, and any teacher who thinks that children can be forced to act like adults while the nation's leaders act like children is delusional.

 
School lawsuit filed

By Bob Darden
Staff Writer

Monday, April 19, 2010 11:25 AM CDT

 

?Something is amiss? in the differing accounts of a search of two Greenwood Middle School students by a school security officer in February, said an attorney who has filed a $1 million lawsuit.



Grenada attorney Carlos Moore held a brief press conference this morning to announce that a suit had been filed against the city of Greenwood, the Greenwood Public Schools and security officer Curtis Lee.

Accompanying Moore were the two juveniles, Rameous Spencer and Paris Stigler, both eighth-graders at the school, along with the boys? mothers, Jennifer Spencer and Leketha Stigler.

The suit alleges that the boys were strip-searched Feb. 18 when Lee was looking for $120 in cash reported missing by another student.

Moore said Lee, in his own statement regarding the incident, said he took the boys into the bathroom.

 

Paris said previously that Lee asked him to lift his genitals in an attempt to see if the money had been hidden on his body.

Moore said he has not received a written response to his inquiries from the school district. Superintendent Margie Pulley has said she consulted with Principal Lorita Harris and was confident there had been no misconduct.

In addition to monetary damages, the lawsuit requests that Lee be permanently barred from serving as the school?s security officer. Moore said Lee?s continued presence at the school makes the boys uncomfortable. ?These boys are still in a hostile environment,? he said.

Although the lawsuit was filed in Circuit Court, Moore said he will likely request that it be moved to the federal court system.

He said such a move would likely mean that the trial would likely begin in the spring of 2011.

 These are the issues you should be addressing Sen Conroy. Not preventing adults from legally reading and seeing what they want to see and read. And parents are responsible for the behaviour of their children.
 
Not only can I trace my ancestry to BC and AD Judea, the Southern Kingdom, I am a Catholic. So forget the anti Semite and anti Catholic reaction.
 
 
US victim sues to open secret Vatican priest sex abuse files
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hqmGdz0aW64EuUcYfi8tj1ee0hkQ

The alleged victim of a US priest accused of being a serial pedophile sued the pope and the Vatican on Thursday in an attempt to open secret files containing internal investigations into sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.

"There is a painful and long history of the Vatican and the top officials... muffling and suppressing the truth and protecting themselves and their own reputation instead of protecting the children," attorney Jeff Anderson said at a press conference.

"This suit demands further action by the Vatican and the removal of every single priest that has offended a single child and every single bishop and cardinal that has been complicit in those crimes."


www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

 
It's all getting tired and worn. This incessant hyperbole from Sen Conroy about emphasising the child sexual abuse side of his argument for internet censorship in Australia. We have pointed out before and we point out again. Sen Conroy, most child sexual abuse occurs in the home, not on the internet. Lift the blinds in the suburbs if you want to get serious about this matter, and also lift it in the Churches and organisations which rely on child membership.
 
Get real and leave our internet alone.
 
Australia pushes net censorship in Washington
ASHER MOSES
April 23, 2010
 
THE AGE
 

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Photo: Jessica Shapiro

Australian government representatives have recently met US officials in Washington to discuss concerns over the forthcoming internet censorship regime raised by the US ambassador to Australia and the US State Department.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has come under increasing pressure to reveal the content of discussions with US officials after the US State Department said it had "raised concerns" with Australia and the US ambassador said net censorship was not necessary.

On ABC's Q&A program this month, US ambassador Jeffrey Bleich said the same goals set out by the government on cyber safety could be achieved without censorship. Bleich said the US was willing to "share our efforts" with Australia.

He said: "The internet needs to be free. It needs to be free the way we have said the skies have to be free, outer space has to be free, the polar caps have to be free, the oceans have to be free. They're shared resources of all the people of the world."

In a letter to Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, Queensland Liberal Senator Sue Boyce pressured the government to release more details of its discussions with the US.

Conroy had said that the US State Department asked for "background information only" on the filtering policy.

"I find it difficult to reconcile a statement that the US government had 'raised concerns' with Minister Conroy's assertion that the US government had only asked for 'background information'," Boyce wrote.

"It is a deplorable situation when Australians have to rely upon the frankness of a foreign diplomat to provide information about bilateral discussions on a very important matter because relevant Australian ministers either dissemble or just refuse to say anything."

A spokeswoman for Smith directed all requests for comment to Conroy's office. Conroy's spokeswoman confirmed that Australian and US officials "have met in Washington to discuss the issue recently".

The spokeswoman would not reveal further details of the discussions but questioned Bleich's comments that Australia's goal was to capture and prosecute child pornographers.

"The government has never claimed ISP filtering is about catching paedophiles; it is about blocking inadvertent access to abhorrent content which includes child sexual abuse content," Conroy's spokeswoman said.

"Australia is not alone in its approach and we applaud the European Commission that announced just last week that it would require members states to ensure that websites containing child pornography are blocked."

The government plans to introduce legislation to enable the internet filtering policy in the second half of the year. It will require ISPs to block a blacklist of banned "refused classification" (RC) websites for all Australians.

Unlike the system in some other countries, which is typically limited to child porn, it is feared the Australian model to block RC content is much broader and will cover innocuous material such as euthanasia and abortion sites or graffiti videos on YouTube.

Conroy believes he is simply applying offline classification rules to the online world, saying you can't access RC material on DVD, in libraries, at the cinema, on television or at newsagents.

But unlike in those mediums, the internet blacklist will not give citizens the chance to find out what is censored and why.

Critics of the government's policy, including Lake Macquarie councillor Anthony Birt, who has written to Liberal MPs imploring them to oppose the legislation, say the filter will not address the major cyber safety concerns of parents.

Colin Jacobs, chairman of the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said he was mystified as to why trying to regulate the global internet like an Australian newsagent was a priority for the government.

"As the dialogue with the US indicates, trying to do so is doomed to fail and completely ignores the enormous benefits we reap from keeping the internet open," Jacobs said.

"They are now defending the policy on the basis that it will stop people 'accidentally' stumbling across abhorrent material. That's an astoundingly weak justification for more censorship, and the filter won't even be able to accomplish that."

Birt questioned whether children were, as Conroy claims, stumbling across child pornography and noted that the filters would do nothing to stop the distribution of child porn over other means such as email, chat programs, BitTorrent and peer-to-peer networks.

He said parents who were concerned about content their children were viewing online could already install software filters and website blockers on their computers.

"So we have a proposal that will do nothing to prevent the real problem of child pornography, which exists outside the scope of this filter, and nothing to prevent children from real cyber safety concerns," Birt wrote.

"And while not achieving its major objective, this system will simultaneously restrict free speech and access to legal content and controversial material on the internet, in a secret way behind closed doors with no accountability."

Source: smh.com.au

 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Let's look at a few facts. Firstly there is no doubt all decent Australians do not want websites with illegal content cluttering the web. Just like they don't want books, magazines, music and video CDs, venues and establishments or any other medium or place used for the promotion and distribution of illegal content and activities. However we don't live in a perfect world and illegality happens every day.
 
There has been a concentration just on the child pornography and abuse side of this debate. There is more to this debate than websites and other internet activity which promote and publish and use child porn and abuse. Sen Conroy is using this emotive subject to get a start filter in place which will block content to material such as information on euthanasia. No matter what ones personal views on matters such as euthanasia are all adult Australians are entitled to read the pros and cons of this debate, for that is what it is. This is just one example of where the filter will impact on decent Australian adults seeking information.
 
Now to the really hard fact to swallow. If Sen Conroy is serious about minimizing child abuse, sexual, physical and emotional, he should lift up the curtains in the suburbs. Most child sex abuse occurs in the home.It does not occur online. Parents are responsible for their kids behaviour and the truth is some parents are not fit to be parents.
 
Sadly, no matter if Sen Conroy has good intentions, he is ill informed technically and he is also not street wise about how flexible and cunning many people are. The internet filter will easily be circumvented by those who know their way around the web and the result will be that ISPs will be left with a cost burden in a very competitive market and decent and honest Australians will be punished for something they have never done. This is life in the real world.
 
Leave decent Australians alone. Give the Police, monitoring agencies and security agencies the money and people they need to monitor the internet effectively and give them the power to immediately order ISPs to block illegal websites.
 
 
Tightening the net
ARI SHARP
April 17, 2010  
THE AGE

IT WAS hardly what the government wanted to hear. When Communications Minister Stephen Conroy commissioned a technology company to test his proposed internet filter, he was hoping it would back the policy close to his heart. For more than a year he had been pushing a mandatory filter to block users from accessing the child abuse, bestiality and DIY terrorist guides that populate the darkest corners of cyberspace.

But when the Enex TestLab report came back last October, while it agreed that a filter on internet service providers could block access to prohibited sites, it delivered a finding that appeared to fundamentally undermine the plan: ''A technically competent user could, if they wished, circumvent the filtering technology.''

Far from using the finding as a reason to abandon the filter on websites refused classification under Australia's censorship rules, the conclusion only strengthened the minister's resolve to push ahead.

''The government has always maintained there is no silver bullet solution to cyber-safety,'' Conroy said when the report was released. ''ISP filtering reduces the risk of Australians being inadvertently exposed to [Refused Classification-rated] material when they are online.''

Opponents may consider him naive, power-hungry or technologically challenged, but none can question Conroy's commitment to the filter, which if introduced would be the only one of its kind in the democratic world.

''If we know there are 355 websites today that have child pornographic images on them, should we say we're not going to do anything about it?'' Conroy asked Fairfax's National Times website this month.

Critics of the plan include internet providers, civil libertarians, Google and even the US government. But the minister does have allies on the issue among conservative lobby groups, and would be comforted by polling showing considerable public support for the notion of the filter.

His job in selling the plan is being made harder by the hyperbole of many of his opponents, who thunder about it being akin to the Great Firewall of China in creating a platform for widespread political censorship.

But he does himself few favours by implying that critics of the filter are aiding the distribution of images of child sexual abuse and guides to terrorism, plucking out the worst extremes the filter hopes to catch.

The war of words has obscured debate over just what is being proposed by the government.

Under the filter plan, internet service providers will be forced to block access by their customers to prohibited websites, facing fines of $27,500 a day for failing to comply. The listed websites will be those categorised by the Australian Communications and Media Authority as Refused Classification - meaning they fall foul of the content rules that apply to DVDs and magazines sold in Australia.

But while the list will be distributed to the internet service providers, it will remain secret from the public, with no opportunity for judicial oversight.

The government says the filter will only block material refused classification. The list cited by Conroy includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and material that advocates terrorist acts. While few would raise objections to most of those items being blocked, the list could potentially include sites advocating euthanasia or drug law reform, or sites that provide instructions on graffiti.

It is worth noting what the filter is not designed to catch: R18+ and X18+ material, the vast majority of the explicit pornographic content that hurtles through cyberspace, is still intended to be as accessible as it is today to those who seek it out.

The ability of the filter to block illicit material is challenged in two significant ways. First, as the government found from the Enex TestLab trial, internet users will be able to easily evade the filter. University of South Australia computer science researcher Benjamin Close explains that users could easily visit sites that offer an anonymous proxy to obscure the user's whereabouts, allowing them to access sites supposedly blocked to Australians.

''The reality is most kids these days are more savvy than their parents,'' he says. ''It will stop the parents, but probably not the kids.''

The second technical barrier to an effective filter is the fact that much of the illicit content does not appear on publicly accessible parts of the internet, but on peer-to-peer file sharing networks that allow users to transfer content to each other in secrecy.

Another objection raised against the filter is that it will slow down internet speeds, a claim Conroy strenuously denies. The Enex TestLab trial last year found ''no noticeable performance degradation'' directly linked to the filter, while a separate Telstra test of a 10,000-site filter also found speeds were unaffected. But Google is far less certain, although it was unable to say for sure what the impact would be.

Beyond the technical limitations, the objection of many critics is that the filter amounts to censorship.

While some point to the potential for it to be used by future governments for political censorship, others say the wide scope of content that can be refused classification is itself cause for concern.

''This idea that this is only going to block child sexual abuse material or the type of thing no Australian wants in their home is completely and utterly nonsense if you look at the very broad terms in the Australian classification code,'' says Electronic Frontiers Australia's Geordie Guy.

The classification code bars any content that promotes, incites or instructs in crime, prompting Guy to note that ''any matter that deals with any crime is eligible to be rated RC''.

To allay fears of political censorship, the government points to the process for listing websites. Responsibility will be given to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which will be required to check sites against Australia's classification rules. Members of the public will be able to put forward sites for listing, while ACMA will also draw on lists kept by law enforcement groups overseas.

There is still some fine-tuning under way on the accountability measures, but ultimately the government has refused to countenance judicial involvement in assessing the appropriateness of blacklisting a website, the absence of which has set off alarm bells for those fearing heavy-handed ministerial involvement.

The internet industry scoffs at government claims the filter will do much to prevent people stumbling across illicit material, pointing out that such occurrences are extremely rare.

And if protecting children is the aim, say critics, the government could achieve this through a voluntary filter chosen by parents, similar to the downloadable tool introduced by the former government.

The decision to introduce a mandatory filter points to the fact that the real targets are adults. The filter is all about bringing the offline classification rules - which apply to adults as well as children - into the online universe.

It is a position backed by conservative lobby group FamilyVoice Australia, which rejects the idea that people should be free to choose to access Refused Classification websites if they wish. ''That's as useful as suggesting that child pornography and snuff movies should be sold at the local video store and families can choose whether to borrow them or not,'' says Richard Egan, the group's national policy officer.

The filter proposal has drawn comparisons to the enormous internet filter used by the Chinese government to prevent the country's hundreds of millions of internet users from accessing politically sensitive material.

The major difference between the two appears to be how much content they seek to block. While the Australian filter is designed to catch extreme content that falls foul of classification rules, the Chinese filter has a blatantly political purpose.

Australia is alone among democracies in seeking to introduce a mandatory filter.

In Britain and Canada, ISPs covering between 90 and 95 per cent of the population have voluntarily blocked access to child sexual abuse websites, with Scandinavian countries having introduced a similar scheme.

''No other democracy in the world has got mandatory internet filtering implemented,'' Guy says.

Australia's isolation on the issue has prompted scorn from global libertarian groups. Last year Conroy was labelled Internet Villain of the Year at the internet industry awards, while earlier this year Australia was placed on an internet freedom watch-list by Reporters Without Borders.

The filter has also attracted an icy response from the United States. This week, US ambassador to Australia Jeffrey Bleich explained that his government believed the internet should be free, and had concerns with any attempt to limit that freedom.

''We have been able to accomplish the goal that Australia has described, which is to capture and prosecute child pornographers and others who use the internet for terrible purposes, without having to use internet filters,'' he told the ABC's Q&A program.

Ultimately the debate over the filter is a part of the broader discussion about the extent to which governments can patrol the internet - a point Conroy alluded to in the National Times interview.

''This argument that the internet is some mystical creation that no laws should apply to - that is a recipe for anarchy and the wild west. I believe in a civil society, and in a civil society people behave the same way in the physical world as in the virtual world.''

Ari Sharp is communications correspondent.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR KIDS BEHAVIOUR----NOT ME OR YOU



Australia should drop filter plan: US
Fran Foo
From: Australian IT
April 13, 2010 10:52AM


CHILD pornographers can be captured and prosecuted without having to resort to mandatory internet filters, says Barack Obama confidante and US Ambassador to Australia Jeff Bleich.

The Rudd government has said the mandatory filters are crucial in its arsenal of online weapons aimed at stamping out child pornography and other forms of illegal material.

Asked on ABC TV's Q&A program last night whether the proposed internet filter threatened both the US-Australia relationship, Mr Bleich expressed confidence both governments would be able to find "the path forward".

Australia had been made aware of his government's no internet censorship stance, he said, adding that the US has had "healthy discussions" with its Australian counterparts on the matter.

"On the issue of the internet we have been very clear. The internet needs to be free," Mr Bleich said. "It needs to be free the way we have said skies have to be free, outer space has to be free, the polar caps have to be free, the oceans have to be free. They're shared resources of all the people in the world.

"To the extent that there are disagreements (about) trying to find the right balance between law enforcement and respecting that general principle, we work with our friends, and so we've been working with Australia on this issue, we've had healthy discussions and ... I'm sure we'll be able to find the path forward."

The US had told Australia child pornographers could be nabbed without the use of internet filters, Mr Bleich said.

"What we've said is we have been able to accomplish the goals that Australia has described, which is to capture and prosecute child pornographers and others who use the internet for terrible purposes, without having to use internet filters," he said.

"We have other means and we are willing to share our efforts with them in order to allow them to at least look at a range of choices as opposed to moving in one particular direction ... It's an ongoing conversation."

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is spearheading the government's efforts to introduce mandatory ISP filters for content rated Refused Classification. Legislation to force ISPs to start blocking the internet is expected to be introduced in the second half of this year.

RC includes, but is not limited to, child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and material that advocates terrorist acts.

Some internet experts say online the definition of RC is too broad, highly subjective and can trap legal, adult material.

On March 29, The Australian reported the US State Department had raised the filtering issue with its Australian counterpart as it tried to push for a free internet worldwide.

Senator Conroy said neither he nor his department had been directly contacted by State Department. He said US officials could have been discussing the matter with the Department of Foreign Affairs but was unaware of any approaches until he read the report.

Mr Bleich's comments came as Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey called on the Rudd government to adopt an opt-in filtering mechanism called NetAlert that was introduced during the Howard era.

Mr Hockey said on Q&A that the government's internet filter proposal had too many unanswered questions and he would rather families took control of the internet than politicians.

"We all want to close down and prosecute and put in jail people involved in peddling child pornography and other horrendous materials, the question is how do you do it," Mr Hockey said. "The proposal from the government is potentially going to make the internet slower, it is going to potentially close down legitimate sites that are being used by people, it could have an impact on other sites.

"If there's a particular YouTube video, for example, that is deemed offensive by the government it may well slow down YouTube for all Australians.

"These are the sorts of things that haven't been addressed ... the material will still be distributed by email and a range of other mechanisms ... apart from the traditional http addresses. And that's why I think we should go back to what we proposed, and that is about families having filters provided to them in the home and people accepting personal responsibility for what goes on in their own home rather than expecting Canberra to do it."

Federal Minister for Housing Tanya Plibersek argued on the program that the government filters could reduce the demand for child pornography.

"It might not stop every single instance of this around the world ... but reducing the demand for it is quite important," she said.

[Keith]

Where there is a will there is a way. Seriously Sen Conroy is either technically illiterate or he is playing out either a moral crusade game or cynical political ploy to try and win votes from terrified troglodytes.
 
The Pirate Party: how to bypass the great Australian firewall
http://www.computerworld.com.au/slideshow/342549/pirate_party_how_bypass_great_australian_firewall/?eid=-6787
 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

This is the type of activity which should be the full focus of Senator Conroy and the Federal Attorney, our security agencies and intelligence agencies. We assume this is an accurate and true report. To pretend these types of internet chats and activities do not take place in Australia is of course fanciful.  Senator Conroy should tackle these hard subjects and make parents responsible for their kids behaviour and leave adult Australians alone to read and see what they legally wish.

 

From: Davies Terry

Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 12:02 AM

Subject: Al Qaeda Web chats point to Indonesian links

SOURCE:  THE WASHINGTON TIMES

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/09/web-chats-point-to-al-qaedas-indonesian-links/

 
Web chats point to Indonesian links

 

Transcripts from seized computer 'wake-up call'
 

By Chris Brummitt

ASSOCIATED PRESS

JAKARTA, Indonesia | It plays out like any ordinary chat between friends on Yahoo Messenger, but the subject matter is chilling:

"The Killer" is looking to mesh his Indonesian militant network more deeply with al Qaeda in its Pakistani heartland.

"Come to Pak," he is told by "SAIF-a," the Pakistani at the other end. "The seniors say, send one of your boys here to represent your group."

But beware, "SAIF-a" warns. With the U.S. stepping up its rocket attacks, "The brothers are very worried, in Waziristan all missiles hit very accurately. It means someone inside is involved."

The exchange appears in transcripts of Internet chat sessions recovered from the computer of Muhammad Jibriel, identified in the documents as the man suspected of using the screen name "thekiller."

Jibriel, a 26-year-old Indonesian and well-known propagandist for al Qaeda, is currently on trial, accused of helping fund last year's twin suicide bombings at luxury hotels in his country's capital, Jakarta.

He claims the transcripts are fabricated.

The 40 pages of conversations are in a police dossier that provides a rare glimpse into the inner workings of Jemaah Islamiyah;

Southeast Asia's main extremist group, suggesting it and allied networks in the region have more international links than was previously assumed.

Since the chats took place, from mid- to late-2008, a sustained crackdown on Southeast Asian groups has continued;

resulting in the arrest of Jibriel and the execution of the man identified in the police dossier as one of his most prominent conversationalists.

But the chats refer to other people engaged in contact with international extremists, and experts think such ties likely continue.

"The transcripts are a wake-up call," said Sidney Jones, a leading international expert on Southeast Asian terrorist groups.

"They show that Indonesian links to Pakistani and Middle Eastern terror groups are real and dangerous, even if limited to a few individuals."

The 800-page police dossier was given to lawyers and judges involved in Jibriel's juryless trial, but is not part of the indictment.

It was obtained by the Associated Press from someone close to Indonesian law enforcement who requested anonymity because the disclosure is sensitive.

Indonesian police declined to discuss the chat sessions, or say whether any Indonesian militants had left for Pakistan since the conversations took place.

The participants talk about sending money and recruits to al Qaeda.

They discuss in detail the progress of a credit card fraud involving several Western banks to fund terrorist activities.

They refer to allied militant cells or contacts in Cairo, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

The chats are in a mix of Indonesian, English, Urdu and Arabic. Some of what is said seems to be in code. Slang, shorthand and "smiley face" emoticons stud the text.

The communications take an extraordinary turn as they are joined by "istisyhad," identified in the police dossier as Imam Samudra, a mastermind of the 2002 Bali nightclub bombing.

At the time of the chats, he was on death row, yet he was communicating from his cell on a smuggled laptop.

The police dossier says Jibriel used several aliases to talk to Samudra, even seeking advice on his turbulent relationship with a militant sympathizer he wants to marry.

At one point he asks Samudra "to pray that she and I stay strong and become a great jihad partnership."

In another chat, he offers to help Samudra keep in touch with al Qaeda from death row. "If you want to send an e-mail to AQ directly there, I can arrange that," he writes.

Samudra was executed by firing squad in 2009.

Jemaah Islamiyah was formed by Indonesians after they returned home from fighting and training in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the 1980s and 1990s.

After 9/11, when al Qaeda began expanding into Southeast Asia, it used those connections to send money and expertise and to recruit volunteers;but was assumed to have largely given up after the crackdown that followed the Bali bombings.

c AP writer Irwan Firdaus contributed to this report from Jakarta.

[Keith]

Internet provider defies digital bill

TalkTalk's refusal to cooperate with 'draconian' anti-piracy measures reflect growing resistance to the digital economy bill

Charles Arthur
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 8 April 2010


Internet provider TalkTalk has said it will not cooperate with measures to combat file-sharing. Photograph: AFP

One of the UK's three biggest internet service providers has vowed not to co-operate with measures to combat file-sharing set out in the government's controversial digital economy bill, expected to receive royal assent within days.

TalkTalk, with more than 4 million UK internet users, said that "many draconian proposals remain" in the bill, including some that would allow content companies to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block the connections of customers suspected of online copyright infringement.

The Open Rights Group, which campaigns for individual rights online, criticised moves to rush the bill through parliament before the election, saying "measures to allow disconnection of individuals from the internet, for undefined periods of time" and web blocking laws were pushed through "with no real scrutiny and limited debate".

MPs and Lords complained that sites such as Wikileaks or even Google were at risk of being blocked under an order by the secretary of state, because a new clause inserted by the government on Wednesday night provides powers to block sites that "have been, are being or are likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright".

That could spell trouble for Wikileaks, which carries copyrighted material supplied by whistleblowers, such as the US Army video released last week showing the killing of Iraqi civilians.

But photographers and artists celebrated after the government dropped a clause that would have allowed "orphan works" ? whose owner cannot be located ? to be used commercially at minimal cost. "The UK government wanted to introduce a law to allow anyone to use your photographs commercially, or in ways you might not like, without asking you first. They have failed," said Stop43, a site set up by more than 16,000 members of the photographic, imaging and advertising industries to lobby against the clause.

The bill is certain to pass into law after being rushed through two key stages in two hours on Wednesday night in the House of Commons. It will require ISPs to send letters to anyone accused of infringing copyright by the owner of the copyrighted material; repeated accusations would lead to "temporary suspension" of their internet connection, which could involve either blocking it or slowing it down.

Andrew Heaney, TalkTalk's director of strategy and regulation, said the proposals were "draconian": "This is made all the more appalling by the ability of big music and film companies to influence government and the absence of any proper debate or scrutiny by MPs ? only 5% of MPs turned up for the brief debate yesterday and the other important parliamentary stages will be bypassed in the wash-up process," he wrote on the company blog.

But plans for a ?6 annual tax on landlines, which had been part of the original Digital Britain report in June 2009 which was then made into legislation, were dropped from the finance bill when the Tories made it clear they would oppose it, potentially derailing the entire bill.

Tory opposition also meant that there will now be no funding drawn from the BBC licence fee for "independently financed news consortiums", which would have made local news to replace regional bulletins on ITV1 ? though that might be revived if Labour wins the general election.

Thousands of people used sites such as writetoyourmp.com and 38degrees to complain about the anti-piracy measures in the bill, on the basis that they would criminalise people and did not assume the innocence of the accused ? and would be expensive to defend against. Tom Watson, the Labour MP for West Bromwich East and former Cabinet Office minister, rebelled against the bill and voted, with six other Labour rebels including Diane Abbott, against the whip for the first time in his nine-year parliamentary career.

The digital economy bill had substantial backing from the content industries, including record labels and film-makers and distributors, which claim that they are losing ?400m a year through online piracy and file-sharing. It emerged when the bill passed through the Lords that a key amendment had been drafted by the BPI, which represents UK major record labels.

The Open Rights Group, which is opposing the measures against file-sharing on the basis that they assume guilt on the part of those who operate internet connections, and that they will discourage hotels, libraries and shops from offering free wireless internet, called the passage of the bill "an utter disgrace".

Jim Killock, its executive director, said: "This is an attack on everyone's right to communicate, work and gain an education. Politicians have shown themselves to be incompetent and completely out of touch with an entire generation's values. There are thousands of activists working with ORG planning to show up at hustings, demand answers from candidates, and who are willing to punish those who voted for this at the ballot box."

 
Digital economy bill rushed through wash-up in late night session

Government drops clause on orphan works but inserts amendment criticised as over-broad which could block sites based on 'intent'

Charles Arthur
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 8 April 2010 
 


The House of Commons during the Committee stage of the digital economy bill, April 2010 [this caption was amended on 8 April 2010. It originally said that the Bill was at the third reading]

The government forced through the controversial digital economy bill with the aid of the Conservative party last night, attaining a crucial third reading ? which means it will get royal assent and become law ? after just two hours of debate in the Commons.

However it was forced to drop clause 43 of the bill, a proposal on orphan works which had been opposed by photographers. They welcomed the news: "The UK government wanted to introduce a law to allow anyone to use your photographs commercially, or in ways you might not like, without asking you first. They have failed," said the site set up to oppose the proposals.

But despite opposition from the Liberal Democrats and a number of Labour MPs who spoke up against measures contained in the bill and put down a number of proposed amendments, the government easily won two votes to determine the content of the bill and its passage through the committee stage without making any changes it had not already agreed.

Tom Watson, the former Cabinet Office minister who resigned in mid-2009, voted against the government for the first time in the final vote to take the bill to a third reading. However the vote was overwhelmingly in the government's favour, which it won by 189 votes to 47.

Earlier the government removed its proposed clause 18, which could have given it sweeping powers to block sites, but replaced it with an amendment to clause 8 of the bill. The new clause allows the secretary of state for business to order the blocking of "a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright".

The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming protested that this could mean the blocking of the whistleblower site Wikileaks, which carries only copyrighted work. Stephen Timms for the government said that it would not want to see the clause used to restrict freedom of speech ? but gave no assurance that sites like Wikileaks would not be blocked.

Don Foster, the Liberal Democrats' spokesman for culture, media and sport, protested that the clause was too wide-ranging: "it could apply to Google," he complained, adding that its inclusion of the phrase about "likely to be used" meant that a site could be blocked on its assumed intentions rather than its actions.

The Lib Dem opposition to that amendment prompted the first vote - known as a division ? on the bill, but the Labour and Conservative whips pushed it through, winning it by 197 votes to 40. The next 42 clauses of the bill were then considered in five minutes.

Numerous MPs complained that the bill was too important and its ramifications too great for it to be pushed through in this "wash-up" period in which bills are not given the usual detailed examination.

However the government declined to yield ? although it had already done a deal with the Tories which meant that a number of its provisions, including clause 43 and the creation of independent local news consortia, would not be part of the bill.

 

 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

 
If parents bring children into the world they are responsible for them, not me or you. If parents bring children into the world they are responsible for clothing, feeding, housing and educating them, not me or you. If parents allow their minors access to home computers they are responsible for their kids behaviour online, not me or you. It's called taking responsibility. Personal responsibility is a dirty word these days. After all it's all your fault and has nothing at all to do with me.
 
Online grooming is out there and a fact of life, and not just in kids chat rooms. Adults lie to other adults online about their age too. Grooming minors for sexual or emotional or other advantage is already an offence. Enforce the Law. Simple.
 
Finance and provide the personnel for the Police and security agencies to do their job and stop wasting time with moral crusades for political and personal purposes.
 
 
Net crackdown 'threat' to Wiggles
ARI SHARP
April 3, 2010
 
THE AGE
A proposed law to crack down on people who use the internet for preying on teenagers, which would make it an offence for adults to lie about their age to children, could end up putting the Wiggles in prison, a Senate committee has heard.

Independent senator Nick Xenophon proposed the law against people lying about their age following the case of 15-year-old South Australian girl Carly Ryan, who was murdered in 2007 by a 50-year-old Victorian man who had posed online as a 20-year-old.

Separately, this week 24-year-old Frankston man John Zimmerman was charged with raping three girls, one aged 13 and two aged 14, after first making contact on the internet, though police have not alleged that he misrepresented his age in gaining the trust of his victims.

It is already an offence for people to use the internet to groom a child for sexual contact, but the Xenophon proposal would make it an offence for a person to lie about their age to a child. That offence alone would lead to a three-year prison sentence, while the intention to meet the child in person would lead to a five-year sentence, and the use of it to actually commit an offence could lead to eight years' prison.

Among the objectors at a Senate inquiry into the proposal were Civil Liberties Australia, which said the bill was ''misguided'' because grooming was already an offence. ''Under the current draft, you could use the legislation to throw the Wiggles (or any adult actor dressing up on children's TV) into prison for three years,'' the group's president, Kristine Klugman, wrote.

Child protection group Bravehearts agreed with the purpose of the legislation, but also warned of unintended consequences. It said there was a need for any law to focus on one-to-one communications over a sustained period where the perpetrator was otherwise unknown to the victim.

New South Wales Attorney-General John Hatzistergos was opposed to criminalising lying about age, warning it would not assist law authorities to prevent the commission of crimes.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

It's impossible to know what is going on in the mind of Senator Conroy. This means it is almost impossible to deduce what motivates his net filtering proposals. Is he on some sort of personal moral crusade, is he genuinely trying to clean up the internet or is he just a naive politician who sees votes in pushing ahead with his hysterical and inaccurate comments about the internet? Who knows.
 
We do however know that the use of hysteria about child pornography is not the real or only propellant of his crusade.
 
Rightly so Sen Conroy and all decent Australians recognise the abuse of children in online pornographic videos and images as abhorrent.
 
But to consistently use this emotional bribe to usher in a wide ranging net filtering system is deceitful and underhand.
 
As we have pointed out any website, forum or email list which openly flouts the law by publishing child porn, religious hatred which berates Australians to kill and maim, online scams which cleverly empty the pockets of Australians and any web presence which incites the population to overthrow the elected Government [ as some examples ] should immediately be blocked by all ISPs in Australia. Anybody who is even half decent and half sensible and half principled knows this is right.
 
But we suspect Sen Conroy has hidden motives which he dresses up in the hysteria of child porn and the abuse of children. We suspect Sen Conroy has a well concealed plan to slip the thin sliver of censorship in under the guise of protecting children, and then when that is in place to widen his censorship policy to eventually heavily censor what adult Australians read and see on the internet.
 
There is a myth that the internet is an entirely evil place consisting only of pornography. This is like saying all books are evil because some are obviously pornographic. The internet is like any other medium or sector of society. There is good, bad and in the middle content and behavior.This is life, like it or lump it.
 
Adult Australians do not need nor do they want Sen Conroy in their bedrooms, kitchens, gardens or computer rooms.We are adults and we have moved beyond the times when State and Church controlled how we lived our personal lives.
 
And as we have said many times, the first and final responsibility for what children see and read is with their parents, not with me or you.
 

Internet's not special, says communications minister

ASHER MOSES

April 1, 2010 - 11:58AM

 

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says critics of his proposed Internet filter are wrong and the Government will be doing less filtering than Google already does.

Web experts recoiled today at communications minister Stephen Conroy's assertion that the internet is not "special" and should be censored like books, films and newspapers.

In an on-camera interview with Fairfax Media's national Canberra bureau chief, Tim Lester, Senator Conroy dismissed the torrent of criticism directed at his policy as "misleading information" spread by "an organised group in the online world".

Asked what percentage of all of the nasty material on the internet his filters would block, Senator Conroy dodged the question, responding that his filters were "100 per cent accurate - no overblocking, no underblocking and no impact on speeds".



"Why is the internet special?" ... Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Photo: Penny Bradfield

But Mark Newton, an engineer with ISP internode, said: "Censorship will not catch a single pedophile, will not cause a single image to disappear from the internet, will not protect a single child."

Senator Conroy also brushed aside concerns from leading academics and technology companies that the plan to block a blacklist of "refused classification" (RC) websites for all Australians was an attempt to shoe-horn an offline classification model into a vastly different online world.

"Why is the internet special?," he asked, saying the net was "just a communication and distribution platform".

"This argument that the internet is some mystical creation that no laws should apply to, that is a recipe for anarchy and the wild west. I believe in a civil society and in a civil society people behave the same way in the physical world as they behave in the virtual world."

Newton said this was a "gross oversimplification", pointing out that Australia Post and Telstra's telephone network were also distribution platforms but were not censored.

"Why should the internet, a distribution platform for all manner of intangibles, be censored as if it was a movie theatre? It makes no sense, the model doesn't fit," he said.

The Greens communications spokesman Scott Ludlam was also quick to ridicule Senator Conroy, saying books and films were distinctly different because they are "dicreet, physical packages of content", whereas the internet is dynamic and has "a trillion web pages already indexed and an unknown amount more added every day".

"To characterise sustained opposition by individuals and groups as diverse as EFA, Google, SAGE, Yahoo, Save the Children, Reporters without Borders, Justice Kirby, Choice Magazine, leading online academics and industry associations and the United States Department of State as 'an organised group in the online world' is a remarkably naive misreading of how unpopular this proposal is," Senator Ludlam said.

University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt said the difference between submitting a book for classification and having an organisation classifying and blocking websites without anyone's knowledge was that, in the book case, "it is well known that the book was censored and there can be a debate about the correctness of the decision".

Landfeldt said it was true that the filter system would block all websites it was told to block but the trillions of pages on the internet means the government will not make the internet a safe place for children and will only be able to stop access to "a small minority" of web pages.

Senator Conroy said the aim of his policy was to "ensure that particularly children ... don't stumble across this material", which he described as being child pornography, bestiality, extreme violence and pro-rape websites.

He neglected to address widespread concerns that the "refused classification" rating also applies to sexual health discussions, euthanasia material such as the Peaceful Pill Handbook, historical war footage and instructions in minor crimes such as graffiti.

Senator Conroy admitted that his filters would not do anything to stop the spread of child pornography on peer-to-peer file sharing networks, and that they will "slow down the internet" if applied to high-volume sites such as YouTube, Facebook and Wikipedia.

He mentioned he was in discussions with Google over a way for the company to apply the filter to YouTube but Google has already rejected these requests.

"If we know there are 355 websites today that have child pornographic images on it, should we say well we're not going to do anything about it?," he said.

Colin Jacobs, spokesman for the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said this comment ignored evidence that the overwhelming majority of child pornography was traded in others ways such as by peer-to-peer. It also ignored the fact that anyone who wanted to bypass the filters could do so quite easily.

Senator Conroy has been on the attack against Google after the search giant issued a withering critique of his policy. After questioning the company's credibility in an ABC Radio interview on Monday night, he fired off another broadside in yesterday's interview.

He said Google already censored more material than the Rudd Government was proposing to block with its filters, pointing to its blocking of R-rated and X-rated material on YouTube and its censorship of search results in Thailand that are critical of the Thai king.

"Google are welcome to their view but Google have got to be prepared to be consistent," said Senator Conroy.

Jacobs said suggesting that enforcing YouTube's terms of service was equivalent to state-sponsored censorship was "at best misleading". Senator Ludlam said Senator Conroy's attacks on Google were "a deliberate misdirection of the debate", while Jacobs said they "smack of a personal vendetta".

Senator Conroy also rejected concerns that the government was creating a new mandatory censorship mechanism that would be prone to abuse by future governments.

"I think in Australia we have a vibrant democracy and anyone who wanted to try to expand beyond existing banned material - RC - would have one hell of a fight on the floor of Parliament," he said.

Asked whether it was a fact that the blacklist, a catalogue of some of the worst websites, was likely to leak at some time in the future, as has occurred in a number of other countries, Senator Conroy responded: "so the alternative is just to leave them out there and do nothing?".

He said he realistically would not expect to see legislation enabling the filters to be introduced before the second half of the year, after which it would "go through an open and transparent consultative process".

"For $44 million, we're buying ourselves an initiative which will have no measurable impact whatsoever," Senator Ludlam said.

"In exchange, we establish the architecture for future governments to abuse the loose and undefined 'RC' category to add a creeping range of material to the list. Once this architecture is established, the idea that its scope won't be expanded by future governments is a gamble we don't believe we should take."

Source: smh.com.au

 

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Ultimately we will all just have to wait and see what the Government internet filtering programme brings. In the meantime it is very unwise to get offside with Google who you might say control search engine technology across the planet, who have wide and deep economic and political influence across the world and who have a very large bank account.
 
One point which is receiving scant mention in the shock horror tactics about how evil the web is according to the scare mongers is the responsibility of parents and individuals. Let's look at inappropriate online content for children. Isn't the first and ultimate responsibility for what kids do, watch, say and how they behave one which belongs to their parents? Surely this is so. Of course with the growing number of dead beat, stupid and selfish irresponsible parents in the community other questions have to be asked.
 
Then when it comes to individuals we alone are responsible for our own internet behaviour and nobody else and we have to make mature, responsible decisions about what we read and see.
 
Of course in a world where it is everybody else's fault, where you are to blame and not me and where commonsense has been overtaken by trendy leftie do gooding attitudes this is all too hard.
 
 
Government goes to war with Google over net censorship
ASHER MOSES
March 30, 2010 - 1:15PM
 
SMH

Under pressure ... Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. Photo: Glen McCurtayne

The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has launched a stinging attack on Google and its credibility in response to the search giant's campaign against the government's internet filtering policy.

In an interview on ABC Radio last night, Senator Conroy also said he was unaware of complaints the Obama administration said it had raised with the government over the policy.

The government intends to introduce legislation within weeks forcing all ISPs to block a blacklist of "refused classification" websites for all Australians.

Senator Conroy has said the blacklist will largely include deplorable content such as child pornography, bestiality material and instructions on crime, but a large and growing group of academics, technology companies and lobby groups say the scope of the filters is too broad and will not make a meaningful impact on internet safety for children.

Google, which has recently been involved in a censorship spat with China, has been one of the filtering policy's harshest critics. It has identified a range of politically sensitive and innocuous material, such as sexual health discussions and discussions on euthanasia, which could be blocked by the filters.

Last week, it said it had held discussions with users and parents around Australia and "the strong view from parents was that the government's proposal goes too far and would take away their freedom of choice around what information they and their children can access".

Google also said implementing mandatory filtering across Australia's millions of internet users could "negatively impact user access speeds", while 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," Google wrote.

On ABC Radio last night, the majority of callers were opposed to the filters and right before the end of the segment, Senator Conroy attacked Google over its privacy credentials.

"Recently the founders of Google have got themselves into a little bit of trouble because notwithstanding their alleged 'do no evil' policy, they recently created something called Buzz, and there was a reaction, and people said well look aren't you publishing private information?," Senator Conroy said.

"[Google CEO Eric] Schmidt said the following: 'If you have something that you don't want anyone to know maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place'. This is the founder of Google. He also said recently to Wall Street analysts, 'we love cash', so when people say, shouldn't we just leave it up to the Googles of this world to determine what the filtering policy should be...."

Google said today it was surprised to hear Senator Conroy trying to "make this an issue about Google".

"This is a debate about freedom of access to information for all Australians, an issue of national importance. Let's focus on that," Google said.

Google's Buzz product added social networking features to Gmail but it caused a privacy uproar in February, with users complaining their contacts were being made public without their knowledge and that they had little control over who could follow their updates. Google quickly tweaked the service to allay these concerns.

Google said the Schmidt quote referred to by Senator Conroy had been taken out of context. Furthermore, Senator Conroy incorrectly labeled Schmidt one of the founders of the company, when in fact he joined the company as its CEO in 2001.

Opposition communications spokesman Tony Smith said it was Senator Conroy's "default position" to attack anyone that questions his policies.

"Google should be able to express their opinion without being attacked by the Minister and having their motives questioned," he said.


Senator Conroy also said he was not aware of the US State Department contacting his office or that of the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, over the internet filters. This contradicts a statement made by a US State Department spokesman yesterday.

"Our main message of course is that we remain committed to advancing the free flow of information which we view as vital to economic prosperity and preserving open societies globally," a U.S. State Department spokesman Michael Tran told The Associated Press.

Tran declined to say when or at what level the U.S. State Department raised its concerns with Australia and declined to detail those concerns.

"We don't discuss the details of specific diplomatic exchanges, but I can say that in the context of that ongoing relationship, we have raised our concerns on this matter with Australian officials," he added.

Senator Conroy argues the he is only attempting to apply the same restrictions placed on the distribution of books, magazines, DVDs and other content to the internet.

But critics say this approach fails to consider that the internet is a vastly different, dynamic medium. They say Senator Conroy's proposal is a heavy-handed measure that is easily bypassed by criminals and could restrict access to legal information.

Senator Conroy has conceded that greater transparency is needed in terms of how content ends up on the blacklist, but last night he again refused to make the blacklist itself public, saying it would provide people instant access to the banned material.

Whether the internet filtering policy is implemented depends largely on whether the Opposition supports or blocks the legislation. It has said it is waiting to see the government's legislation before stating a final position on the matter.

"The Federal Coalition supports sensible and workable measures to protect children from inappropriate online content," said Smith.

"However we are yet to be convinced that Labor?s mandatory filtering plans will actually be effective or achieve the best results.?


- with wires

Source: smh.com.au

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

The Government's current proposals and plans to introduce internet filtering are doomed to failure. In Sen Conroys favour there are internet websites which should be mandatorily blocked by ISPs and which should be made illegal. Such sites include those which peddle and promote any criminal activity such as child pornography, Islamic or other religious websites which openly promote violence and hatred, websites which promote financial scams openly and in plain view, websites which preach the violent overthrow of the elected Government and so on. The understanding of what is criminal and unacceptable is clear in the minds of decent Australians. We don't need the Law to circumscribe what is clearly illegal and abhorrent.
 
However the inexorable march to punish the innocent and protect the guilty, the attitudes of going after soft targets while leaving hard targets alone and the soft sentencing of Courts must change.
 
Let the enforcement, security and Police agencies get on with their jobs of identifying these websites and then taking action to shut them down. Nobody pretends this is an easy and costless task but this is the way this matter must be handled.To do this Police and others must be fully financed and must have the boots on the ground.
 
Innocent Australians should be able to access whatever they wish to access providing it does not contain criminal content. It is this simple. Oh and we will decide what Law and procedures we put in place in this country and the US can mind it's own business. Countries in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
 
 
THE AUSTRALIAN
 
Stephen Conroy and US at odds on net filter
Paul Colgan and Geoff Elliott
From: The Australian
March 29, 2010 
 
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.

The news is a blow to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, who is defending the plan for internet companies to mandatorily block illegal and abhorrent websites -- for instance, child pornography -- but faces growing opposition.

While considered a noble idea, any filter is considered by many -- even within the Labor caucus -- to be unworkable and a misdirection of resources away from enforcement and policing.

That the US government joins a widening coalition of agencies with concerns about the plan is sure to turn up the political heat on Senator Conroy.

It follows criticism from Google -- in the midst of a high-profile battle in China over political censorship -- that Australia's plan for mandatory filtering of blacklisted websites may prevent the free flow of information and would probably be ineffective in curbing the spread of child porn.

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.

"The US and Australia are close partners on issues related to cyber matters generally, including national security and economic issues," Mr Clay said.

"We do not discuss the details of specific diplomatic exchanges, but can say that in the context of that ongoing relationship, we have raised our concerns on this matter with Australian officials."

A spokeswoman for Senator Conroy declined to comment on Mr Clay's remarks, saying only that the Australian and US governments "liaise regularly on a broad range of issues (and) it would be inappropriate to discuss the details of these consultations".

The federal government's proposed filter is mainly aimed at blocking access to content deemed RC (refused classification), by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

RC typically applies to illegal material such as child sex abuse content, bestiality, and instructions for criminal activity, and the filter would oblige internet service providers to block access to a content blacklist.

Critics, including Google, say the scope of blacklisted material is too wide and it will slow internet speeds in Australia.

Some also worry the restrictions could be applied even to media organisations reporting details of criminal activity.

In January Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flagged the Obama administration's intent to use an open internet to advance its diplomatic goals.

The Law cannot protect fools and idiots from themselves. Nobody can. They are idiots, they will remain idiots and they can put up with the inevitable results of their idiocy.The problem with Facebook is the management policy and the online administration. It is a vile site which allows anything and everything to be published by mindless, vicious morons.And all for money.
 
A mollycoddling internet policy is just feeding the trolls
COLIN JACOBS
March 29, 2010

SOME people have weird hobbies. Duct tape art, for instance, or the pensioner in Birmingham who has collected more than 5000 bars of soap.

Another, more antisocial, hobby is ''trolling'' on the internet. This is the pastime of posting offensive messages on bulletin boards or web pages, designed to elicit the strongest, most outraged reactions from other unwitting users. Responding to their taunts is known as ''feeding the trolls''. Like the duct tape sculptors, the best trolls have managed to refine their hobby almost into an art form.

Presumably they do this because they have bad personal hygiene and don't get out much, and it's their only way of getting some attention. Unfortunately, it seems that Australians are particularly fond of giving it to them.

For instance, in recent weeks several Facebook tribute pages created in memory of slain or missing children were defaced by vandals in a most offensive way. Plastered with obscenity, the pages managed to attract significant media attention before Facebook responded to the complaints and took them down.

Since then, Encyclopaedia Dramatica, a ''satirical'' website, has made headlines because of its extremely racist entry on Aborigines, resulting in complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission and talk of lawsuits aimed at removing the US-hosted page.

These reports have not gone unnoticed by our parliamentarians, who never miss an opportunity to clamber on to the outrage bandwagon. A call by Senator Nick Xenophon to establish an online ombudsman to handle such cases was welcomed by the Prime Minister. In the meantime, legislation to toughen laws against online hate speech is under discussion, and the nation awaits the introduction of the Rudd government's controversial mandatory internet censorship system when Parliament next sits.

One reading of these developments might be that an outraged public has finally got tired of offensive internet content and has decided to take a stand. However, I think there is another interpretation, one that isn't quite as flattering of our society. Have we simply become too comfortable with being mollycoddled?

Never mind the manifest impracticality of staffing a government department to investigate offensive web pages. Politicians sometimes pretend the internet is like a fancy new type of TV station or electronic magazine; most of us know better, that it is more like a global, instant post office, the vast majority of which lies beyond the reach of our laws. And let's ignore for the moment the risks to our freedom of speech that such a system of government-controlled censorship would entail. Let us ask instead: since when is an offensive Facebook page an emergency worthy of prime ministerial attention?

Being offended, or knowing that offensive material is out there in the vast sea of ideas that is the internet, is certainly unpleasant. Directed at yourself or somebody you love, words and images can cause serious upset. More often, they cause a momentary distraction, quickly forgotten. Where real harm occurs - such as defamation or child abuse - we already have strong legal remedies. So why does a sense of proportion seem to disappear the moment the discussion moves online?

It's the hallmark of a mature individual that they can endure a slight and maintain their composure. And I would argue that it is not the hallmark of a mature nation that a sweary web page causes us to run to our leaders for salvation. We need to be tougher than that.

There's a better response, one that Barbra Streisand learnt the hard way. When aerial photographs of her California mansion appeared on the internet, she sued the website responsible for $50 million to have them taken down.

The resulting publicity led hundreds of thousands of curious people to download the photos in question. This ''Streisand effect'' dictates that trying to stamp out the flames only spreads the fire. The best way to handle unwelcome content is to ignore it.

The benefits we reap from an open internet vastly outweigh the drawbacks. Many aspects of our lives continue to be revolutionised by this fact. Just as we must put up with idiots in all other areas of human intercourse, we have to deal with them online - where blocking or ignoring them requires nothing more than the click of a button. Setting up a bureaucracy of censors and ombudsmen will be expensive, unnecessary and, thanks to the Streisand effect, largely counterproductive. By all means fight back if you want to; let's just leave Canberra out of it.

Australia has limited resources and no shortage of challenges to overcome. I for one would prefer that our leaders had their heads down working on a climate change policy or healthcare reform. So the next time an online outrage appears, let's quietly get back to tending our soap collections, and don't feed the trolls.

Colin Jacobs is vice-chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia, a non-profit organisation that works on issues to do with online freedom and rights.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Take your hands off my internet.

Get used to higher internet costs, legal websites which you regularly visit blocked, the Government deciding what you should view and read and big brother looking over your shoulder more and more. If somebody uses the internet to break the Law that is a Police and intelligence agency matter and the Police and intel agencies must be given the power and technology resources to stop law breakers. Leave innocent citizens alone.The filters will fail anyway for those who know their way around the internet.
 
 
New Zealand's internet filter goes live
By ROB O'NEILL - Computerworld

Last updated 11:51 11/03/2010

The Department of Internal Affairs' (DIA) internet filter is now operational and is being used by internet providers (ISPs) Maxnet and Watchdog.

Thomas Beagle, spokesperson for online freedom lobby Tech Liberty says he's "very disappointed that the filter is now running, it's a sad day for the New Zealand internet".

He told Computerworld the filter went live on February 1 but DIA has delayed announcing that until it held a meeting with its Independent Reference Group. He says he's disappointed the launch was conducted in such a "stealthy mode".

The manager of the Department of Internal Affairs' Censorship Compliance Unit, Steve O'Brien, denies any subterfuge in the launch, saying the trial has been going on for two years and that has been communicated to media for "quite some time".

"The Independent Reference Group has met and the filter system processes were demonstrated as set out in the code of practice, that is that the website filtering system prevents access to known websites containing images of child sexual abuse," says O'Brien.

Beagle says the DIA refuses to say which other ISPs will be joining the filter, claiming the right to negotiate in secret.

However, Tech Liberty understands that Telstra Clear, Telecom and Vodafone have said they will implement the filter, with Orcon, Slingshot and Natcom saying that they won't.

Vodafone spokesman Paul Brislen says Vodafone took part in the filter trial and is awaiting word from the DIA about the next steps. The company will likely use the filter, he says, and when it does customers will be informed.

Orcon CEO Scott Bartlett says it is not true to say Orcon will not be taking part.

"We are still working with officials to fully evaluate this and ensure it doesn't impact on our customers' experience," he says.

O'Brien says there is no compulsion for ISPs to tell their customers their internet service is being filtered.

"It's a voluntary system and there's no legislation," he says, adding he understands the ISPs currently on the system have informed their customers.

David Zanetti, technical spokesperson for Tech Liberty, says he fears the stability of the New Zealand internet will be at risk.

"It is a single point of failure, introduces a new and very tempting target for hackers, and by diverting traffic will cause issues with modern internet applications."

O'Brien, however, says ISPs are being brought on gradually in a staggered way.

Tech Liberty says it is also concerned about the expansion of government powers represented by the filter.

"It establishes the principle that the government can choose to arbitrarily set up a new censorship scheme and choose which material to block, with no reference to existing law," the group claims.

TechLiberty says the list of what is filtered is kept secret, in direct contrast to the rest of New Zealand's censorship regime where the Chief Censor must publish decisions banning offensive material.

O'Brien says the Department is writing to all ISPs advising them that the filter is available to them and they will be brought on gradually.

"We anticipate all major ISPs will embrace this development as they have the many other filters they employ on the internet for a range of purposes.

"The Digital Child Exploitation filter provides them with the means to prevent their customers from accessing these illegal websites, inadvertently or otherwise and will assist in raising awareness of the worldwide problem of child sexual exploitation."

He says trials over two years showed that the filter does not affect the speed or stability of the internet and participating ISPs are happy with the performance of the system.

 

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Thursday, March 11, 2010
Operation Titstorm Anonymous declares war on Australian Censorship
From the New Zealand Herald:

.... ?Operation Titstorm, part of an assault targeting a range of government servers.... launched by hackers aligned with an internet protest group known as Anonymous.... Although the Australian government knew about the planned assault last Friday, it was powerless to prevent it. Along with the cyber-offensive there were threatening phone calls, made anonymously to high-ranking civil servants. Senior staff in the Parliamentary Services department also had their emails spammed in spectacular ways....

The federal government plans to introduce a mandatory filtering system by early 2011 that would block a list of banned websites... The system would make Australia one of the worlds most rigorous internet regulators.... some pornographic films are being rejected by censors because they feature women with small breasts who could be confused with under-age girls. Anonymous said in an email: No government should have the right to refuse its citizens access to information solely because they perceive it to be unwanted. The Australian government will learn that one does not mess with our porn.?

Polls have found that the Australian public strongly supports the planned restrictions.

The flyer through which Anonymous published the event states "emails/faxes should focus on small-breasted porn, cartoon porn, and female ejaculation, the 3 types banned so far" - even if you buy the implied assumption that 'small breasted porn's women's only attraction lies in their resemblence to children,' this does not explain why female ejaculation is on the list.... never mind that such opinions are only culturally valid and thus are a flimsy basis indeed for the social stigma and possible jailtime that comes with prosecution for engaging in an activity that is no doubt far, far more ubiquitous than any results of government approved 'polls' could indicate. Even were I to trust (let's say, for the sake of argument) that these polls were actually precise, that is, sound of method and untweaked of result, I would still doubt their accuracy. What were the actual questions With a sample dempraphic drawn heavily from the middle of the road and slightly to the right, I find it hard to believe that they asked specifically about female ejaculation.

Even if they did - and I would bet a bit of gold that is not the case - would people have answered truthfully? It is quite telling that they always start with something like this, get their foot in the door. No 'honest citizen' would protest - not if the years of corporate media brainwashing had taken. Soon they will be attempting to control and censor in other areas, either with little likelihood of protest, little publicity, or both. Then - wapishta! - then moving in for the prize, to political control. To the contraband, be it drugs or downloads. Lucrative political control.

Perhaps the Australian public is somehow immune to the epidemic mental illness crippling most Americans today; perhaps my outrage is naive. Of course I am speaking about communitty aquired Counterargument Resistant Confundatio Iurisprudentiae (CRCI): the persistent lack of distinction between what is actually a moral good and what is merely not prohibited by law.

Actually, in the list of websites leaked when the censorship was first proposed, the merely political was already evident. They lost no time.

To my fellow Agents of Internet Freedom in Australia I say: Good luck.
 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Go after the crooks and leave our internet alone.
 
SMH
 
Internet access seen as a right: poll
March 9, 2010 - 11:20AM

More than three-quarters of people across the world believe access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll carried out for the BBC indicates.

The poll, which questioned more than 27,000 adults across 26 countries, suggested strong support globally for access to the web.

The findings released on Monday come as efforts are stepped up across the world to increase net access, with the United Nations leading a push for more people to be given the opportunity to get online.

Countries including Finland and Estonia have already ruled it is a human right, said the BBC.

"The right to communicate cannot be ignored," Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union, told the broadcaster.

"The internet is the most powerful potential source of enlightenment ever created."

Almost 79 per cent of those questioned said they strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the description of the internet as a "fundamental right of all people." This included people who had access and those who did not.

A total of 87 per cent of internet users questioned in the poll, carried out by GlobeScan for the BBC, felt access should be a right, while more than 70 per cent of non-users agreed with this view.

Mexico, Brazil and Turkey were among countries where support was highest, according to the survey.

The findings also suggested people in a diverse range of countries felt the web was a vital part of their lives. Three-quarters in Japan, Mexico and Russia said they could not cope without it.

South Korea, where nearly all citizens enjoy high-speed net access, had the greatest majority of people - 96 per cent - who believed access was a fundamental right.

The US Treasury Department on Monday eased sanctions on Iran, Cuba and Sudan to allow exports by US companies of services related to web browsing, blogging, email, instant messaging, chat, social networking and photo- and movie-sharing.

"We're supporting the right of free expression," US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday

The decision to allow exports of web tools to Iran was intended to allow Iranians to "communicate without being blocked by their own government", she explained.

AFP

 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

We are not advocating that the internet should be used for breaking the Law. We are saying the internet and users should remain free to express opinions and share information free from spying by Government agencies.This includes the Australian Government. What happens in the US affects the internet in Australia.Go after the crooks and leave us alone.
 
Feds weigh expansion of Internet monitoring
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10463665-38.html

Greater federal involvement in privately operated networks may spark privacy or surveillance concerns, not least because of the NSA's central involvement in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping scandal. Earlier reports have said that Einstein 3 has the ability to read the content of emails and other messages, and that AT&T has been asked to test the system. (The Obama administration says the "contents" of communications are not shared with the NSA.)

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
And of course Obama keeps all his promises!

DNS Down
http://dnsdown.com/

This site is dedicated to the proposition, that one day, DNS will NOT be available. Due to malicious hackers, UN intervention (so called "Net Neutrality" laws or treaties, "Internet Fairness Doctrines", or other MISmanagement interventions (content firewalls), or just plain old fashioned WAR, if the DNS system goes down, or your sites are blocked, even though the whole internet isn't, you're down...but maybe not. With a new twist on an old technology, you won't even feel a glitch. If you DOWNLOAD our products, you will have your own private DNS SERVER, which taken together, are impervious to DNS problems.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
The only problem with a local DNS is that it does not get automatic updates. If a website you know and love like WRH changes their IP (as we did a few weeks back) you will have to manually change the local hosts file.

But as a backup to a "terrorist" (nudge nudge) take-down of DNS, this might be handy to hang onto!

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Notice how quiet the Federal Opposition is on this matter. They want the same Laws for the same reason. Control of what you see and read. We are not advocating the publication and easy access to websites which are criminal websites ala child pornography, terrorism, drug running and other unacceptable websites. All Law abiding Australians want them blocked, a technical process which is easy to implement.
 
 
Australia censorship debate censored on Communications ministers website
It?s all kind of ironic when you think about it

By John Ozimek  The Register  25th February 2010

If you?re planning to censor free speech on the internet, what better approach to take than to, er, censor debate about how you?re planning to censor free speech on the internet? Brilliant.

That, according to one sharp-eyed Register reader, is the game being played by Australian Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, whose ministerial website is currently set up so as not to show searches on embarrassing terms such as ?ISP filtering?.

An increasingly common feature of interactive websites is the ?search cloud?: this is a listing out of search terms on a site, often with the added feature that the most frequently appearing terms are picked out by size or weight of type.

The Minister?s official site http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/ is no exception, and visitors wishing to know what other visitors are searching on just have to take a look at the search cloud at bottom right of the landing page. Well that?s all they need to do unless they wish to find out about ?ISP Filtering?, an issue that has been the cause of some controversy http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/17/australia_cyber_safety_no_opt_out/ in Australia over the past couple of years.

Nip below the page surface and you will find a clever bit of code that sets a counter to record the frequency of any given term, ranks the most frequently occurring terms  and then sets the size of that term within the cloud according to its rank (highest ranked is largest, lower ranked are smaller).

So far so good, unless the search term happens to be ISP Filtering. Because the other clever thing that the code does is to exclude that particular term from the search cloud. Sorted. Or not.

In recent weeks, protests against the minister?s censor-tastic activities have reached new heights, with a DDoS attack http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/10/aus_gove_ddos_protest/ directed both at the Australian Parliamentary website and at the site of the Communications Ministry. This action was characterised by Conroy as irresponsible ? presumably on the basis that in a democracy, government attitudes should be changed by debate and there is no need for direct action.

By contrast, evidence that the debate is being skewed in this way will undoubtedly add weight to those who claim that the government is not interested in discussing issues ? and the only way to make them sit up and listen is through direct action.

Meanwhile, appearing before the Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;
orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=wikileaks%20SearchCategory_Phrase:%22committees%22;querytype=SearchCategory_Phrase:committees;rec=5;resCount=Default earlier this month, representatives of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/PC=HOME revealed that they would not be pursuing an investigation of how Wikileaks got its hands on ACMAs list of banned URLs.

While they intend to tighten up processes, in the hope that such a thing will not happen again, they also acknowledged that the Federal Police ?considered the prospects of success under their guidelines not sufficiently strong enough to push on with the prosecution.

In addition, there were other more pressing ?operational priorities.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

THE AGE
 
MPs try to pull plug on internet filter
ARI SHARP
February 25, 2010

BACKBENCH MPs on both sides of politics opposed to the government's internet-filtering proposal are vigorously lobbying colleagues, creating a potential roadblock to the plan backed by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.

Four young Liberal MPs - Simon Birmingham, Alex Hawke, Michael Johnson and Jamie Briggs - are leading the charge against the filter within the Coalition, while Labor senator Kate Lundy is putting a case to her colleagues in favour of an optional filter.

Senator Conroy has won the backing of cabinet and is awaiting debate in the party room next month, while the Coalition is waiting for more detail. With the Greens indicating their opposition, the Coalition's position could decide the filter's fate.

The proposal involves internet service providers blocking access to websites that appear on a blacklist over content that falls foul of classification guidelines, including portrayals of sexual violence and instructions on committing crime.

Mr Hawke, a backbencher from Sydney, said his biggest objection was that the mandatory nature of the filter took control out of the hands of individuals. He also doubts the filtering's effectiveness.

''The government's stated aim of filtering child pornography is not something that many people could disagree with. But the point is it won't achieve that end,'' he said.

''People will still be able to access that illegal content ? and it will do all sorts of other things such as slow down the internet, plus potentially there will be lists of things censored that we don't really want censored, not related to pornography.''

Despite the opposition, McNair Ingenuity research released a fortnight ago found support for the filter running at 80 per cent.

On the Labor side, Senator Lundy has put forward an ''optional filtering'' proposal, by which households could indicate to internet service providers if they wanted a filter.

The legislation is scheduled during the autumn session of Parliament, which runs until next month.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

What the Americans propose and implement regarding the internet is critical to Australians. Few Australians understand it is American specialists who control the functioning and structure of the internet. So what the Americans do carries great implications for the world wide web.
 
It is also very probably that Sen Conroy has often picked up the phone to talk to the US Administration about these matters. To suppose this would not happen is to misunderstand the inter relationships between both Governments.
 
 
 
Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/

The US Government can no longer control society through deception and manufactured fear. So they are trying to build a "Silicon Curtain" around the people much the way the USSR built the Iron Curtain, and for the same purpose.

But the Iron Curtain fell, killed by nothing more than Fax machines, and so too will the Silicon Curtain fail, because the people know the truth is out there now, and will not go quietly back to the 1950s "Father Knows Best" fear-0the-commies blindness.

 
 
Controlling the Ability of People and Organizations to Access the Internet
 
by Bob Chapman
 
 
Global Research, February 14, 2010
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17607

The International Forecaster - 2010-02-13

Under the guise of ?protecting Americans? and choosing itself in so-called ?national security,? the current Obama administration wants to be able to control the ability of people and organizations to access the Internet.
 
This concept on its face seems very harmless and in the best interest of the country, however, having the ability to ?turn the Internet off or shutting down sites that Obama considers ?dangerous? including particular political groups, individuals or organizations who espouse differing views has far reaching political, financial, moral and legal implications.
 
Such a policy imposed under Executive Order to control what enters Internet sites and what is shared daily would stifle free speech in direct violation of the First Amendment rights of all Americans.
 
During the elections in Iran, its citizens using Facebook and Twitter got out 95% of the news from Iran. In America would our social sites be shut down if enough people using them ?dared? to question the current political regime in power at any given time? Sitting ominously in the Senate is the Rockefeller Bill S. 773 to takeover the Internet in emergencies. As we all know, once taken over, we will never get it back the way it was before. This is what elitists have in mind for us.
 
America?s brightest minds and taxpayers funds made the Internet happen, and now there are indications that the Obama administration is moving quietly to allow control of the web to move from the US to foreign powers. Such a transfer of power and control would change the future of mankind. This would be affected via our Department of Commerce.
 
America controls the Internet via the Domain name System (DNS), and the servers that serve the Internet. They are managed by IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, which operates via the Department of Commerce, being responsible for global cooperation and coordination of the DNS, IP addressing, and other Internet protocol sources. Without these elements one would not have access to the Internet.
 
Over the years, the UN and others internationally have been pressing the US to give away control and management to an international body. Those thirsting for this power are the UN and the International Telecommunications Union, which coordinates international telephone communications. Their argument is that the Internet has become a powerful and dependent form of communications, that is dangerous and inequitable for one nation to control and manage.
 
Our President has agreed to relinquish some control over IANA and its governance. Foreign companies and countries would have a greater say in what goes on in the Internet. This is the foot in the door. Before you know it the UN will have control and censorship will begin. No control should be given to any other country or body. It is not only our Internet; it is a matter of national security, which our government is up too. The world has been allowed to share this miracle free and without censorship or restriction. Do we want to end up like the Chinese, where their communist government recently told Google to censor the Internet? Do we want the UN to use the Internet as a source of funding? Do we want the UN or any participant country to restrict what we can say or do on the net? Do we want limitations on free speech? That is what the UN has planned for us. The Internet will no longer be a vehicle of free speech. Why would we want to give away one of our most precious and greatest assets for nothing to a group that is bent on enslaving us via one-world government? Once our control is gone we will never get it back.
 
The Council on Foreign Relations, literary house organ that we have subscribed to for 50 years, Foreign Affairs, tells us that many governments feel that, like the telephone network, the Internet should be administered under a multilateral treaty. They view ICANN as an instrument of American hegemony over cyberspace and that its private-sector approach favors the US and gives it oversight authority, and that other nations have no say as to what goes on in the Internet. Then again, we did invent it and do own it. Its private construction was deliberately implemented to keep government out of the net, not for the US or any other government or body to control it. South Africa, Brazil and China as stooges for one-world interests are demanding an international treaty, so the UN can control it. Adding to the demands are the intellectually void countries of Zimbabwe, Cuba and Syria. These three paragons of peace and prosperity want the UN to tell us how to run our Internet.
 
UN bureaucrats and ministers from under-developed nations in particular say the US has undue influence over how things run on line. They want a treaty under which their regimes cannot be criticized. They want Internet surveillance and the power to tax domain names to pay for universal access and, of course, to fund their regimes. They in their protestations have no intention of stopping spam because much of it emanates from their countries. They want all kinds of censorship. Can you imagine what China or Cuba?s demands would be? China and Cuba are both dictatorships. Why would such one-party states be allowed in the UN, never mind telling us how censorship would work? Both jail people for political decent and sometimes execute them. We can also throw Iran in for good measure. This is a nation with one political party that in 2003 jailed 80 journalists and activists. Then Iran wants UN control so that thousands of immoral websites can be banned. This war by the internationalists to control the Internet is not new. It began in 1999. That is when the UN proposed taxing all e-mail messages to pay for development aid.
 
You cannot legislate morals. That is reflected in our unsuccessful ventures into legislation of alcohol, drugs, sex and tobacco and now the UN wants to legislate all kinds of content. Are we to allow the curtailment of our First Amendment rights? We do not think so. Are we to tolerate Cyber Patrols or Net Nannies?
 
In addition we now have cyber crime investigators pushing for the creation of a national web interface linking police computers. 89% of police say they want to look into e-mail accounts in a broad push by law enforcement agencies to alter the ground rules of online investigations. They want laws requiring Internet companies to store data for up to five years and they want instant access to police inquiries instead of waiting hours or days for responses from Internet companies. They want emergency access like the FBI had and terribly abused that privilege to get phone numbers. In the Internet the police want information now not after a review of whether the request is appropriate.
 
This is where the President wants to take us and we do not like it. Be sure to contract your house and Senate representatives and let them know how you feel about this abridgment of your privacy and your rights. If you do not act now, it may be too late later.

Google joins new anti-filter coalition
http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/regulation/36838-google-joins-new-anti-filter-coalition

Search giants Google and Yahoo have joined the Australian Library and Information Association and Inspire Foundation to create a coalition of online interests to lobby against Rudd Government plans to filter the internet.

It had to happen. I have been linking to WRH for years but it seems the Government may no longer like Australians reading WRH. I am not gunna give the Government a free tip but as usual any attempts to censor WRH anywhere is easily overcome. Notice how quiet the Federal Opposition is on this issue? They want the same Laws for the same reasons. 
 
Australian traceroute confirms "Silicon Curtain" - WRH now banned in Australia and New Zealand
http://www.hafey.org/cgi-bin/trace.sh?whatreallyhappened.com
 
traceroute to whatreallyhappened.com (69.175.20.138), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 203.98.69.1 (203.98.69.1) 7.761 ms 0.214 ms 0.229 ms
2 203.98.85.197 (203.98.85.197) 19.310 ms 31.377 ms 19.733 ms
3 122.252.0.204 (122.252.0.204) 0.928 ms 1.376 ms 1.336 ms
4 1129.ge-0-0-0.GW8.SYD2.ALTER.NET (203.166.42.253) 149.99 ms 3.85 ms 1.658 ms
5 0.so-7-2-0.XT3.SYD2.ALTER.NET (210.80.33.189) 64.687 ms 7.974 ms 1.358 ms
6 0.so-6-0-0.IR1.LAX12.Alter.Net (210.80.49.85) 188 ms 193.436 ms 190.899 ms
7 0.so-5-0-0.IL1.LAX9.ALTER.NET (152.63.48.65) 165.922 ms 163.510 ms 151.845 ms
8 0.so-7-0-0.XL3.LAX15.ALTER.NET (152.63.112.53) 141.205 ms 152.276 ms 151.581 ms
9 0.xe-11-0-0.BR2.LAX15.ALTER.NET (152.63.116.157) 165.709 ms 158.779 ms 159.847 ms

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com
I tried traceroute to WRH from several traceroute servers in Australia and New Zealand. Australians are behind a "Silicon Curtain" not unlike the Iron Curtain of the USSR!

UPDATE: Apparently some Australians and New Zealanders are able to see this website if they are using non-default DNS servers like OpenDNS and GoogleDNS, or if they go through a proxy server.

I have some new web stat tools to play with and am tracking web visit from down under today to see how they differ from the previous server.

One reader has written in saying they cannot connect to WRH through Comcast.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Since 9/11 Governments have used the threat of terrorism to implement increasingly austere security measures, which in many cases have more to do with Government control than protecting the population.
 
Secondly Governments and others do not like being held to account. They do not like the internet because it has given the population a measure of control and monitoring. To get what they want on the internet Governments will use the fear of child abuse and child pornography to get what they want.What they want is denying you accurate information.
 
Beware any Government which wants to control what you read and see.And notice how quiet the Opposition has been on this matter. They too want the same Laws for the same reasons.
 
Conroy's filter on the wrong side of an emerging ideological fight
CHRIS ZAPPONE
February 12, 2010
 

Labor Senator Stephen Conroy seems oblivious to what an internet filter could lead to. Photo: Harry Afentoglou

The dispute between the US and China over internet freedom could mark the beginning of a new global ideological struggle. If Australians think it will make for some interesting viewing from the sidelines, they should consider how the internet restrictions planned here are viewed against this changing backdrop.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy will introduce legislation to block "refused classification" or banned websites at the internet service provider-level. It would prevent those sites from appearing on Australian web browsers. The plan is designed to protect families from objectionable material, not to quash political dissent, Conroy says.

But no matter how benign the government's intentions, Australia's ISP-filtering has already damaged the country's reputation in the global technology community, putting a question mark over its belief in a free internet.

The fear isn't that the Australian government is taking a hardline on child sexual material. There are already laws to tackle that crime. The worry is that once the infrastructure for filtering the web is in place, its use will slowly expand. That's typically the way technology works, with one tool finding new applications as time goes on.

Web activists overseas are dubbing the proposal "The Great Firewall of Australia". They, along with their local counterparts, worry that the nation is inadvertently setting a dangerous precedent for similar governments to take an active hand in regulating the flow of information online.

Google's recent threat to exit the Chinese market adds to the poignancy of the struggle over internet freedom. The US-based web search company objects to cyber attacks originating in China and its obligation to continue to co-operate with that government's censorship program.

The US government, with whom Google consulted before announcing its position, has staked out new ground on the issue as well. Last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explicitly laid out the US's belief that governments shouldn't control or curb access to the internet.

Her speech, linking the right to connect online with the right to assemble was aimed in large part at China, but also at countries like Tunisia and Uzbekistan. While no one would claim the intention of Australia's filtering is political, on a technical level it puts the country in the ranks of some unseemly company, and in the process helps legitimise a heavy-handed government approach.

In fact, industry sources say that democratic governments' seeking of restrictions on searches and web access encourage repressive governments to ask for the same.

Australia's plan, for the record, primarily requires the co-operation of the ISPs, but high-traffic sites such as Google-owned YouTube would be affected too. Google with a "bias in favour of people's right to free expression" has said it opposes Conroy's plan because it's too broad in scope.

With tensions rising between China and the rest of the world over trade policy, internet freedom is emerging as a 21st century human rights issue.

Recall that China's systematic human rights abuses had been a stumbling block for its accession to the World Trade Organisation in 2001. The business lobby in the West insisted political reforms in China would follow market reforms. But that was back when market reforms were the catch-all solution to most of the ills plaguing emerging economies. Google entered the Chinese market with high hopes for reform as well.

Many things have changed since China joined the WTO ? one of the biggest being the financial crisis that has shaken the world's faith in the wisdom or durability of the global market.

With free market supporters being challenged by other stake holders in global affairs, we are likely to hear much more about internet freedom as a point of ideological difference. It's something all nations have a stake in.

China for its part shows little inclination to blink at the US's policy shift. A state-run newspaper in China said the US was advocating "information imperialism", a term that would likely make George Orwell roll in his grave.

That China has no interest in seriously relaxing its controls over the internet should be no surprise. The country is big enough to generate its own axis of gravity in the world's affairs, and has shown a willingness to chart its own course.

With neither China nor the US and the West yielding on the point, the prospect for an ideological divide looks more probable.

In this context, the debate over how much freedom a government should ensure online suggests Conroy won't be able to claim this is simply a local issue.

Chris Zappone is a reporter for Fairfax Digital's BusinessDay.


Source: theage.com.au

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Internet Censorship Protest Shuts Down Australian Government Websites

Hacker group in demonstration against web filter that blocks sites deemed offensive by authorities

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, February 11, 2010

Hackers protesting government censorship of the Internet have shut down several Australian government websites in a demonstration against the announcement that filters would be imposed to block access to websites deemed offensive by the authorities.

The campaign was launched by the anti-Scientology group Anonymous in response to plans to implement a mandatory and wide-ranging internet filter modeled on that of the Communist Chinese government.

This is not the first time the group has attacked government websites, having launched a similar stunt last September.

The main government website, www.australia.gov.au, and parliaments www.aph.gov.au were both affected along with the sites for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, reports AFP.

No one messes with our access to perfectly legal (or illegal) content for any reason, said a statement released by the group.

The Australian government attacked the campaign as not a legitimate form of political statement.

Despite the Australian government promising that the Internet filter would only be used to block access to child pornography and other illegal websites, the watchdog group Electronic Frontiers Australia warned that the law will also allow the government to block any website it desires under vague definitions.

In March 2009, the Wikileaks website published a leaked secret list of sites slated to be blocked by Australia?s state-sponsored parental filter.

The list revealed that blacklisted sites included online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)


The filter will even block web-based games deemed unsuitable for anyone over the age of fifteen, according to the Australian government.

Calls to mandate Internet users to obtain licenses, in other words government permission, before they can post to the web have grown in recent weeks, with top Microsoft executive Craig Mundie insisting at the recent Davos Economic Forum that the Internet should be policed.

Within days, Time Magazine enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon to back Mundies proposal, as authorities push for a system even more stifling than in Communist China, where only people who have been approved by the authorities would be allowed to express free speech.

ISPs across the world, including in supposed democratic countries like the UK, the US and New Zealand, have periodically blocked access to Alex Jones? websites without justification and only restored access after a barrage of complaints.

As we have highlighted before, although the merits of hacking as a form of protest can be debated, what seems certain to happen is that governments will launch a false flag cyber attack which will cause a major catastrophe that can then be blamed on the free Internet, acting as a pretext to tighten the screws on plans for centralized regulation and censorship which are already in place.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Government websites hacked in protest
Article from: AAP
 
February 10, 2010

WEBSITES were shut down, public servants received threatening phone calls and pornography was plastered across Kevin Rudd's home page in a major cyber protest against government plans to filter the internet.

 The government's Cyber Security Operations Centre discovered the attack was coming on February 5 but was unable to stop the parliament house website going offline and Prime Minister Rudd's site becoming home to "Operation Titstorm".

Internet protest group Anonymous, known for its regular attacks on Scientology websites, was behind the actions which were led by a so-called denial of service charge on www.aph.gov.au.

Just after 8am (AEDT) on Wednesday morning the parliament's website was hit by 7.5 million requests for communication per second, Parliamentary Services Secretary Alan Thompson told AAP.

"We had some advice in the lead-up to today there was going to be some cyber attack," Mr Thompson said.

Senior staff inside the department also had their emails spammed "in spectacular ways".

High ranking public servants were telephoned as part of the attack.

"Aggressive but anonymous phone calls are being made to the offices of various parliament house executives," an internal parliamentary services email obtained by AAP said.

While the initial attack was stopped about 9am (AEDT), further attacks continued throughout the day.

The proposed internet filter would crack down on pornography.

The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy's website also experienced a degraded service, a spokesman from the Attorney-General's Department said.

The spokesman said government agencies identified as potential targets by the group had been briefed on the threat, and were provided with strategies to help stop a hacking attempt.

At 1.30pm (AEDT) the spokesman said the Australian Parliament House website was back online, however, at 2.10pm (AEDT) it was once again inaccessible.

Parliament House's fax system was also hit with spam.

Defence Minister John Faulkner said the Cyber Security Operations Centre remained on watch.

"As inquiries are ongoing it would be inappropriate for me to comment further," Senator Faulkner's spokesman said.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

You'll have to persist with the TV clip because the server is being overloaded with downloads. Australians must watch this.
Remember Governments have learned well over the last 30 years or so and they will act to control what you read and see on the internet by stealth and they will do it incrementally, slowly, and tell you it must be done to protect Australians from all sorts of nonsense threats.

Alex Jones - Censorship: Internet Takeover Has Begun
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9950
Your Internet freedom is under attack by HIGH LEVEL AUTHORITIES!

 

You Want My Internet? Come And Take It!
http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/you-want-my-internet-come-take-it/

All you people who have an opinion should be ashamed of yourselves. Did you stop to think that maybe your shared thoughts might be at odds with the agenda our betters have planned for us? I didn?t think so. Well they showed you, didn?t they? The hand that feeds has now decided that you have had too many treats. So now, if you want more, you?re going to have to beg! Bad dog!


But did you ever try to take a garden hose to two dogs mating in the street? Does that stop them? No! They just move on down the road and look for another spot to hook up. And that may be precisely what we are going to have to do.

[Keith]

The Rising Tide of Internet Censorhsip
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100205_rising_tide_internet_censorship.htm
 
The focus is back on Internet censorship this week as a pair of articles from Time Magazine and The New York Times came out almost simultaneously advocating for licences to operate web sites. These articles were skillfully skewered by Paul Joseph Watson as lame attempts to shore up a disintegrating establishment media in the face of a blogosphere that is increasingly replacing them.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

An accurately and honestly informed public is powerful. Governments and Oppositions who are frightened of the people try to hide information from us.
 
SA backs down on internet comment control
ABC NEWS
 
SA backs down on attempts to curb political comment online (ABC)

South Australia's Attorney-General Michael Atkinson admits he misjudged public opinion on the state's attempt to curb political comment on the internet.

Mr Atkinson says he will repeal a law which would have meant that anyone posting comment or blogs during an election period would have had to publish their real name and postcode online.

Opponents had branded the law an attack on freedom of speech, and Mr Atkinson says listened to community concerns in his decision to overturn it.

"I now understand that bloggers demand the right to publish, on the net, political commentary in the election period anonymously or under an assumed name," he said.

The state Opposition says Mr Atkinson should resign over the matter.

The legislation was supported by the Opposition Liberal Party but shadow attorney-general Vickie Chapman now says the party was misled.

"He clearly wanted to use this legislation to hunt down any of those who criticised him or the Government and that was made absolutely clear yesterday by his statements and behaviour," she said.

"And indeed even the information and assurances were given by the Electoral Commissioner, [and] we consider she has been misled."

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Something to hide maybe........................
 
New state law gags web debate
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26665782-953,00.html
 
SOUTH Australia has become one of the few states in the world to censor the internet under laws created by Attorney-General Michael Atkinson.

Over the last 30 years or so Governments have learned very well indeed. Instead of one big cataclysmic over night change so to speak they implement change incrementally, so that most out there in snooze land never really notice what is going on. This applies right across all levels of Government and in all areas of Law and administration. By the time the snoozers realise what has happened it is too late. In the meantime those who watch these changes closely and warn the population are largely ignored.The good news is many Australians are becoming more aware. There is no doubt this SA Law is the thin edge of the wedge.
 
SA Govt defends internet 'censorship'
ABC NEWS

 
New SA law affects comment on politics (ABC News: Tim Leslie)

Audio: Attorney-General Michael Atkinson defends tougher internet rules on making political comment in SA. (Local Radio)
South Australia's Attorney-General has defended tougher laws on political comment made on the internet.

During election periods, anyone posting comment or blogs must publish their real name and postcode.

Michael Atkinson says it has long been a requirement that newspapers verify personal details for letters published during election periods.

He says the new law, which has applied since early last month, ensures the public's right to know.

"[It's really about] the right to know who's making a comment during an election period," he said.

"It will only apply to newspapers and extensions of newspapers."

Mr Atkinson says television and radio has always been regulated by the Commonwealth and it is most likely that comment on websites such as the ABC's would fall into that category.

The editor of The Advertiser newspaper Melvin Mansell is outraged by the Attorney-General's move.

"What the Attorney-General is trying to achieve here is to avoid any criticism whatsoever of government policy," he said.

"The clear implication is that if you show enough dissent he's going to take action against you."

There is concern that the government's powers may extend to political comment made on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

A coalition of major newspapers has branded the new law as draconian censorship of public comment.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Clinton speech boosts anti-filter campaign
By Ashley Hall for PM and wires

ABC NEWS

 
Ms Clinton urged global condemnation of countries which build electronic barriers to parts of the internet. (AFP: Pal Pillai )

Video: China should investigate cyber attacks: Clinton (ABC News Breakfast)
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201001/r501848_2656584.asx

Audio: US warns against internet censorship (PM)
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/pm/201001/20100122-PM-03-Clinton-internet.mp3
 
Related Story: Critics blast 'great firewall of Australia'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772781.htm

Related Story: Internet filter plan 'wasting time, money'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/02/2673749.htm
 
Related Story: Rudd website attacked in filter protest
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/10/2681642.htm

Related Story: Computer says no: Google slams filter
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/16/2773749.htm
 
Related Story: Google threatens to quit China over spying
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/13/2791223.htm

Australia and the United States appear to be on a collision course on the issue of internet censorship.

In a wide-ranging speech last night, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has accused countries that filter search engines of contravening the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

Taken literally, that is what the Australian Government has planned with the internet filtering regime it promised last month to introduce.

Critics of the filtering plan say the Federal Government should heed Senator Clinton's words and scrap the filter.

"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," Senator Clinton said in the speech.

And she urged global condemnation of countries which build electronic barriers to parts of the internet or filter search engines.

She singled out Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. China was clearly in her sights as well; internet giant Google has threatened to quit China over concerns about censorship and cyber attacks.


Censorship 'club'

The vice chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia, Colin Jacobs, opposes the Federal Government's internet censorship plan.

"China is not alone in censoring the internet - and that's a club that Australia is unfortunately set to join if the Rudd Government get their way this year," he said.

"[Senator Clinton] did say that censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere and that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet or to websites or to each other. And that's exactly what the Rudd Government has in mind."

The Government's plan involves asking internet service providers to block content that the National Classification Board decides should be "Refused Classification".

Such content includes child sex abuse content, bestiality and instructions in crime and drug use.

In a statement, the responsible Australian Government minister, Stephen Conroy, welcomed Senator Clinton's speech.

He says the Government also agrees with her observations that all societies recognise that "freedom of expression has its limits".

But Mr Jacobs says Senator Conroy is taking Senator Clinton's words out of context.

"She goes on to say that we acknowledge that there are limits to free speech but the internet is so important that we can't jeopardise the advantages by introducing censorship," he said.

"So the Government has sort of twisted the words to throw their own policy in a better light."


'Badgering China'

Mr Jacobs is hoping the US will push a free-internet agenda in bilateral meetings with Australia.

But that is unlikely, according to Michael McKinley, a senior lecturer in international relations and strategy at the Australian National University.

"I don't think Hillary Clinton's comments were aimed at Australia," he said.

"They were really aimed at harassing and badgering China for obvious reasons and for some quite good reasons."

Dr McKinley does not think it will challenge Senator Clinton's authority if she is waving a stick at China over internet freedom yet letting Australia plough its own course.

"If we expect consistency from United States Cabinet members, particularly a Secretary of State, I think we've sorely misplaced our expectations, because this is a measure aimed primarily at China at this point in time," he said.

Dr McKinley also argues the issue will not be contentious between the two countries, because he does not believe the proposed internet filter in Australia will actually work.

That is a view shared by the President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Susan Harris-Rimmer.

"That depicts the fine regulation because it keeps being able to be hacked into [and able to] overcome all kinds of government control," she said.

"So it's the beauty and the danger of the net that governments are trying to deal with and they're not doing a very good job of it yet."

Dr Harris-Rimmer says the broader question that must be settled is which infringements on the rights of people to access information on the internet are legitimate in the interest of public safety, and which are not.


China condemns US

But China has come out condemning any criticism of Beijing's controls on the internet, saying Washington's push against online censorship could harm relations between the two big powers.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said the US criticisms could hurt ties between the two nations, which are both among the world's biggest economies.

"The US has criticised China's policies to administer the internet and insinuated that China restricts internet freedom," Mr Ma said.

"This runs contrary to the facts and is harmful to China-US relations.

"We urge the United States to respect the facts and cease using so-called internet freedom to make groundless accusations against China."

But the Chinese spokesman also indicated that his government did not want to see the dispute overwhelm cooperation with the Obama administration, which has sought Beijing's backing on economic policy and diplomatic stand-offs, such as Iran and North Korea.

- ABC/Reuters

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Coming to Australia soon, if it's not already in operation now.Ever wondered what the other side of the national broadband network roll out may be about? Naturally the Police must have the power to seek Court Orders for intercepts based on good sound intelligence and they have these powers NOW. Nobody of responsible mind argues with this.  But this NZ intrusion is about treating everybody as a criminal until they prove otherwise.The I have nothing to fear if I am not doing anything wrong apology is a cop out, a sell out to big Government which wants more control over our daily lives.

 

NZ's cyber spies win new powers

By NICKY HAGER - Sunday Star Times

Last updated 09:10 03/01/2010

 

New cyber-monitoring measures have been quietly introduced giving police and Security Intelligence Service  officers the power to monitor all aspects of someone's online life.

The measures are the largest expansion of police and SIS surveillance capabilities for decades, and mean that all mobile calls and texts, email, internet surfing and online shopping, chatting and social networking can be monitored anywhere in New Zealand.

In preparation, technicians have been installing specialist spying devices and software inside all telephone exchanges, internet companies and even fibre-optic data networks between cities and towns, providing police and spy agencies with the capability to monitor almost all communications.

Police and SIS must still obtain an interception warrant naming a person or place they want to monitor but, compared to the phone taps of the past, a single warrant now covers phone, email and all internet activity.

It can even monitor a person's location by detecting their mobile phone; all of this occurring almost instantaneously.

Police say in the year to June 2009, there were 68 interception warrant applications granted and 157 people prosecuted as a result of those interceptions.

Police association vice-president Stuart Mills said the new capabilities are required because criminals were using new technologies to communicate, and that people who weren't committing criminal offences had little to fear.

However, civil liberties council spokesman Michael Bott said the new surveillance capabilities are part of a step-by-step erosion of civil rights in New Zealand.

Police Minister Judith Collins responded to questions from the Sunday Star-Times about the new surveillance capabilities, saying: "I support the rule of law." In last year's budget she approved extra police funds to subsidise companies wiring surveillance devices into their telecommunications networks.

The measures are the consequence of a law, the 2004 Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act, which gave internet and network companies until last year to install devices allowing automated access to internet and cellphone data.

Telecom, Vodafone and TelstraClear had earlier 2005 deadlines, and new cellphone provider 2degrees installed the interception equipment before launching last year.

Official papers obtained by the Star-Times show that, despite government claims that it was done for domestic reasons, the new New Zealand spying capabilities are part of a push by United States agencies to have standardised surveillance capabilities available for their use from governments worldwide.

While US civil liberties groups unsuccessfully fought these surveillance capabilities being used on US citizens, the FBI was lobbying other governments to adopt them. FBI Director Robert Mueller III told a senate committee in March last year that the FBI needs "global reach" to fight cyber-crime and terrorism and that co-operation with "law enforcement partners" gives it "the means to leverage the collective resources of many countries".

Auckland lawyer Tim McBride, author of the forthcoming New Zealand Civil Rights Handbook, says our politicians had let down New Zealanders when they yielded to the foreign pressure and imported US-style surveillance into New Zealand.

He said "monitoring email, internet chatting and Facebook is like the police and SIS planting bugs in every cafe and park. It would probably help solve a few crimes, but the cost is just too great".

The 2004 New Zealand law, which mirrors laws overseas, requires the content of any communication plus "call associated data", such as times, phone numbers, IP addresses and mobile phone locations, to be able to be copied and sent to the police, SIS or Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) at the time of transmission or "as close as practicable" to that time.

In practice, a specialist said, this means someone's email can be "at the agency within one or two minutes of it actually being on the wires".

When the police and SIS were pushing for the interception capability law they argued repeatedly that it would not "change or extend in any way the existing powers".

But civil libertarians say that the invisibility of electronic surveillance reduces the opportunity to challenge it.

A technician familiar with the developments said the previous surveillance technology dated from the early 1980s when the Telecom phone system went digital. Police bugged individual phones and could request suspects' call logs.

More recently police had taken a warrant to telcos and gone away with printed emails, but did it rarely as there were problems using the evidence in court.

"This is the first big jump from there," said the technician.

"They've never had the powers to force ISPs to build in spying capabilities before now. I imagine law enforcement is very excited about this."

 

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Maybe the British Government wants ordinary people priced out of the internet. Maybe the Australian Government has a similar agenda?


Internet piracy measures 'will cost consumers ?500m'

The Digital Economy Bill, which requires internet service providers (ISPs) to disconnect users who are accused of illegal filesharing, will cost consumers up to ?500 million, the Government has estimated.

 

By Shane Richmond, Head of Technology (Editorial)
Published: 29 Dec 2009



The Digital Economy Bill is part of the Government's Digital Britain plans Photo: PA

The Bill, which is expected to become law next year, will add ?25 a year to the cost of broadband, according to ISPs. The Government?s impact assessment document [available in PDF form], which examines the likely effects of the Bill, estimates that around 40,000 households will give up their broadband connections entirely to avoid the higher fees.

The impact assessment, written by Lord Young, of the Department for Business Innovation and Skills, and Lord Davies, of the Department of Culture Media and Sport, estimates that the measures in the Bill will result in an extra ?1.7 billion for the entertainment industry over the next ten years. However, over the same period, it is estimated that consumers will pay between ?290 and ?500 million extra as ISPs pass their increased costs on to consumers.

 

Related Articles

Stephen Fry backs Digital Economy Bill protests on Twitter
No criminal penalties for illegal downloading
New laws to tackle illegal internet downloads
Anti-piracy powers in Digital Economy Bill
Illegal downloaders 'spend more on music'
Stop punishing fans, sell to them
Jeremy Hunt, the shadow culture secretary, told the Times newspaper: ?It is grossly unfair that Labour expects millions of innocent customers to pay extra each month because of the actions of a minority. By their own admission this will make broadband unaffordable to tens of thousands of people, which flies in the face of Government policy to increase take-up in disadvantaged communities.?

ISPs have been vocally opposing the Bill for some time. BT described the measures as a ?collective punishment?, while Carphone Warehouse called on the entertainment industry to pay for the measures, rather than consumers.

The Digital Economy Bill, championed by Lord Mandelson, requires ISPs to send warning letters to customers who are accused of illegally sharing files. If the letters are not effective, the Bill authorises further measures, including capping download speeds and disconnecting users entirely.

 

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

PsyOp Internet battle for Hearts, and Minds
 
The Internet revolution has changed the face of our planet. Over the last 20 years there's been a complete transformation of the way we live, conduct business, and share information. In the same amount of time, information technology has helped bring countless atrocities committed by governments, and global corporations into view. We've seen the rise of groups like "We Are Change", and birthing of the "Truth Movement"; which has kicked off a viral, and grassroots information wave. The Internet's been in many regards a saving grace of mankind, and in the same likeness the greatest threat to the establishment!

Recently, we had the Global Warming talks in Copenhagen; they were a failure! What else could come from the exposure of emails showing fudged data on Global Warming? Nothing is what. Climate Gate[1] changed what would have been global "Cap, & Trade" agreements, and other carbon tax legislation from an assured victory at Copenhagen, to an embarrassment. Al Gore decided it'd be better not to show up at all, after having to run from angry mobs, and being pelted by snow balls due to the leaks. The only thing that came of the conference, was a poor attempt at "saving face" through a non binding resolution.

The people hiding behind governments, and global corporations have long known the necessity of owning the Hearts, and Minds[2] of the people; in order to further their agendas. We've learned catchy phrases which embody the techniques. Some of these would include; "Divide, and Conquer", "Smoke, & Mirrors", "Order out of Chaos", "Problem, Reaction, Solution". Through the usage of these tools, perceptions can be changed, and goals can be accomplished. The US Govt. has actively sought to win the Hearts, and Minds of people openly since the Cold War.

During the height of the Cold War, and Civil Rights movement, the FBI created COINTEL[3]; which is an acronym of various programs the US Govt. used to deal with both issues. The methods used in COINTEL were inline with the techniques mentioned above. The overall goal was to control the information, and/or distort it so as to crush all legitimate opposition to the US Policy, or Hegemony of the time. This propaganda machine officially ended, but from the information presented below, it looks as though it is going stronger than ever before; and the Internet is the new battle ground.

There is subversion being committed across the World Wide Web on an ever increasing basis. The mainstream media has been very active in the shaping of our feelings, and thoughts, from the bottom up to meet current policy. We' have MSM Journalists self censoring for advancement, or towing the party line. We see corporate MSM censorship through management, Government censorship of the MSM, and all culminating into supporting policies, such as war[4]. A recent article regarding a book by Nick Davies called, "How the spooks took over the news", delves into how the world governments will insert stories at the community level, several years before a given agenda is needed.

"For the first time in human history, there is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it."

"The sheer ease with which this machinery has been able to do its work reflects a creeping structural weakness which now afflicts the production of our news. I've spent the last two years researching books about falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media."[4]

In the USA, we have several groups designated to shape, and alter perceptions. The U.S. Army Civil Affairs, and Psychological Operations Command (Airborne)[6], or USACAPOC(A), consists of 40 Army Reserve units, or around 10,000 soldiers, who are stationed across the USA, are among many leading the mission of COINTEL. They have two main components, Civil Affairs, which is largely made up of lawyers, judges, physicians, bankers, health inspectors, fire chiefs,[7] or other professionals who can deal directly with the Civil nature of shaping a communities perception. The other portion is Psychological Operations; both operate by sword, deed, and word to alter Hearts, and Minds.

Another tactic being used in the U.S. is to actually pay operatives to create havoc, or to further the fury of an average person, so they will attempt an act associated with a criminal, or terrorism element. Hal Turner is an example of an operative employed by the US Govt. to further agendas, and policies. In his own words,"I was not some street snitch"[8]; in fact in his own words,"I was a deep undercover intelligence operative". According to the FBI,"Special Agent Stephen Haug wrote that "[Turner's] value outweighs the discomfort associated with source's rhetoric. Source's unique access provides important intelligence which, if lost, would be irreplaceable." Another FBI memo cited that Turner "has proven highly reliable and is in a unique position to provide vital information on multiple subversive domestic organizations."[8] Note the words subversive domestic organizations.

Do you feel left out, or would you like to get in on the gravy train; while at the same time selling out your fellow man? The US Govt. with 5 million US Dollars is promoting, and paying bloggers, texters, and building websites across the Middle East, and North Africa![9] The official purpose is to spread ideologies, and learning to embrace others ideas. Of course through the wreaking putrid of the rhetoric comes the truth; it's to promote US Democracy through the Arab world. I can read the websites now,"Freedom is the freedom to comply with The Patriot Act!"

Countries like Israel implement direct subversion, or disinformation as well. [10]"Israel's Foreign Ministry is hiring students and demobilized soldiers who will work around the clock writing pro-Israeli responses on Internet websites all over the world.... presenting themselves as ordinary surfers...

This is in addition to the existing Israeli volunteer internet task forces & propaganda applications like Megaphone & GIYUS - a chief Israeli propagandist is interviewed below....

?Our people will not say: ?Hello, I am from the policy-explanation department of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and I want to tell you the following.? Nor will they necessarily identify themselves as Israelis. They will speak as net-surfers and as citizens, and will write responses that will look personal but will be based on a prepared list of messages that the Foreign Ministry developed.?[10]

Amongst the many groups on the Net fighting the struggle for Israel, is the Jewish Internet Defense Forces[11]. From their homepage,"leading the fight against antisemitism, and terrorism on the web, coordinating concerned citizens around the globe, and promoting jewish pride, knowledge, and unity." A striking quality about any of these different groups, or the controlled MSM, who are sent out to propagandize the Hearts, and Minds of the people, is that they always cite Anonymous sources, or don't cite who the "officials" are who said "what". These kinds of propaganda articles are now common place[12].

Other countries around the world are implementing strategies to combat the information wave of the Internet; which is destroying their hold on the Hearts, and Minds of people worldwide. Australia's Government has instituted their new Cyber Security Strategy[13]. The goals of it are of course always painted in a nice shiny, and clean picture. They'll be focusing on legitimate cyber crimes, and of course they'll have to monitor *possible* terrorist activities. They have created their own Computer Emergency Response Team, or CERT as the main crime fighter; the program will begin operation January 2010, and will coordinate their activities with other National CERT's across the globe to combat Internet crimes, or as is becoming abundantly clear, to infiltrate, and use propaganda to halt the Information revolution.

The saying goes something like, if at first you don't succeed, then try, try again; right? Well, that's exactly what the US Govt. is doing. The FBI now is installing super spyware on people's personal computers. They are using "Computer, and Internet Protocol Address Verifiers", or CIPAV to infiltrate personal computers, or systems, download all files, and upload to government servers in Virginia[14] It sounds somewhat "1984ish", but imagine with everything covered so far, and taking into context what COINTEL did by replacing words, or meanings, imagine what they can upload to your own computer without the users ever knowing.

It's not just the FBI with their fancy CIPAV, but the actual giant Internet companies who've been bought out are complicit with this ever increasing war for our Hearts, and Minds; through information. Google is catering to the CIA, NSA, FBI, and to most other Government agencies by offering the tools necessary to scavenge stored data, and other electronic media. They are also offering a closed "Intellipedia, a Wikipedia knock off for spooks.[15] Not only Google, but most US social networks have been caught selling private chats, photos, and emails to Governments.

The Internet is proving to be a real hassle for the corporate, and government elites. Leaked evidence that Yahoo is selling all documents for a given user to the U.S. Government for between $30 to $80 has surfaced recently. Not only are they selling the contents of what we feel is our private area, but also the Ip addresses of where we sign on.[16] This is not limited to Yahoo, and Google, but again spans the innertubes of the Internet. The U.S. Federal Government, and other government's are actively trying to not only use subversive means to control information, but also to mark those who present a problem; apparently so as to isolate them in the future.

It's a massive amount of data to be stored, and would almost seem impossible. However, we must remember the U.S. Govt., and the Federal Reserve print money 24 hours a day. They are building Fusion Centers across the country, and implementing computer systems such as Maincore. In Utah, the "National Security Agency is constructing a colossal $1.9 billion information storage center at Camp Williams which could be considered a power trip. But it's not the sort of power trip that keeps civil libertarians lying awake at night. No, this power grab is for the stuff of Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla ? the juice needed to keep acres of NSA supercomputers humming and a cyber eye peeled for the world's bad guys."[17] The problem is, that what the government considers as the bad guys is becoming the average American people, and in a hurry!

The deal is that people behind, or in control of governments, and global corporations realize the Internet is the one single threat that can create over night awareness into their ominous plans. They are attacking it, and people who are spreading information at every turn. Besides the leaks of Climate Gate, or Personal Data Gate, now there is the Secret Copyright Gate![18] See exert below:

"* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn?t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied the internet ? and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living ? if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

* That the whole world must adopt US-style ?notice-and-takedown? rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused ? again, without evidence or trial ? of infringing copyright. This will be a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

*There will be mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)[/quote] Visit link for full text."[18]

Welcome to the world of the DMCA's, and censorship![19] They are creating these treaties in combination with other censorship policies designed to limit access to undesirable websites; of course the policy maker's will decide what is "undesirable"[20], or which websites aren't fit to help foster the correct environment for the people in their country. It goes back to the beginning of this article; it is about winning, controlling, or owning the Hearts, and Minds of the people. Without owning those, the people behind the corporations controlling the policy makers who run governments cannot succeed. The Internet will be turned shortly, or the attempt will be made to turn it into an Orwellian hell of pay per click, or pay by minute. Followed with skewed, and distorted information.

It will take all of us to stop these people from censoring the Internet in their battle to win control our hearts and minds.

[1] http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Climate+ ... 32dbb01be6
[2] http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ing_slogan
[3] http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm
[4] http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2 ... ia-is.html
[5] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media ... 80672.html
[6] http://www.usacapoc.army.mil/
[7] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -psyop.htm
[8] http://rawstory.com/2009/11/report-fbi- ... placeable/
[9] http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... ney-at-it/
[10] http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2009/07/14/t ... overnment/
[10] http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2f1_1247746861&c=1
[11] http://www.thejidf.org
[12] http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1
[13] http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/327642 ... hting_team
[14] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/0 ... yware-pro/
[15] http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2 ... Google.htm
[16] http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=622292
[17] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... .html?pg=1
[18] http://dprogram.net/2009/11/04/secret-c ... -very-bad/
[19] http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/le ... rikes-and-
[20] http://www.infowars.com/death-of-the-in ... -websites/

Authored by:

Sancho Jones
 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Telecom firms' fury at plan for 'Stasi' checks on every phone call and email
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1238618/Telecom-firms-criticise-plan-Stasi-like-checks-phone-email.html

Telecoms firms have accused the Government of acting like the East German Stasi over plans to force them to store the details of every phone call for at least a year.

Under the proposals, the details of every email sent and website visited will also be recorded to help the police and security services fight crime and terrorism.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
The fastest way to stop terrorism is to stop f***ing around with other peoples' countries!

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

stephen conroy: minister for fascism  http://stephen-conroy.com/news.php


THE AUSTRALIAN DOMAIN ADMINISTRATOR TRIED TO TAKE US OFFLINE  SEE OUR PAGE HERE http://stephen-conroy.com/page.php?4 PRESS RELEASE HERE http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/12/prweb3369394.htm AND OPEN LETTER HERE  http://stephen-conroy.com/news.php?2

[Keith]

Death Of The Internet: Censorship Bills In UK, Australia, U.S. Aim To Block "Undesirable" Websites


Cutting off access altogether, massive fines and even jail time proposed for those who flout new laws
 

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, Dec 17, 2009  

Internet censorship bills currently working their way into law in the UK, Australia and the U.S. legislate for government powers to restrict and filter any website that it deems to be undesirable for public consumption.

In the UK, legislation slated as the "Digital Economy Bill" http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html currently being debated in the House of Lords, would allow the Home Secretary to place a technical obligation on internet service providers to block whichever sites it wishes.

Under clause 11 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html#j158 of the proposed legislation ?technical obligation? is defined as follows:

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.

In other words, the government will have the power to force ISPs to downgrade and even block your internet access to certain websites or altogether if it wishes.

The legislation comes in the wake of amplified UK government efforts to seize more power over the internet and those who use it.

For months now unelected "Secretary of State" Lord Mandelson has overseen government efforts to challenge the independence of the of UKs internet infrastructure. http://www.prisonplanet.com/mandelsons-dept-mulls-uk-internet-power-grab.html

Mandelson also wants to impose harsh policies, via the Digital Economy Bill, that would see users' broadband access cut off indefinitely http://www.prisonplanet.com/mandelson-web-cutoff-plan-potentially-illegal.html in addition to a fine of up to 50,000 without evidence or trial, if they download copyrighted music and films. The plan has been identified as "potentially illegal" by experts.

The legislation would impose a duty on ISPs to effectively spy on all their customers by keeping records of the websites they have visited and the material they have downloaded. ISPs who refuse to cooperate could be fined 250,000.

As Journalist and copyright law expert Cory Doctrow http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/19/breaking-leaked-uk-g.html has noted, the bill also gives the Secretary of State the power to make up as many new penalties and enforcement systems as he likes, without Parliamentary oversight or debate.

This could include the authority to appoint private militias, who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files in addition to the blocking of websites.

Mandelson and his successors will have the power to invent any penalty, including jail time, for any digital transgression he deems Britons to be guilty of.

Despite being named the Digital Economy Bill, the legislation contains nothing that will actually stimulate the economy and is largely based on shifting control over the internet into government hands, allowing unaccountable bureaucrats to arbitrarily hide information from the public should they wish to do so.

Mandelson began the onslaught on the free internet in the UK after spending a luxury two week holiday at Nat Rothschild's Corfu mansion http://www.prisonplanet.com/lording-it-up-at-a-rothschild-mansion-the-man-whos-supposed-to-be-running-the-uk.html with multi-millionaire record company executive David Geffen.

The Digital Economy Bill is intrinsically linked to long term plans by the UK government to carry out an unprecedented extension of state powers by claiming the authority to monitor all emails, phone calls and internet activity nationwide.

Last year the government announced its intention to create a massive central database http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882622.ece gathering details on every text sent, e-mail sent, phone call made and website visited by everyone in the UK.

The programme, known as the "Interception Modernisation Programme", would allow spy chiefs at GCHQ, the government?s secret eavesdropping agency, the centre for Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) activities (pictured above), to effectively place a live tap on every electronic communication in Britain in the name of preventing terrorism.

Following outcry over the announcement, the government suggested last April that it was scaling down the plans http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/97377 with then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith stating that there were "absolutely no plans for a single central store" of communications data.

However, as the "climbdown" was celebrated by civil liberties advocates and the plan was "replaced" by new laws requiring ISPs to store details of emails and internet telephony for just 12 months, fresh details emerged indicating the government was implementing a big brother spy system that far outstrips the original public announcement.

The London Times published leaked details of a secret mass internet surveillance http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6211101.ece project known as "Mastering the Internet" (MTI).

Costing hundreds of millions in public funds, the system is already being implemented by GCHQ with the aid of American defence giant Lockheed Martin and British IT firm Detica, which has close ties to the intelligence agencies.

A group of over 300 internet service providers and telecommunications firms has attempted to fight back over the radical http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/gloucestershireheadlines/Internet-firms-condemn-plans-GCHQ-access-email-records/article-1219267-detail/article.html plans, describing the proposals as an unwarranted invasion of people's privacy.

Currently, any interception of a communication in Britain must be authorised by a warrant signed by the home secretary or a minister of equivalent rank. Only individuals who are the subject of police or security service investigations may be subject to surveillance.

If the GCHQ's MTI project is completed, black-box probes would be placed at critical traffic junctions with internet service providers and telephone companies, allowing eavesdroppers to instantly monitor the communications of every person in the country without the need for a warrant.

Even if you believe GCHQ's denial that it has any plans to create a huge monitoring system, the current law under the RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) allows hundreds of government agencies access to the records of every internet provider in the country.

In publicly announced proposals to extend these powers, firms will be asked to collect and store even more vast amounts of data, including from social networking sites such as Facebook.

If the plans go ahead, every internet user will be given a unique ID code and all their data will be stored in one place. Government agencies such as the police and security services will have access to the data should they request it with respect to criminal or terrorist investigations.

This is clearly the next step in an incremental program to implement an already exposed full scale big brother spy system designed to completely obliterate privacy, a fundamental right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Similar efforts to place restrictions on the internet are unfolding in Australia where the government is implementing a mandatory and wide-ranging internet filter http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/like-china-iran-australia-filter-internet/ modeled on that of the Communist Chinese government.

Australian communication minister Stephen Conroy said the government would be the final arbiter on what sites would be blacklisted under ?refused classification.?

The official justification for the filter is to block child pornography, however, as the watchdog group Electronic Frontiers Australia http://www.efa.org.au/2009/12/17/filtering-coming-to-australian-in-2010/ has pointed out, the law will also allow the government to block any website it desires while the pornographers can relatively easily skirt around the filters.

Earlier this year, the Wikileaks website published a leaked secret list of sites slated to be blocked http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2009/03/19/1237054961100.html?page=fullpage by Australia's state-sponsored parental filter.

The list revealed that blacklisted sites included "online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist."

The filter will even block web-based games http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/web-filters-to-censor-video-games-20090625-cxrx.html deemed unsuitable for anyone over the age of fifteen, according to the Australian government.

The broad attack on the free internet is not only restricted to the UK and Australia.

The European Union, Finland, Denmark, Germany and other countries in Europe have all proposed blocking or limiting access to the internet and using filters like those used in Iran, Syria, China, and other repressive regimes.

In 2008 in the U.S., The Motion Picture Association of America http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/12/mpaa-obama asked president Obama to introduce laws that would allow the federal government to effectively spy on the entire Internet, establishing a system where being accused of copyright infringement would result in loss of your Internet connection.

In 2009 the Cybersecurity Act was introduced http://www.infowars.net/articles/june2009/010609Cyber.htm proposing to allow the federal government to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen?s information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications.

The legislation http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-773 introduced by Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in April, gives the president the ability to declare a cybersecurity emergency? and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any critical? information network in the interest of national security. The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president, according to a Mother Jones report http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet

During a hearing on the bill, Senator John Rockefeller betrayed the true intent behind the legislation when he stated, Would it have been better if wed have never invented the Internet, while fearmongering about cyber attacks on the U.S. government and how the country could be shut down.

Watch the clip below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8PCmLPPVnA&feature=player_embedded

The Obama White House has also sought a private contractor to "crawl and archive" data http://infowars.net/articles/september2009/160909Mapping.htm such as comments, tag lines, e-mail, audio and video from any place online where the White House "maintains a presence"  for a period of up to eight years.

Obama has also proposed scaling back a long-standing ban on tracking how people use government Internet sites http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002743.html with "cookies" and other technologies.

Recent disclosures under the Freedom Of Information Act also reveal that the federal government has several contracts http://epic.org/privacy/socialnet/gsa/ with social media outlets such as Youtube (Google), Facebook, Myspace and Flickr (Yahoo) that waive rules on monitoring users and permit companies to track visitors to government web sites for advertising purposes.

The U.S. military http://infowars.net/articles/may2008/060508DARPA.htm also has some $30 Billion invested in it's own mastering the internet projects.

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/170407internet.htm as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted "internet 2" system. All of the above represents stepping stones toward the realisation of that agenda.

The free internet is under attack the world over, only by exposing the true intentions of our governments to restrict the flow of data can we defeat such efforts and preserve the last vestige of independent information.

 

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

From: Colvin, Shelley (M. Johnson, MP)
To: Johnson, Michael (MP)
Sent: Thu Dec 17 15:25:57 2009

Subject: MEDIA RELEASE: Johnson - JOHNSON SLAMS FEDERAL LABORS ISP FILTERING AS STATE CENSORSHIP AND GOVERNMENT CONTROL BY STEALTH! - 17 December 2009
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**MEDIA RELEASE**

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17 December 2009

JOHNSON SLAMS FEDERAL LABORS ISP FILTERING AS STATE CENSORSHIP AND GOVERNMENT CONTROL BY STEALTH!

Federal Member for Ryan Michael Johnson MP again condemned the Labor Governments ISP Filtering policy for its anti-freedom and anti-democratic nature that has no place in an open and liberal Nation such as Australia.

 

I strongly condemn Federal Labors ISP Filtering because it is government censorship at its heart, dressed up as a family friendly policy to protect our children against access to inappropriate internet material, Mr Johnson said.

 

As a father myself, the protection of my son from the dark side of the internet is at the forefront of my responsibilities as a parent and any genuine policy that actually makes a difference would be welcome by all parents.

 

However, this Labor Governments policy is neither policy genuine nor does it make a real difference. It is in short state censorship and a means by which the national government can intrude and control the private actions of Australian citizens who are breaking no law.

 

We are an open democracy and a country that cherishes liberal thought and freedom of speech, which the internet represents.

 

The frightening question is where will Rudd?s state censorship and government intrusion into the privacy of our lives end? We have seen Mr Rudd try to make homebirths illegal and take away the right of women to choose the place of giving birth and recently attempted reprehensible muzzling of Opposition Members of Parliament from criticizing the Federal Government.

 

The arguments against Labors ISP filtering censorship plan are compelling.  I believe there are many arguments to support my position:

 

1.    The ISP filter will provide a false sense of security. Antivirus is a prime example as much protection as we load onto our computers and networks we access, there are always new viruses, worms and trojans gaining access and creating havoc.

2.    The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) already has the responsibility for issuing take-down notices for black-listed content hosted in Australia. This Service Provider Responsibility List can be accessed at:

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_90157

3.    There are already tools available for parents in commercial form which are just as foolproof as this ISP filtering plan, but dont equate to censorship. These come in the forms of personal internet filters, parental control software and remote monitoring.

4.    Parents should be providing their children with the educational resources and know how to support the disciplinary responsibilities not only they, but their children, must be aware of when using the internet.

5.    Even with the ISP filtering plan in action, it will not protect your child from online chat rooms, peer to peer connections or emails.
 

Protecting children must always be uppermost in our decisions, but an attack on the individual liberty of everyday Australians using the internet is not the best way to protect our children. There is no substitute for parental responsibility at home or adult supervision of children at community libraries and in the classroom.

 

Labor is always the party of intrusion in the lives of Australians. When Labor is in power, the instinct is to legislate and regulate everything in sight and to be at the centre of people?s lives from cradle to grave.

 

Labors ISP filtering policy is, at its core, an erosion of the very freedom that the internet, for all its downsides, represents in a democratic society, Mr Johnson said.

 

END

 

Office of Michael Johnson MP
Federal Member for Ryan & Opposition Whip


BRISBANE: PH 07 3378 1599 l FX 07 3378 1399

l 636 Moggill Rd, Chapel Hill l PO BOX 704 l INDOOROOPILLY Q 4068
www.michaeljohnsonmp.com l  
 

 
 2009 Authorised by Michael Johnson MP | www.michaeljohnsonmp.com

[Keith]

THE AGE
 
Conroy will be censoring people, not the internet
NINA FUNNELL
December 18, 2009
 

Kevin Rudd has lost thousands of followers in the past week. Twitter followers, that is. When the Federal Government announced its internet censorship plan was set to go ahead, Twitter followers and bloggers launched an immediate viral campaign to withdraw support from the Government.

Earlier this month I attended an conference on internet regulation and filtering which attracted academics, technology and industry experts, politicians and other major stakeholders in the internet filtering debate.

There was general - if not universal - agreement that the proposed filtering attempt would be an ''epic fail'': surely the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, knows how expensive, ineffective and easy-to-circumvent it will be? Surely he realises it will slow down ''the tubes'', crippling industry and making Australia far less competitive in the global marketplace? Surely he would not cave to the pressure exerted by groups like the Australian Christian Lobby? There is absolutely no way, right?

But when the Greens senator Scott Ludlam took the floor, the resolve began to fracture. Ludlam was able to publicly confirm that the results of the trial were in, and that Conroy had already backgrounded the Australian Christian Lobby on them.

We all wanted to know what this meant. Why hadn't Conroy backgrounded all the other major stakeholders? Why was he showing preferential treatment to the Australian Christian Lobby? Why not just release the results to the entire public? After all, it's the public who is footing the bill for all this.

Blogging about this later, I was asked a rather jarring question: "Why exactly is the Australian Christian Lobby considered a stakeholder at all?" The answer, in short, is because its members vote, and because it's risky for governments to defy those who act as (self-appointed) guardians of community standards.

Like all moral crusading groups, the Australian Christian Lobby has its opinions. But so does the rest of Australia. A recent national phone poll that was commissioned by GetUP! found only 4 per cent of Australians want the Government to be responsible for protecting children online. Nanny-states are not popular.

Among other things, punters are particularly concerned that there will be very little transparency over what is blocked. This was made apparent in March when an earlier version of the Government's blacklist of banned sites was leaked, revealing that the scope of filtering could extend well beyond kiddie porn.

Google has also released a statement condemning the proposed filter, pointing out that it would be "the first of its kind amongst Western democracies".

While debate continues over what - if anything - should be censored and by whom, there is also confusion over what ''Refused Classification'' actually means. According to the academic Kath Albury, the term is misleading as it seems to suggest that it will only apply to content so offensive, vile and illegal that no person should have access to it.

In reality content may also be refused classification if it does not fit neatly into any other category. This means that content depicting people dripping wax, spanking one another or piercing any body part may be rejected.

Similarly a report by the professors Catharine Lumby, Lelia Green, and John Hartley found that Refused Classification also includes socially and politically controversial material such as educational content on safer drug use and euthanasia.

While fetish and politically subversive content may be considered upsetting, fringe or distasteful to some, censoring on the grounds of taste is a wildly subjective game. It presupposes the offensive content is easily and universally recognisable.

The reality is far more complex and, put simply, the Government should not have the right to block information which can inform debate of controversial issues. This isn't China, and it's not Iran.

But according to the technology writer Kathryn Small, the concern is not what will and will not be blocked, but who will and will not be able to get around it. "Conroy will not be censoring the internet. He'll be censoring people who do not know much about the internet."

Small says anyone with a vested interest who knows enough about software design will be able to circumvent the system. "The real problem is Conroy will create a two-tiered system [with] a massive disparity between the 'haves' and 'have nots' of computer literacy."

The irony is that it is children and young people who will be most likely to get around the blocks.

Children are more computer-savvy and literate than any other generation, precisely because they have grown up with computers. This was demonstrated in 2007 when a 16-year-old, Tom Wood, took just 30 minutes to crack the Government's super-filter that cost a whopping $84 million to develop.

What a shame the Government hasn't learnt from that embarrassing bungle.

Nina Funnell is a researcher in the Journalism and Media Research Centre at the University of NSW.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

Net filters 'thin end of the wedge': Kirby http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-filters-thin-end-of-the-wedge-kirby-20091217-kyeu.html?autostart=1

This article contains a video that will play automatically.
 ASHER MOSES 12:38pm | Former High Court judge Michael Kirby has criticised the Federal

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Sen Conroy take your hands off my adult life. I don't need you to tell me how to live my life and I don't need you to tell me what is illegal. Target the real crims out there. The spammers and online fraudsters, including white collar online fraudsters.Or is that too hard. This is not about protecting children. This is about Government control over adults. And don't use the terrorism card. The security agencies in this country have all the power they need to target and arrest suspected terrorists.
 
Outcry on internet censorship
MICHELLE GRATTAN AND JONATHAN PEARLMAN
December 17, 2009
 
THE AGE
THE Federal Government's proposal for an internet filter faces a barrage of criticism, including from both sides of politics and a former High Court judge.

Two Liberal backbenchers, Jamie Briggs and Alex Hawke, condemned the proposal. The Opposition doubts the legislation can be workable, although it has promised to examine it.

''We are open to proposals, provided they achieve their objective without unfortunate side effects,'' Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said.

He said it made sense to try to ensure homes were not invaded with pornography.

''On the other hand, I don't want to see wider censorship [or]  the internet destroyed as a tool for people's education or  businesses,'' he said.

Mr Briggs said constituents under 25 in his electorate overwhelmingly disagreed with the plan. ''There's no way I'm supporting this. I joined the Liberal Party because I believe in individual responsibility,'' he said.

The move would give parents a false sense of security about what their children could access on the internet, he said.

Mr Hawke said while there might be valid concerns about some material on the internet, people who used it as their primary network for information and social interaction were ''highly suspicious of the Government censoring this medium in a blanket fashion''.

Former High Court judge Michael Kirby warned the filtering risked jeopardising free ideas and could lead to a global tightening of internet controls.

''I understand the problem that is being addressed, but it is an entirely different approach than the approach taken elsewhere in the world,'' he told Sydney radio station 2UE in an interview to be aired today.

The proposal was opposed in some circles as ''the thin end of a wedge of the Government moving into regulating the internet. And once you start doing that you get into the situation of Burma and Iran where the government is taking control of what people hear and what information they get,'' he said.

A LaborNSW Government parliamentary secretary, Penny Sharpe, said mandatory filtering would be ''a triumph of fear and false promise over what works and good sense''.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said this week he would introduce legislation to make service providers block websites that had been ''refused classification''. The sites would include material such as child sex abuse and sexual violence.

The blacklist would be produced using a public complaint mechanism, government censors and information from international agencies.

Net censorship move a smokescreen: expert
ASHER MOSES
December 16, 2009 - 2:51PM
Comments 75

 
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's censorship policy won him the Internet Villain of the Year trophy, awarded by the British internet industry.

One of Australia's top communications experts says the Government's internet censorship trials were designed to succeed from the outset, presented no new information and are now being used by the Government to further its political agenda.

His comments came after Communications Minister Stephen Conroy yesterday announced
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/internet-censorship-plan-gets-the-green-light-20091215-ktzc.html

he would introduce legislation before next year's elections forcing ISPs to block a secret blacklist of "refused classification" (RC) websites for all Australian internet users.

Separately, a report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24138351/Untangling-the-Net-The-Scope-of-Content-Caught-by-Mandatory-Internet-Filtering

into the scope of content that will be caught up in the net filters concluded that the Government's policy might lead to a wide range of innocuous material disappearing from Australians' computer screens.

Commentators in Australia and overseas have interpreted Senator Conroy's policy as pushing the country towards being like repressive regimes such as China and Iran.

University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt said the Government had still failed to address serious issues such as whether the internet filtering scheme would result in any meaningful reduction in harmful content and whether it was worth the effort, given the risk that the scope of blocked content could widen significantly.

"There's no clear definition of refused classification that can be debated in society ... [and] once you put a label such as refused classification in place, that doesn't mean that the meaning cannot be changed," he said in a phone interview.

-------------------------------------------------------------
POLL: What do you think of the proposed filter?  http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/form.html
-------------------------------------------------------------

Landfeldt detailed these issues and many others in an official report http://www.smh.com.au/news/
technology/web/fatal-flaws-in-web-censorship-plan/2008/12/22/1229794328860.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/
technology/web/fatal-flaws-in-web-censorship-plan/2008/12/22/1229794328860.html

 presented to the Government in February last year, which concluded that schemes to block inappropriate content such as child pornography were fundamentally flawed.

The report, which also questioned whether Australian children were in fact stumbling across child porn and other nasty content while browsing, was kept secret for many months and was only made public after its existence was detailed in media reports.

Filtering trials designed to succeed

Conroy justified his policy yesterday by presenting a pilot trial report http://www.dbcde.gov.au/online_safety_and_security/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_
filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot#report compiled by Enex Testlabs, which found that blocking a blacklist of sites can be done with 100 per cent accuracy and without slowing down the internet.

"The Government would have known since long before our [2008] report was put out that doing blacklist-based filtering on a large scale is very doable - British Telecom has done it for many years and it is a very big organisation," Landfeldt said in a phone interview.

"But so far there's no evidence put forward that this will be effective in putting any serious dent in the availability of such content on the internet. It is clear that there are very strong political motives behind this."

Harmless content will be blocked

The Government has repeatedly pointed to child porn and sexual abuse material as examples of what will be targeted by the censors but, as the leaking http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/19/1237054961100.html of the communications regulator's blacklist in March revealed, the RC category includes scores of legal material.

This was reaffirmed today by a report compiled by the leading Australian media public policy academics, Professors Catherine Lumby, Lelia Green and John Hartley.

They found that, if the filtering plan went ahead, Australian adults would not be able to access material that is completely legal to view under Australian law.

"According to the most recent data only 32 per cent of the sites on the Australian Communication and Media Authority [ACMA] blacklist related to child pornography," the report found.

"The figures indicate 68 per cent of websites on the blacklist were blocked for reasons other than child pornography, including content that has been classified R18+, X18+, RC and unspecified."

The report gives several examples of legitimate content that could well be blocked from the Australian internet:

- A site debating the merits of euthanasia in which some participants exchanged information about actual euthanasia practices.

- A site set up by a community organisation to promote harm minimisation in recreational drug use.

- A site providing a safe space for young gay and lesbians to discuss their sexuality.

- A site that includes dialogue and excerpts from literary classics such as Nabokov's Lolita or sociological studies into sexual experiences, such as Dr Alfred Kinsey's famous Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male.

- A site devoted to discussing the geopolitical causes of terrorism that published material outlining the views of terrorist organisations as reference material.

The Australian Sex Party said today that blocking RC websites would cut off access to 95 per cent of the world's 4 million adult websites as many overseas porn sites have much broader parameters in their X-rating than the classification system in Australia.

"The biggest selling porn movie in the world, Pirates, has been given an RC rating in Australia because it featured an animated duelling scene with two skeletons," party convener Fiona Patten said.

Landfeldt said the RC rating could also encompass footage of war atrocities and other historical events, such as the Holocaust which might not be suitable for viewing by children but could be extremely relevant to adults.

"I have a filter at home for my oldest daughter - it's voluntary and it works really well," Landfeldt said.

The Howard government provided free software PC filters to all Australian families but this was axed by the Rudd Government in favour of its ISP-level filtering plan.

But the Government has acknowledged that even these ISP filters could easily be circumvented by motivated individuals. Furthermore, the filtering will initially apply only to web pages, and experts say online predators will just move to other mediums such as peer-to-peer file sharing programs and email.


Accountability measures questionable

Conroy yesterday released a discussion paper http://www.dbcde.gov.au/online_safety_and_security/cybersafety_plan/refused_
classification_content_list_review outlining possible measures to improve the accountability and transparency of processes that lead to sites being placed on the blacklist.

But Landfeldt, who analysed the paper, said it appeared that the same government bureaucrats who put together ACMA's flawed blacklist http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/19/1237054973414.html would remain the arbitrators of what goes on the new blacklist.

"It encompasses people and organisations that are currently involved in classification with very vague notions of the general public being able to comment on or having any influence over how this is being carried out and handled," he said.

Landfeldt said one positive to come out of the Government's report was that the focus has been narrowed to mandating "refused classification" content filtering based on a blacklist.

Earlier, Conroy had referred to blocking "unwanted" and "prohibited" content using a dynamic process that would analyse websites in real-time. Experts had warned this would significantly slow down the internet.

But Landfeldt said there had still been no consideration given to how internet usage would change when the Government rolled out its super-fast National Broadband Network (NBN).

"The NBN will enable Australia to move beyond the World Wide Web and into a situation where we have made real use of more sophisticated forms of media, much more streaming media, video, audio content," he said.

"Material may not be as static as it is now, which means that the blacklist will go out of date.

"If you want to mandate this filtering and see if it's applicable to the NBN, you need to conduct different experiments."

Conroy's spokesman, Tim Marshall, has failed to return calls for several days requesting comment.

Source: smh.com.au

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Adults can make their own decisions about what they read, see and do, and they can make decisions about staying within the Law.If they break the Law they must face the consequences. Adults do not need the Government or anybody else to act as their moral and legal guardians. Children are the primary responsibility of their parents. The rest of Australia is not responsible for what Mr and Mrs Brown allow Timmy and Jenny to do in their own home on their own computers. Stop the blame shifting and stop intruding into the lives of adults. Organizations are repsonsible for computer use on their property.
 
Critics blast 'great firewall of Australia'
Posted 11 hours 7 minutes ago
Updated 10 hours 23 minutes ago

 
Critics say the firewall plan hands control of the internet to 'the moral minority' (AAP: Mick Tsikas)

Video: Internet filter plan will go ahead (7pm TV News NSW) http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200912/r487168_2510712.asx

Audio: Government unveils cyber safety plan (PM) http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/pm/200912/20091215-pm-01-internet-filter.mp3

Related Story: Green light for internet filter plans http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/09/2621354.htm

Related Story: Save the Children opposes internet filter http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/02/2673749.htm

Related Story: Internet filter plan 'wasting time, money' http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/10/2681642.htm

Related Story: Rudd website attacked in filter protest http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/10/2681642.htm

Related Link: ISP content filtering pilot report http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/123862/ISP_Filtering_Live_Pilot_
Report_low_res.pdf

The Federal Government's decision to press ahead with compulsory internet filtering has come under fire from lobby groups and the Greens.

The Government wants to pass laws to force internet service providers to block banned material hosted on overseas servers.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says he intends to introduce legislation in the first half of next year.

The legislation would require all service providers to ban refused classification (RC) material hosted on overseas servers. RC material includes child sex abuse, bestiality, sexual abuse and detailed instructions for crime or drug use.

Senator Conroy says the new filter rules are not designed to curtail freedom of speech.

"No-one can currently host RC material in Australia. That is the existing situation," he said.

"To strengthen cyber safety this Government will introduce legislative amendments to the Broadcast Services Act to require all ISPs to block material rated refused classification that is hosted on overseas servers and therefore not subject to the existing take-down regime."

But Electronic Frontiers Australia, which monitors online freedoms and rights, says the Government's plan is flawed.

"Although it may address some technical issues, what it leaves out is far more important," vice chair Colin Jacobs said.

"Exactly what will be blocked? Who will decide and why is it being attempted in the first place?"

Mr Jacobs says the ease with which users can circumvent the filtering raises questions about what it is actually trying to accomplish.

"What we're talking about is a filter that can only intercept accidental access to prohibited material," he said.

"Any motivated user will be able to get around it, it will be quite easy, so who is this being targeted at?"


'Great firewall of Australia'

A list of the Government's banned sites leaked back in March turned out to include the websites of a dentist and a tuckshop consultant.

Now the Government says an independent body should determine which sites should be blocked.

Oliver MacColl, the acting national director of lobby group GetUp!, says Senator Conroy's firewall plan hands control of the internet to "the moral minority".

"It was through public complaints mechanisms like the one Mr Conroy is proposing that classic literature such as The Catcher in the Rye, Ulysses and The Story of the Kelly Gang were once banned in Australia," he said.

"Innocent people, such as a dentist from Queensland, have already been caught in the ACMA blacklist. The introduction of Mr Conroy's great firewall of Australia may lead to many more innocent small business people being caught out.

"Parents are best placed to decide what their children should and should not see on the internet.

"Conroy could have given parents this choice, through an optional filtering system. Instead he has opted to put the Government into every living room in Australia."


Greens attack plan

Telstra has released a statement saying it supports a refused classification content blacklist compiled from a complaints-based system and known child abuse websites passed on by expert agencies in other jurisdictions.

And it says it supports the Government's legislative approach.

The Australian Christian lobby also backs the Government's plan, as does Family First Senator Steve Fielding.

But the Greens are not impressed.

They say they will not support the legislation and they doubt it will become law any time soon.

"It looks very much to me as though this is still a solution in search of a problem," Greens Senator Scott Ludlam said.

"The test results themselves say that the filters will be able to be circumvented. So quite honestly I don't know why the Government is persisting with this policy."

He says the more he reads, the more sceptical he gets.

"At this stage I haven't seen anything at all that justifies the implementation of mandatory net censorship in Australia," he said.

"I think there are much better ways of going about what they're trying to do. And I think this policy is going to have a very bumpy ride."

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

December 9, 2009 3:30 PM
Spying begins on UK web users
Paul Marks, technology correspondent

We reported last week on plans to enforce copyright law by forcing internet service providers to spy on consumers to detect and report every piece of copied music, movies, e-books, games and software http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427375.200-net-piracy-the-people-vs-the-entertainment-industry.html

Now one UK ISP, Virgin Media http://www.virginmedia.com/ is trialling some of the technology needed to do that on about 1.6 million of its customers.

Provided by Detica, a subsidiary of defence firm BAE Systems http://www.baesystems.com/ the system is being used to try and gauge the size of the alleged piracy problem. CView, as the system is known, will take a snapshot of the scale of peer-to-peer music transfers over a few months http://www.detica.com/index.php?option=com_articlemanager&Itemid=266&task=display&artid=317&year=2009

It will do so by copying every packet of data that passes by, and looking for the digital signatures of data transferred using the popular bittorrent, gnutella, and edonkey file sharing protocols.

Whenever it finds a data packet that matches, it will extract the code these protocols use to identify the contents of the packet.

CView will then compare that code with a database of "musical fingerprints" to identify any music being shared, allowing it to work out if the data packet infringes copyright.

As a result, Virgin will find out how much file-sharing traffic is infringing copyright, and what the most-pirated tracks and albums are, the Register reports http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/detica_visit/

CView won't be able to finger individual users, because the IP addresses that identify each computer's connection will be stripped from every packet. But some Virgin customers are worried about the potential for it to be used for snooping at a later date http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/General-broadband-questions/Virgin-to-start-deep-packet-inspection/td-p/13832

CView's technology could conceivably be used to identify people accessing certain data, for example.

Or it could block certain content, in much the same way as China's "great firewall".

The anonymisation of the data in Virgin's assessment phase, and the fact that no humans see it, should mean the technology does not count as illegal interception, says Richard Clayton at the University of Cambridge's security lab.

But he says on the security group's blog that "it may take some case law before anyone can say for sure" http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2009/12/07/what-does-detica-detect/
 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Only Governments who are frightened of their people are frightened of the truth.
 
 
On her Majesty's secret server
BELLA COUNIHAN
December 11, 2009 - 7:01AM
 

You won't be loving your computer if the Government cuts it off as punishment for illegal downloads.

What if pollies could no longer twitter? What if Malcolm Turnbull could no longer put his explosive blogs on his site? Well at least in that case Tony Abbott would be happy. We see access to the internet's free availability of information as an inalienable right. Even temporary disconnection is at best an annoyance, at worst a Gen Y hell. But this is exactly the proposal in the UK, with a new three-strike rule for illegal file sharing. The recently introduced Digital Economy bill would give powers to Business Secretary Lord Peter Mandelson to require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to slow or suspend people's access for an undetermined period with no parliamentary oversight. In the process, essentially asking ISPs to spy on users. The British internet community is livid, but could this ever happen in Australia?

Communications Minister Stephen "internet filter" Conroy, recently voted Internet Villain of the Year, has alluded to the three-strike/suspension idea before as a possible solution to the file-sharing issue. British commitment to the idea along with a poor outcome for internet providers in the ongoing iiNet case in Australia would certainly point him in that direction. So could this hell become reality?

The problem of copyright on the web exists within all communication industries; music, TV, film and, of course, the news industry. The question for all of them is how do you get people to pay for online content when it is easily and freely available elsewhere? The UK has tried to plug this hole, introducing legislation that says if you download files illegally three times you will be sent warning letters to scare you into stopping. And from there the secretary would have wide ranging powers to force ISPs to slow or suspend your access to the web.

ISPs would spy on your online activity for the government to detect any illegal file sharing; somewhat akin to the post office opening your mail. Disconnection would not just be directed at the individual downloader but those you live with would be cut off as well. This leaves unprotected wireless networks particularly vulnerable. There would be no official trial to prove your innocence or guilt, merely notifications and worst case scenario; bam no more internet and even a ?50,000 ($A90,000) fine.

Mandelson, a member of the House of Lords who has had to resign twice over abusing his position, has defended the bill and says that mass suspensions would be a last resort. Adding, "it must become clear that the days of consequence-free widespread online infringement are over". The hope is that just sending out warning letters will be enough to scare people away. But the UK's internet community has been up in arms with mass online petitions, plenty of comment anger in the blogosphere as well as the general community. There has even been a digital economy bill song, sung by UK musician Dan Bull, musically pointing out some of the angst about this legislation.

When I mentioned the idea of internet suspension to a member of Gen Y, his immediate reaction was "horrific". "What about work? What about uni? How would you live your life?" The other immediate thought: "This system will be abused by the very angry entertainment industries who will sue the pants off any 14-year-old fan boy downloading the latest Lady GaGa single." And that is basically the idea; put small time peer-to-peer file sharers' heads on a stick (see this recent case in the US  to frighten others and boost music and DVD sales, which have slumped since illegal file sharing came into existence in the late '90s.

But what the UK policy neglects to understand is that there will always be illegal file sharing. Period. It is the basic function of the internet to share information, regulating and restricting what information and how would be practically impossible. I understand that particularly the music industry is cut because it won't be able to sell as many copies of Britney Spears, Beyonce and the like. But frankly, too bad. The file sharing toothpaste is out of the tube.

As University of Queensland's intellectual property expert, Kimberlee Weatherall, told the National Times, to actually stop illegal file sharing you would have to establish "a great big bureaucracy", including ways to find people (a nightmare in itself), notify them of a breach of copyright, establish an independent body or court to prove innocence or guilt and then impose effective disincentives. Perhaps investing less in government lobbying and suing and more in legal file sharing (which has gone up 35 per cent in Australia on last year) would be an idea. More carrot and less stick; where the stick is practically impossible anyway.

A big judicial/bureaucratic system with money and time devoted to it, would be the only way for people sitting anonymously at their computers to feel some heat. But who would pay for it? No one is shooting up their hands to pony up the dough and in the end it may well be consumers paying for higher internet prices. So every now and again murmurings of radical state intervention occur, just so governments can stop the fighting between Big Content and the ISPs. In the end despite the UK legislation and Conroy chatter about a three-strike rule in Australia, would they actually cut people off from the internet in Australia? Who knows but it's unlikely to be permanent. Slow servers or suspension for a period would be the option at most (France's legislation has at most a year). But if the amount of angst that even the thought of suspension causes in the British community is anything to go by, for Conroy it probably wouldn't be worth the hassle.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Say no to asbos for downloaders
 

The internet is such a huge part of life that Mandelson's plans to cut people off for copyright breach is a clear restriction of liberty

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/nov/20/downloaders-internet-mandelson-copyright         

      Charlotte Gore

At 33 years old I'm more Generation X than Generation X-Box. I'm too old to be one of the new wave of "digital natives" who've never known life without the internet, but I'm just about young enough (and geeky enough) to consider myself an enthusiastic immigrant. I moved in about 13 years ago, and if I could swear an oath of allegiance to some Head Of The Internet State, I wouldn't hesitate.

Sadly there is no president of the internet, which is a shame because it means I'm stuck with my British passport instead. And relations between Britain and the internet have been strained of late.

Lord Mandelson is seeking to grant himself significant powers http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/19/mandelson-copyright-filesharing-murdoch-google in the fight against copyright infringement ? the ability to do just about anything so long as it's in the interest of protecting copyright, and without having to go through parliament.

This is disturbing not just because it represents a triumph of executive power over the normal democratic process, but also because it also reflects the increasing hunger our politicians have to control the internet http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/19/breaking-leaked-uk-g.html For the politicians that's a hopeless dream, but the damage they can do in the trying is real.

The beauty of the internet is the egalitarianism of it. It is empowering, enriching and liberating in the most literal sense: freedom of speech, freedom of association, access to knowledge and access to the most exciting and glorious marketplace in the world.

We organise our social lives with it, we do our banking and pay our bills through it. We access public services and news and we express ourselves creatively through it. Politics has been opened up and democratised through blogging, Twitter and access to information and debate.

Despite this, Mandelson wants to be able to ban individuals from it as punishment for copyright infringement. It's an idea that has the media giants rubbing their hands together with glee. Yet what they want is impossible ? at least, not possible yet. First, the vast majority of home wireless connections aren't secure. Our internet connections can be easily hijacked and used by other people without our permission or knowledge, and the owner of the phone line will get the blame for what they do.

Second, people do not have their own personal connections to the internet ? households share them. By banning the person who owns the phone line, they ban the entire family (and, of course, the neighbour who's been downloading episodes of Lost through it).

All this together means Mandelson's plan violates the fundamental principle that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that only the guilty should be punished. His system would see parents thrown off because of their children, children thrown off because of their parents and all thrown off because of a stranger.

So here's the key question: do we want to live in a society where people can be cut off from the internet without a trial, without a jury and without proving they committed any offence at all?

How to answer that depends on how you view the internet. Is it like a hi-fi that the council can confiscate if you disturb your neighbours, or is it more like being banished from the town you live in?

I vote banished. I know enough people who don't have friends in the real world, who socialise exclusively online. I know people who depend on access to the internet for their careers and livelihoods. It's become such a huge part of our lives, of the way we live and interact with each other that cutting people off from it is a clear and severe restriction of their liberty.

This is the case we need to make ? that the government should not be able to restrict people's liberty on a whim. If copyright infringement is a crime, it needs to be treated like any other crime. What we're getting instead ? asbos for downloaders ? is a powerful reminder that when it comes to civil liberties http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/civil-liberties we can't let our guard down against this government, no matter how close to the end it may be.


Internet Under Siege

Posted By Philip Giraldi On November 18, 2009

 

It is ironic that President Barack Obama would travel to China and speak against government control over the internet.  If the American Department of Homeland Security has its way new cybersecurity laws will enable Obama?s administration to take control of the internet in the event of a national crisis.  How that national crisis might be defined would be up to the White House but there have been some precedents that suggest that the response would hardly be respectful of the Bill of Rights.

Many countries already monitor and censor the internet on a regular basis, forbidding access to numerous sites that they consider to be subversive.  During recent unrest, the governments of both Iran and China effectively shut down the internet by taking control of or blocking servers.  Combined with switching off of cell phone transmitters, the steps proved effective in isolating dissidents.  Could it happen here?  Undoubtedly.  Once the laws are in place a terrorist incident or something that could be plausibly described in those terms would be all that is needed to have government officials issue the order to bring the internet to a halt. 

Government intrusion in the private lives of citizens is already a reality, particularly in the so-called Western Democracies that have the necessary technology and tech-savvy manpower to tap phones and invade computers.  In Europe, draconian anti-terrorism laws enable security agencies to monitor phone calls and e-mails, in many cases without any judicial oversight.  In Britain the monitoring includes access to detailed internet records that are available for inspection by no less than 653 government agencies, most of which have nothing whatsoever to do with security or intelligence, all without any judicial review.

In the United States the Pentagon recently sought an internet and news "instant response capability" which it dubbed the Office of Strategic Influence and evidence is growing that it has seeded a number of retired military analysts into the major news networks to provide a pro-government slant on the war news.   The State Department is also in the game, tasking young officers to engage presumed radicals in debate on their websites.  There also is the warrantless wiretapping program, which continues under the Obama administration in spite of pre-electoral promises that it would be stopped, while the growing use of national security letters means that private communications carried out using the internet can be accessed by Federal law enforcement agencies.  The national security letter, established by the PATRIOT Act, is an investigative tool that is particularly insidious as it does not require judicial oversight.  More than 35,000 were issued by the FBI last year and the recipient of a letter commits a felony if he or she reveals the receipt of the document.  In a recent case involving an internet provider in Philadelphia, a national security letter demanded all details of internet messages sent on a certain date, to include account information on clients with social security numbers and credit card references. 

The free flow of information on the internet has also produced a reaction among those who are more concerned with getting out a specific message.  If you have noticed the frequent appearance of bloggers and "talkbackers" on the various internet sites who write in less than perfect English and who always support attacking Iran and are defensive about Israel, sometimes overwhelming sites with garbage messages, you are not alone as it is clear that a sustained effort is underway to intimidate, influence opinion, and suppress opposing views.  The United States and Israeli governments have taken the lead in putting out propaganda over the internet and there are also indications that several European countries, including Britain and Germany, are engaged in creating regulatory hurdles and countering information that they do not approve of.  When the debate is open and the interlocutors are identifying themselves as government representatives one might well argue that the process is healthy as it permits a genuine exchange of views, but where the government hand is hidden the exchange should be regarded as little more than propaganda, what the old Soviet Union might well have referred to as "agitprop."

The focus on war by other means over the internet is important, if only because it means that governments are using their vast resources to spread propaganda in a deliberate effort to confuse the debate over important foreign and domestic policy issues.  Israel is at the forefront, exploiting its cutting edge telecommunications industry and enabled by its large and powerful diaspora to get out its message.  Not surprisingly, its lobbies including AIPAC are also leaders in the effort, sometimes acting openly and sometimes covertly. 

Israel became heavily engaged on the internet during its devastating assault on Gaza last January, when world opinion came down strongly against it, recruiting teams of young soldiers and students to blog in support of Operation Cast Lead.  It has recently focused on the UN?s Goldstone Report that claimed that Tel Aviv had committed numerous war crimes in Gaza, supporting a worldwide organized campaign to discredit anyone promoting the report.  The latest victim of the smear has been the respected and nonpartisan group Human Rights Watch (HRW).  In June Israel?s Deputy Prime Minister pledged that his government would "dedicate time and manpower to combating" human rights organizations.  Shortly afterwards Ron Dermer of the Israeli Prime Minister?s office named Human Rights Watch as one of the offending organizations.  Many attacks on HRW were subsequently carried out openly using various front organizations, including NGO Monitor which is based in Jerusalem and funded by wealthy Americans.  Elie Wiesel, who cashes in on his humanitarian credentials while remaining notably silent over Israeli war crimes, is on the Monitor board and has written a letter attacking HRW. Critical pieces in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times soon followed the initial attacks, commentary that was distributed widely by AIPAC on Capitol Hill and also all over the internet.

Israel?s Foreign Ministry, headed by right-wing extremist Avigdor Lieberman, runs a semi-covert program which is openly funded by the government as the "internet fighting team" but which deliberately conceals the affiliation of the "talkbackers."  Ilan Shturman coordinates the Ministry effort, which is run out of the Hasbara Department, "hasbara" being a Hebrew word that is normally translated as propaganda.  Shturman?s young and enthusiastic employees work from a prepared script of official Israeli government positions.  They are instructed not to identify themselves either as Israelis or as government employees.  There have been numerous applicants to work for Shturman.  An Israeli source reports that one applicant emphasized his own qualifications, writing "I?m fluent in several languages and I?m able to spew forth bullsh*t for hours on end." 

But there is also concern that the program will further distort the news cycle which is already suffering from deliberately misleading government leaks, making it impossible to discern what information that is surfacing is being fabricated.  One Israeli critic of the Foreign Ministry program has described it as part of a "thought police state."  And the effort is increasingly international in nature.  During the attack on Gaza, Shturman headed an effort to obtain the assistance of Jews abroad, recruiting a "few thousand" to work with his Israeli volunteers to bombard hostile websites with Israel-friendly commentary.  Much of the chatter is in English, though the teams also work in the other principal European languages.  Recent immigrants from the Israeli government?s Ministry of Absorption have been recruited and used to attack sites in their own more exotic native languages. 

The Israeli government program is expected to increase.  A private advocacy group called Give Israel Your United Support has a reported 50,000 activists who use a specially developed software called megaphone that sends an alert when anti-Israeli commentary appears, permitting supporters to bombard the hostile site with their own comments. In July, 5,000 members of the World Union of Jewish Students were given the megaphone software.  There are also reports that several American Christian evangelical groups have indicated that they are interested in helping the cause.  The goal is to have hundreds of thousands of activists worldwide who are prepared to place messages supportive of Israel.

The danger is real.  Most Americans who are critical of the actions of their own government rely on the internet for information that is uncensored and often provocative, including sites like Antiwar.com.  As the United States generally follows Israeli initiatives for security it is likely only a matter of time before Obama?s internet warfare teams surface either at the Defense Department or at State.  Deliberately overloading and attacking the internet to damage its credibility is all too possible; witness the numerous sites that have been "hacked" and have had to shut down or restrict their activities.  American citizens who are concerned about maintaining their few remaining liberties should sound the alarm and tell the politicians that we don?t need more government advice on what we should think and do.  Hands off the internet.

Read more by Philip Giraldi
Same Song, Different Verse ? November 11th, 2009 http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/11/11/same-song-different-verse/

A Manifesto for X Street ? November 4th, 2009 http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/11/04/a-manifesto-for-x-street/

My Problem with J Street ? October 28th http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/10/28/my-problem-with-j-street/

 2009 The Emperor?s Ear ? October 21st, 2009 http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/10/21/the-emperors-ear/

Obama at a Crossroads ? October 14th, 2009 http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/10/14/obama-at-a-crossroads/
.

Copyright ? 2009 Antiwar.com Original. All rights reserved.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Same as all these social networking sites. You can add Facebook to the list.
 
Trick or Tweet? Malware Abundant in Twitter URLs http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/twitter_malware/


As many as one in every 500 web addresses posted on Twitter lead to sites hosting malware, according to researchers at Kaspersky Labs who have deployed a tool that examines URLs circulating in tweets.

The spread of malware is aided by the popular use of shortened URLs on Twitter, which generally hide the real website address from users before they click on a link, preventing them from self-filtering links that appear to be dodgy.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

ABC NEWS
 
Pioneers celebrate internet's 40th birthday
 

Technology and media stars, pundits, and entrepreneurs have joined the internet's father to celebrate the 40th anniversary of his culture-changing child.

"It's the 40th year since the infant internet first spoke," said Leonard Kleinrock, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), who headed the team that first linked computers online in 1969.

Professor Kleinrock led an anniversary event at the UCLA campus that blended reminiscence of the internet's past with debate about its future.

"There is going to be an ongoing controversy about where we have been and where we are going," said Arianna Huffington, co-founder of the popular news and blog website that bears her name.

"It is not just about the internet; it is about our times. We are going to need desperately to tap into the better angels of our nature and make our lives not just about ourselves but about our communities and our world."

Huffington was on hand to discuss the power the internet gives to grass roots organisers on a panel with Professor Kleinrock and Social Brain Foundation director Isaac Mao.

"The internet is a democratising element; everyone has an equivalent voice," Professor Kleinrock said.

"There is no way back at this point. We can't turn it off. The Internet Age is here."

Professor Kleinrock never imagined Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube that day 40 years ago when his team gave birth to what is now taken for granted as the internet.

"The net is penetrating every aspect of our lives," he said to a room of about 200 people and an equal number watching online.

"As a teenager, the internet is behaving badly, the dark side has emerged. The question is when it grows into a young adult will it get over this period of misbehaving?"

Professor Kleinrock referred to spam emails, online scams and malicious software spread by crooks as an unexpected dark side of the internet.


'Lo and behold'

On October 29, 1969 he led a team that got a computer at UCLA to "talk" to one at a research institute.

"It feels to me like the alumni meeting of the framers of the US Constitution," Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Perry Barlow said as he addressed the gathering.

"There are a lot of people in this room who are honest to God uncles and aunts of the internet. What you did is conceivably the most important technological event since the capture of fire."

Mr Barlow, whose non-profit legal organisation fights for online freedom, maintained that internet access is on the verge of becoming an inalienable human right.

Professor Kleinrock was driven by a certainty that computers were destined to speak to each other and that the resulting network should be as simple to use as telephones.

US telecom colossus AT&T ran lines connecting the computers for ARPANET, a project backed with money from a research arm of the US military.

A key to getting computers to exchange data was breaking digitised information into packets fired between on-demand with no wasting of time, according to Kleinrock.

Engineers began typing "LOG" to log into the distant computer, which crashed after getting the "O."

"So, the first message was 'Lo' as in 'Lo and behold'," Professor Kleinrock recounted.

"We couldn't have a better, more succinct first message."

The UCLA team logged in on the second try, sending digital data packets between computers on the ARPANET - given that name because funding came from the US Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), established in 1958.

ARPANET grew into what is known today as the internet.

Professor Kleinrock, 75, sees the internet spreading into everything.

"The next step is to move it into the real world," he said.

"The internet will be present everywhere. I will walk into a room and it will know I am there. It will talk back to me."

- AFP

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

CIA To Monitor Internet Chatter For Anti-Government Sentiment

High-tech fascism straight out of V For Vendetta on the horizon

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 20, 2009

In the 2005 movie V For Vendetta, a film about a totalitarian society ruled by a fascist government with an iron surveillance fist, theres a scene where state spooks drive down a residential street with a gadget that records the conversations people are having inside their homes and gives them a rating on how antagonistic towards the authorities they are.

A frighteningly similar scenario is now on the horizon with the news that the CIAs investment arm In-Q-Tel is putting cash into Visible Technologies, a company that monitors the output of social media, in order to ?Read your blog posts, keep track of your Twitter updates even check out your book reviews on Amazon, reports Wired News.

Of course, the fact that the U.S. government and the military have been overloading the Internet with pro-war propaganda and trolls who are paid to cheerlead for the war on terror and attack critics is an admitted part of their cyberwarfare agenda, and Israel has done the same.

However, the prospect of the CIA closely monitoring social networking websites, whose content largely comprises of inane gossip and sophomoric blabber, shows just how afraid the establishment is of rising popular opposition to their agenda.

Visible crawls over half a million web 2.0 sites a day, scraping more than a million posts and conversations taking place on blogs, online forums, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and Amazon. Customers get customized, real-time feeds of whats being said on these sites, based on a series of keywords, according to Wired.

The software scores whether each post is positive, neutral or negative on a particular topic and can judge who the most influential poster is in a conversation, for example on a comment board or forum.

According to In-Q-Tel, it wants to use the technology to see how international issues are playing out in foreign media, but as the report notes, Of course, such a tool can also be pointed inward, at domestic bloggers or tweeters. Visible already keeps tabs on web 2.0 sites for Dell, AT&T and Verizon. For Microsoft, the company is monitoring the buzz on its Windows 7 rollout. For Spam-maker Hormel, Visible is tracking animal-right activists? online campaigns against the company.

Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists warns that the software could be used to track and target critics of the government, as well as political figures and journalists.

Intelligence agencies or employees might be tempted to use the tools at their disposal to compile information on political figures, critics, journalists or others, and to exploit such information for political advantage, Aftergood told Wired.

Visible chief executive officer Dan Vetras said that the CIA was just one of several government clients that were using the technology and that more were on the horizon.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

The internet will devour newspapers

http://refreshingnews9.blogspot.com/2009/10/internet-will-devour-newspapers.html

Newspapers risk being made redundant by the internet. They had better wake up to this reality.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

NSA Had Access Built into Microsoft Windows

Duncan Campbell on 27 March, 2008

 

Heiss http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/5/5263/1.html - A CARELESS mistake by Microsoft programmers has revealed that special access codes prepared by the US National Security Agency have been secretly built into Windows. The NSA access system is built into every version of the Windows operating system now in use, except early releases of Windows 95 (and its predecessors). The discovery comes close on the heels of the revelations earlier this year that another US software giant, Lotus, had built an NSA "help information" trapdoor http://www.nationalexpositor.com/tp/r4/artikel/2/2898/1.html into its Notes system, and that security functions on other software systems had been deliberately crippled.

The first discovery of the new NSA access system was made two years ago by British researcher Dr Nicko van Someren. But it was only a few weeks ago when a second researcher rediscovered the access system. With it, he found the evidence linking it to NSA.

Computer security specialists have been aware for two years that unusual features are contained inside a standard Windows software "driver" used for security and encryption functions. The driver, called ADVAPI.DLL, enables and controls a range of security functions. If you use Windows, you will find it in the C:Windowssystem directory of your computer.

ADVAPI.DLL works closely with Microsoft Internet Explorer, but will only run cryptographic functions that the US governments allows Microsoft to export. That information is bad enough news, from a European point of view. Now, it turns out that ADVAPI will run special programmes inserted and controlled by NSA. As yet, no-one knows what these programmes are, or what they do.

Dr Nicko van Someren reported at last year's Crypto 98 conference that he had disassembled the ADVADPI driver. He found it contained two different keys. One was used by Microsoft to control the cryptographic functions enabled in Windows, in compliance with US export regulations. But the reason for building in a second key, or who owned it, remained a mystery.

A second key

Two weeks ago, a US security company came up with conclusive evidence that the second key belongs to NSA. Like Dr van Someren, Andrew Fernandez, chief scientist with Cryptonym of Morrisville, North Carolina, had been probing the presence and significance of the two keys. Then he checked the latest Service Pack release for Windows NT4, Service Pack 5 http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/downloads/recommended/sp5/allsp5.asp He found that Microsoft's developers had failed to remove or "strip" the debugging symbols used to test this software before they released it. Inside the code were the labels for the two keys. One was called "KEY". The other was called "NSAKEY".

Fernandes reported his re-discovery of the two CAPI keys, and their secret meaning, to "Advances in Cryptology, Crypto'99" conference held in Santa Barbara. According to those present at the conference, Windows developers attending the conference did not deny that the "NSA" key was built into their software. But they refused to talk about what the key did, or why it had been put there without users' knowledge.

A third key?!

But according to two witnesses attending the conference, even Microsoft's top crypto programmers were astonished to learn that the version of ADVAPI.DLL shipping with Windows 2000 contains not two, but three keys. Brian LaMachia, head of CAPI development at Microsoft was "stunned" to learn of these discoveries, by outsiders. The latest discovery by Dr van Someren is based on advanced search methods which test and report on the "entropy" of programming code.

Within the Microsoft organisation, access to Windows source code is said to be highly compartmentalized, making it easy for modifications to be inserted without the knowledge of even the respective product managers.

Researchers are divided about whether the NSA key could be intended to let US government users of Windows run classified cryptosystems on their machines or whether it is intended to open up anyone's and everyone's Windows computer to intelligence gathering techniques deployed by NSA's burgeoning corps of "information warriors".

According to Fernandez of Cryptonym, the result of having the secret key inside your Windows operating system "is that it is tremendously easier for the NSA to load unauthorized security services on all copies of Microsoft Windows, and once these security services are loaded, they can effectively compromise your entire operating system". The NSA key is contained inside all versions of Windows from Windows 95 OSR2 onwards.

"For non-American IT managers relying on Windows NT to operate highly secure data centres, this find is worrying", he added. "The US government is currently making it as difficult as possible for "strong" crypto to be used outside of the US. That they have also installed a cryptographic back-door in the world's most abundant operating system should send a strong message to foreign IT managers".

"How is an IT manager to feel when they learn that in every copy of Windows sold, Microsoft has a 'back door' for NSA - making it orders of magnitude easier for the US government to access your computer?" he asked.

Can the loophole be turned round against the snoopers?

Dr van Someren feels that the primary purpose of the NSA key inside Windows may be for legitimate US government use. But he says that there cannot be a legitimate explanation for the third key in Windows 2000 CAPI. "It looks more fishy", he said.

Fernandez believes that NSA's built-in loophole can be turned round against the snoopers. The NSA key inside CAPI can be replaced by your own key, and used to sign cryptographic security modules from overseas or unauthorised third parties, unapproved by Microsoft or the NSA. This is exactly what the US government has been trying to prevent. A demonstration "how to do it" program that replaces the NSA key can be found on Cryptonym's website.

According to one leading US cryptographer, the IT world should be thankful that the subversion of Windows by NSA has come to light before the arrival of CPUs that handles encrypted instruction sets. These would make the type of discoveries made this month impossible. "Had the next-generation CPU's with encrypted instruction sets already been deployed, we would have never found out about NSAKEY."

 

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

There are efforts to make the government accountable to the people once again. A bill is targeting a 2008 law Obama voted for it which gave immunity from prosecution to telecommunications companies that participated in President Bush?s warrantless surveillance program.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would take a close look at the law.

But when we see statements from the administration like Weich?s, we recognize the kind of thinking that got this abuse-codifying law repeatedly reauthorized in the past.

It is with bitter disappointment that we realize President Obama is happy with that status quo. Those of us who voted for him, after all, bought into his message of ?change.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/

From a standpoint of protecting Americans' civil liberties, Obama's administration morphed (with terrifying speed) from "hope and change" to "despair and outrage".


Online Publication, Copyright? 2007, Petoskey News-Review 319 State St., Petoskey, MI 49770  (231) 347-2544  Fax: (231) 347-6833


Big Brother continues to spy on American public

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:37 AM EDT

We?d like to believe that with a new administration in charge, the USA PATRIOT Act in its current form would be headed for the scrap heap.

Alas, we would be wrong.

Despite campaign protestations about breach of civil liberties legalized by the 2001 law, the Obama clique seems pleased as punch to be the new puppetmasters behind unlawful government spying on the American public.

That includes shifting through your library selections, your business records and listening in on your phone calls. So be better be careful what you say about Barack Obama, just like you had to watch your mouth about George W. Bush.

You?ll recall the knee-jerk reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks resulted in Congress  Democrats and Republicans approving this full frontal assault on civil liberties before the ash had even had a chance to settle at Ground Zero.

But its been eight years. During those years the PATRIOT Act in conjunction with other Bush-era dismantling of Constitutional safeguards have left honest, God-fearing, taxpaying Americans on the same radar screen as al-Qaida operatives.

According to the Associated Press and other reports, the Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year.

Those provisions, along with roving wire taps and lone wolf monitoring, also give the government access to citizens? library records, bringing howls of protests from librarians, civil libertarians and conservatives alike.

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich has informed  Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the administration is willing to consider stronger civil rights protections in the new law provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important (provisions).

Thats what we call lip service.

There are efforts to make the government accountable to the people once again. A bill is targeting a 2008 law  Obama voted for it which gave immunity from prosecution to telecommunications companies that participated in President Bush?s warrantless surveillance program. Senators Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill., would repeal immunity as part of bill they announced recently. The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act would also restrict the collection in bulk of overseas phone calls coming into the United States. While the bill keeps much of the previously-approved spying powers in place, including the FISA Amendments Act, it specifies that the subjects of surveillance must have some connection to terrorism or espionage.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would take a close look at the law.

But when we see statements from the administration like Weichs, we recognize the kind of thinking that got this abuse-codifying law repeatedly reauthorized in the past

It is with bitter disappointment that we realize President Obama is happy with that status quo. Those of us who voted for him, after all, bought into his message of change.?

Change apparently means something else when you?re the one in power.

 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

US relaxes grip on the internet

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8283310.stm

The US government has relaxed its control over how the internet is run.
It has signed a four-page "affirmation of commitments" with the net regulator Icann, giving the body autonomy for the first time.

Previous agreements gave the US close oversight of Icann - drawing criticism from other countries and groups.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Whose Internet is it, anyway?

http://refreshingnews9.blogspot.com/2009/09/whose-internet-is-it-anyway.html

One of the Internet's chief architects looks at the Federal Communications Commission's proposed Net neutrality rules

Last week, the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski, broke with precedent by proposing federal rules that enforce Net neutrality ? the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) shouldn't play favorites with the traffic traveling over their networks.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

The Day Internet Freedom Died (NOT!)
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/22/fcc-internet-net-neutrality-opinions-contributors-thierer-szoka.html
 
Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
This is a classic case of Orwellian double-talk. In this case, "Freedom is slavery."

Net Neutrality has been the norm up until now. In plain language it means all users have equal access to the available bandwidth.

Opponents of net neutrality are the major corporations who want a system set up where they can obtain favorable handling. An example would be that ABC's website blasts onto your computer at top speed while alternative sites like whatreallyhappened are slowed down by a corresponding amount. For those corporations whose job it is to tell Americans what to think, this would be a Godsend, as a free and open and neutral net has allowed the full exposure of spin and lies over the last quarter century!

There is no question that the media corporations want to turn the internet into just another TV network, albeit with a few more buttons, but the goal is to erase public discourse and replace it with a Hulu-fest of delivered media product intermixed with the usual interminable advertisements. Net neutrality gets in the way of that.

Hence, following the FCC's announcement that net neutrality will be the policy (based on the already existing common carrier rules), those interests both government and corporate that wanted an internet biased in their favor are pulling out all the stops to claim that equal access is somehow a bad thing, indeed a "Threat to Democracy" as Obama put it.

Commentary
The Day Internet Freedom Died
Adam Thierer and Berin Szoka 09.22.09, 12:54 PM ET


There was a time, not so long ago, when the term "Internet Freedom" actually meant what it implied: a cyberspace free from over-zealous legislators and bureaucrats. For a few brief, beautiful moments in the Internet's history (from the mid-90s to the early 2000s), a majority of Netizens and cyber-policy pundits alike all rallied around the flag of "Hands Off the Net!" From censorship efforts, encryption controls, online taxes, privacy mandates and infrastructure regulations, there was a general consensus as to how much authority government should have over cyber life and our cyber liberties. Simply put, there was a "presumption of liberty" in all cyber matters.

Those days are now gone; the presumption of online liberty is giving way to a presumption of regulation. A massive assault on real Internet freedom has been gathering steam for years and has finally come to a head. Ironically, victory for those who carry the banner of "Internet Freedom" would mean nothing less than the death of that freedom.


We refer to the gradual but certain movement to have the federal government impose "neutrality" regulation for all Internet actors and activities--and in particular, to Monday's announcement http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293568A1.pdf by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski that new rules will be floated shortly. "But wait," you say, "You're mixing things up! All that's being talked about right now is the application of 'simple net neutrality,' regulations for the infrastructure layer of the net." You might even claim regulations are not really regulation but pro-freedom principles to keep the net "free and open."

Such thinking is terribly short-sighted. Here is the reality: Because of the steps being taken in Washington right now, real Internet Freedom--for all Internet operators and consumers, and for economic and speech rights alike--is about to start dying a death by a thousand regulatory cuts. Policymakers and activists groups are ramping up the FCC's regulatory machine for a massive assault on cyber liberty. This assault rests on the supposed superiority of common carriage regulation and "public interest" mandates over not just free markets and property rights, but over general individual liberties and freedom of speech in particular. Stated differently, cyber collectivism is back in vogue--and it's coming very soon to a computer near you!

"Net Neutrality" proponents insist, however, that only regulation can save us from nefarious corporate schemers out to quash our rights and destroy all innovation. Over the last decade, a cabal of activist-minded cyber-law professors have successfully turned the world of Internet policy upside down http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/14/adam-thierer/our-conflict-of-cyber-visions/ by persuading an entire generation of law students, policymakers and a number of large Internet companies that "Internet Freedom" means the very opposite of what it used to mean. Borrowing tactics that would have made Orwell proud, they have convinced many in the public and the policymaking community that the old Internet Freedom is slavery, in that we are all just tools of Corporate Big Brother. Thus, they offer us a new Internet Freedom: Neutrality ?ber alles! Their freedom, as in Orwell's Oceania, is not a freedom from the State, but a gleaming utopia that can only be created by the State.

We see the triumph of this thinking with Chairman Genachowski's proclamation that, "This is not about government regulation of the Internet. It's about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet. We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity."

Yet, no matter how vociferously the proponents of FCC-enforced "neutrality" insist that it is not regulation they seek, the reality is that the steps they counsel would put the FCC in the driver's seat for a host of Internet economic and social issues. Internet companies and technologies will come to be regulated like crusty old "common carriers" and broadcast stations that must serve some amorphous "public interest."

But as the FCC's long history of meddling in media and communications markets makes clear, micro-management of dynamic markets is a recipe for economic stagnation, strangled innovation and speech controls. And the path to regulation does not end with infrastructure providers. The specter of neutrality haunts not just today's Internet service providers but also all high-tech innovators, like Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and their descendants. Although the FCC's original mandate was mostly to deal with spectrum "interference"--something that could have been, and actually was being, dealt with using property rights--the agency quickly expanded its mission: Broadcast regulation metastasized into government control over speech, innovation, campaign advertising and a "fairness doctrine http://techliberation.com/2009/03/01/the-week-the-fairness-doctrine-died/ for news coverage. Likewise, Net Neutrality mandates will give rise to neutrality mandates for other areas.

The slope is slippery and we're already heading down it: The push for "Wireless Neutrality" is already well under way, and the FCC is currently investigating Apple's rejection of the Google Voice application for the iPhone. Thus, "Net Neutrality" leads to "Device Neutrality" and "Application Neutrality," but the same rationale would apply equally to any circumstance in which access to a communications platform is supposedly limited to a few "gatekeepers." Some academics have already proposed a "Federal Search Commission http://techliberation.com/2009/06/04/first-amendment-protection-of-search-algorithms-as-editorial-discretion/ to deal with accusations of "search bias." At the end of the day, we'll need a full-blown Federal Information Commission with a Search Bureau, a Cloud Computing Division and several other ministries to micro-manage the many flavors of neutrality regulation.

The path back toward real Internet freedom http://techliberation.com/2009/08/12/cyber-libertarianism-the-case-for-real-internet-freedom/ lies in restoring the presumption of liberty enshrined in the First Amendment, which is not a sword with which the government can ensure fairness, diversity or openness, but a shield against government meddling in media, communications and online markets.

Adam Thierer and Berin Szoka are Senior Fellows at The Progress & Freedom Foundation http://www.pff.org/ in Washington, D.C.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

autonet - an autonomous internet ?
 
Autonet is a project to create a wireless, global internet that can provide more reliability than corporate phone companies by being community based and freely licensed.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
... and free of government and corporate censorship.

I saw a pilot program along the same lines in San Francisco while I was there working on "The Day After Tomorrow." It was intended to bring wifi internet into poorer neighborhoods where the kids owned wifi laptops but did not have access to broadband internet in their homes. It worked pretty great and was very inexpensive to set the repeaters and nodes up.

It also had the advantage that, like the original internet, there was no way for the government or corporations to block content, so maybe (since FIDnet appears to be defunct now) it is time for patriots to start setting up Autonet and bypass the filters.
******************
EU Plans Massive Surveillance Panopticon That Would Monitor Abnormal Behavior

http://www.prisonplanet.com/eu-plans-massive-surveillance-panopticon-that-would-monitor-abnormal-behavior.html

New incarnation of Echelon is a huge lurch forward in the creation of the prison planet based on social theorist Jeremy Benthams 18th century concept of keeping slaves oppressed



Paul Joseph Watson

Monday, September 21, 2009

The European Union is developing a 21st century panopticon, a beast surveillance system that critics describe as Orwellian, sinister, and positively chilling, that would collate data from numerous sources, including surveillance cameras and personal computers, in order to detect abnormal behavior across the entire continent.

In a broader sense, this is part of the move towards creating a pan-European federal police force, where information and powers are shared as part of a centralized system. It is also a giant step towards the creation of a European CIA tasked not with keeping tabs on foreign enemies, but spying on its own population.

The surveillance system, known as Project Indect http://www.indect-project.eu/ promises to collect information by way of continuous monitoring of web sites, discussion forums, usenet groups, file servers, p2p networks [and] individual computer systems. It will also use CCTV feeds and other surveillance methods to develop models of suspicious behavior by analyzing the pitch of peoples voices (suggesting that private conversations will be recorded) as well as the way their bodies move.

Its main objective will be the automatic detection of threats and abnormal behavior or violence.

This is Echelon http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm on steroids, a new version of the decades old NSA-run program that has already been spying on citizens for years, updated and expanded for the technological applications of the early 21st century. In 1999, the Australian government admitted that they were part of an NSA-led global intercept and surveillance grid http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/503224.stm in alliance with the US and Britain that could listen to every international telephone call, fax, e-mail, or radio transmission, on the planet. Project Indect is merely a new incarnation of the same beast surveillance system.

Open Europe analyst Stephen Booth described the project http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6210255/EU-funding-Orwellian-artificial-intelligence-plan-to-monitor-public-for-abnormal-behaviour.html as Orwellian and a huge invasion of privacy, noting that European citizens own taxes will go towards a program that treats them all as guilty until proven innocent.

Profiling whole populations instead of monitoring individual suspects is a sinister step in any society, added Shami Chakrabarti, the director of human rights group Liberty.

Its dangerous enough at national level, but on a Europe-wide scale the idea becomes positively chilling, she said.

Project Indect is a huge lurch forward in the agenda to construct a mammoth surveillance pen within which the population of the entire planet is imprisoned.

The methods being employed to do this are a technologically advanced throwback to social theorist Jeremy Benthams 1785 concept of The Panopticon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon a specially constructed prison building designed to allow an observer to observe (-opticon) all (pan-) prisoners without the prisoners being able to tell whether they are being watched, thereby conveying what one architect has called the sentiment of an invisible omniscience.

Bentham described the Panopticon as a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example.

The notion that the individual does not know when they are being watched by the authorities is key in achieving the ultimate goal, to keep the population in a constant state of subjugation, unease and fear, leading them to self-regulate their own behavior.

According to Danish Institute for Human Rights researcher Peter Scharff, the Panopticon was intended to promote self-regulation that was to be provoked by the constant surveillance. The concept was eventually incorporated into many prisons that continue today as podular designs, which also maximizes the amount of people that can be controlled by one person. The fact that authorities are building societal prisons around us all today using the same basic methods of control is enough to send a chill down anyones spine and remind us once again that freedom is a myth.

This has nothing to do with catching criminals as recent figures in the UK have proven
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6082530/1000-CCTV-cameras-to-solve-just-one-crime-Met-Police-admits.html CCTV cameras have virtually no impact on crime whatsoever. This is all about letting the slaves know who their bosses are, its a psychological mind game set up to distinguish and reinforce the master-servant relationship between the state and the individual.

The endgame is to convince the individual that to express their freedom in public, to engage in any kind of protest or merely to question the power structure that surrounds them, is a suspicious act detrimental to society and that negative consequences will follow for any slave who dares to step outside of this invisible yet oppressive jail cell.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

ABC NEWS
 
Internet filter plan 'wasting time, money'

Senator Minchin says the Government should abandon its plans for a mandatory internet filtering system. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin, file photo)

The Federal Opposition says the Government's plan to have internet service providers filter offensive content still has not been successfully trialled.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy had originally hoped to have the results of the filtering trials by the beginning of the year.

The Opposition's communications spokesman, Nick Minchin, says the Government should abandon its plans for a mandatory internet filtering system and reinstate the Coalition's home computer-based filters.

"What we have with Senator Conroy is no system at all," he said.

"He cancelled the Coalition's Netalert program [and]has put nothing in its place; he's wasting millions of dollars on trials of mandatory internet filtering at the ISP level without coming up with any results.

"He's not even told us what the criteria are for success or failure of these trials."

Senator Minchin says he doubts the Government's plan will ever be implemented.

"The onus is on Senator Conroy, but he keeps failing the tests and this is becoming a farce," he said.

"After nearly two years in office he's got nowhere," he said.

"All he's done is cancel the Coalition's Netalert program [and] put nothing in its place [and is] wasting time, money and effort on his attempts to censor the internet."

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website
 
http://www.anzmi.net/  Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

EVEN COMMUNIST CHINA IS NOT MAKING ITS INTERNET FILTER MANDATORY


China internet filter 'optional'

From correspondents in Beijing

From: AFP

August 14, 2009

A TOP Beijing official says a controversial internet filter software is optional for all users after plans to install it on computers sold in China triggered a storm of protest.
"After you install the software, you can use it or you can decide not to use it," said Minister of Industry and Information Technology Li Yizhong today.

"When you buy a computer, a floppy disk or CD (with the software) is given out, and the right to choose resides with the parent, with society," he said in Beijing.

News emerging in June that all computer makers had been ordered to install the software caused outcry in China and abroad, with critics accusing the government of trying to increase controls over the internet.

Beijing consistently countered that the filter was designed to shelter youngsters from pornography and violence, and to give parents control over what their children view online.

But China abruptly postponed the plan on the eve of July 1, when it had planned to implement the rule.

Mr Li said China would not force all computer makers to pre-install the software - called Green Dam Youth Escort - on the machines.

He acknowledged the plan had not been explained well enough, and said China would solicit the public's views over the software.

But he said China would continue to load it in public places such as schools and internet cafes.

A US computer trade association welcomed the Chinese move.

"Internet filtering is a prior restraint on free speech and that restraint on the flow of ideas inhibits everything from democracy to economic development," said Ed Black, president and chief executive of the Computer and Communications Industry Association.

"China's decision to block enforcement of Green Dam for PCs breaks what would have been a logjam on the free flow of information," he said. "It's a wise move and a win for free speech, access to information and trade."

[Keith]

AUSSIE DIGGER COMMENT

This is not just about monitoring the communications of Britons. This is part of an attempt by all Governments to centralise control and then control citizens. This is not just happening in Britain but is happening in stages across the world. The lame excuses given by the Australian Government and Parliament to embed filters in ISPs and thus control what adults can read and see is part of an overall policy by Governments worldwide and is the thin edge of the wedge here.
 
As the famous American said inter alia those who give up their freedom for security have neither freedom nor security.
 
 
Hundreds Of ISPs Refuse To Go Along With Big Brother Spy System

Communications firms warn of unprecedented extension of state powers

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, August 5, 2009

A group of over 300 internet service providers and telecommunications firms is fighting back against the British government?s plans to monitor all emails, phone calls and internet activity nationwide.

The London Internet Exchange (LINX), which represents some 330 companies, including BT, Virgin and Carphone Warehouse, says that the government is misleading the public about the extent to which it plans to monitor their communications and internet activity.

LINX has described the Government?s surveillance proposals as an ?unwarranted? invasion of people?s privacy.

A statement from the group to the Home Office reads:

?We view the description of the Government?s proposals as maintaining the capability as disingenuous ? the volume of data the Government now proposes we should collect and retain will be unprecedented.?

?This is a purely political description that serves only to win consent by hiding the extent of the proposed extension of powers for the state.?

The group also stated that the volume of data the government wishes it to retain cannot be held by any known technology at this time.

Last year the government announced its intention to create a massive central database, gathering details on every text sent, e-mail sent, phone call made and website visited by everyone in the UK.

The programme, known as the ?Interception Modernisation Programme?, would allow spy chiefs at GCHQ, the government?s secret eavesdropping agency, the centre for Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) activities (pictured above), to effectively place a ?live tap? on every electronic communication in Britain in the name of preventing terrorism.

Following outcry over the announcement, the government suggested last April that it was scaling down the plans, with then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith stating that there were ?absolutely no plans for a single central store? of communications data.

However, as the ?climbdown? was celebrated by civil liberties advocates and the plan was ?replaced? by new laws requiring ISPs to store details of emails and internet telephony for just 12 months, fresh details emerged indicating the government was implementing a big brother spy system that far outstrips the original public announcement.

The London Times published leaked details of a secret mass internet surveillance project known as ?Mastering the Internet? (MTI).

Costing hundreds of millions in public funds, the system is already being implemented by GCHQ with the aid of American defence giant Lockheed Martin and British IT firm Detica, which has close ties to the intelligence agencies.

Currently, any interception of a communication in Britain must be authorised by a warrant signed by the home secretary or a minister of equivalent rank. Only individuals who are the subject of police or security service investigations may be subject to surveillance.

If the GCHQ?s MTI project is completed, black-box probes would be placed at critical traffic junctions with internet service providers and telephone companies, allowing eavesdroppers to instantly monitor the communications of every person in the country without the need for a warrant.

Even if you believe GCHQ?s denial that it has any plans to create a huge monitoring system, the current law under the RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) allows hundreds of government agencies access to the records of every internet provider in the country.

In publicly announced proposals to extend these powers, firms will be asked to collect and store even more vast amounts of data, including from social networking sites such as Facebook.

If the plans go ahead, every internet user will be given a unique ID code and all their data will be stored in one place. Government agencies such as the police and security services will have access to the data should they request it with respect to criminal or terrorist investigations.

This is clearly the next step in an incremental program to implement an already exposed full scale big brother spy system designed to completely obliterate privacy, a fundamental right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

COURTESY ABC NEWS
 
Target cyber bullies, not censorship, expert says

By News Online's Sarah Collerton

 
Mr Jacobs says education is the key to making the internet a safer place for young people (Getty Images: Cameron Spencer, file photo)

Related Story: Get tech savvy to stop cyber bullies, parents told http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/23/2634545.htm

Related Story: Teen's death highlights cyber bullying trend http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/23/2633775.htm

The Federal Government should focus on stopping cyber bullying instead of pushing ahead with its controversial plan to filter the internet, an internet rights expert says.

The call to stop cyber bullying - particularly amongst young people - comes after the suicide of a 14-year-old Geelong high school student this week.

The girl's mother blames her daughter's death on bullying she was subjected to on the internet.

Colin Jacobs, the vice-chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia, says research shows that bullying is a major problem online.

"As the public, we expect any policy the Government puts in place should be evidence-based. There's no evidence to suggest exposure to unwanted content is a big issue. Nor is there any evidence that [the Government's] approach will stop their exposure to this content," he said.

"The real research shows bullying is the issue."

Mr Jacobs says the Government is missing the issue in trying to filter unsavoury content on the internet.

"The Government's message when it comes to cyber safety has focused on internet filtering and blocking bad content, but research shows cyber bullying and interaction with other's peers is what concerns kids," he said.

"If you ask the number one issue that kids face online, cyber bullying is likely to be the answer. You have to put that in context.

"Cyber bullying occurs alongside everyday offline bullying - which is probably still more of a problem - but nevertheless cyber bullying is quite common.


'Not on their radar'

He says children do not see exposure to unwanted content as an issue at all.

"It's not really on their radar screen, but cyber bullying is something they'd like to see adults to take more seriously," he said.

Mr Jacobs says the Government is using internet filtering as a scare tactic to score political points.

"Internet filtering makes it very easy for them to conjure up images in the public's mind of children viewing horrific things online even though their policy is targeted towards mandatory blacklisting of content only adults would stumble upon anyway," he said.

"The policy as it stands will deliver absolutely nothing for children. It doesn't provide a filter that will intervene when children look at something inappropriate.

"What we're worried about is that it provides a false sense of security to parents that something's been done, when in actual fact it will make no difference to the online experience kids have had."

Mr Jacobs says education is the key to making the internet a safer place for young people.

"Education is really the only effective way to provide a tangible benefit to the children, to whom the policy is supposedly aimed at," he said.

"It won't make any difference to children, even though they took this policy to the election as a 'cyber safety policy'."

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Censorship in the Internet age

By Ezra Levant | Publication Date: May 2009

How would censorship work in the Internet age Australia gives us a sneak preview of the gong show that ensues when medieval thinking is applied to a wired world.

Australias government nannies have officially banned 1,370 web sites. Theyve drawn up a blacklist, just like the medieval index of banned books. Right now its a voluntary pilot project to which Internet service providers can submit. But if the trial run is deemed a success and made law, anyone who links to a blacklisted site can be fined $11,000 a day. That means it will be a crime not just to provide the contents of a web site, but to merely reproduce its address.

 

Thats not just like banning books. It?s like banning books, and banning saying the banned books title. Its a lot of banning.

 

But here?s the tricky part: the government wont even say what those 1,370 banned web sites are. Its secret. So there are 1,370 web sites out there that could result in your criminal prosecution in Australia. But you wont find out what they are until you link to one of them. Thats right out of Alice in Wonderland. The pretzelian logic goes like this: if the Australian government were to list those 1,370 banned web sites, then not only would they be breaking the rules themselves, but that list would serve as an advertisement. Out of the billions of web pages on the Internet, 1,370 would be given special attention, inviting anyone curious to check them out.

 

Of course, people who compile the secret blacklist know what?s on it. But apparently they can be trusted not to succumb to the temptation to look at the sites. And the list was sent to selected Australian Internet companies for a trial run. That didnt work out quite as well. The list was leaked to Wikileaks, the web site that specializes in publishing confidential documents, especially embarrassing internal government memoranda.

 

And thats when things got even weirder. Wikileaks published the entire blacklist on one of its pages. So now that Wikileaks page, too, has been added to the blacklist. Its number 1,371.

 

Needless to say, I was tempted to skim the names of the banned sites. Most of them are porn sites, and some have names that suggest child pornography, which is a crime. But thats what we have courts for. The Australian blacklist wasnt written by a court; there was no hearing where evidence was brought that these sites were criminal sites. A group of busybody human rights activists simply wrote the blacklist. Sounds Canadian, actually.

 

Many banned sites are merely offensive, but not illegal. And some sites are perfectly innocuous. For some secret reason, the web site www.vanbokhorst.nl is on the blacklist. If youre not in Australia, feel free to give that one a click. Its not a pornographic site. My Dutch is rusty, but it appears to be a web site for a forklift rental company in Holland.

 

How did Van Bokhorst get on the blacklist in Australia Nobody knows because the process was kept secret, even from Van Bokhorst. Its unlikely that Van Bokhorst had any Australian customers. But thats not the point. Someone is making these clandestine decisions about what Australians can or can?t see.

 

Weve seen this sort of censorship in other countries and not just from the likes of communist China. Thailand brought in a similar blacklist in the name of protecting its citizens from child pornography. But surprise!  within months, the blacklist had other web sites on it, including 1,200 banned for criticizing the Thai royal family. A secret list, in the hands of a government, practically guarantees that sort of political abuse.

 

Australias trial-run blacklist has plenty of questionable items on it, and not just Dutch forklift companies. Hundreds of Internet poker sites are banned. Poker, unlike child pornography, is not a crime. It may be a vice, but how to handle that is a political debate. Australia?s blacklist ends that discussion with force.

 

And now a web site about abortion politics is on the blacklist. You can probably guess which side of the debate is being censored, but either way, its abominable censorship.

 

That blacklist was sold as a way to stop child porn. But thats the thing about slippery slopes, isnt it; you don?t really see the dangers until youve started sliding into them.

 

The Canadian Human Rights Commission wants an Internet blacklist, too. It wants to expand Canadas cybertip.ca to cover political sites, not just child porn sites it targets now.

 

We associate book burnings with witch trials and the Nazis, not with mild-mannered bureaucrats. But book burnings in the 21st century require no matches just self-righteous censors and a somnolent public.

 

Ezra Levant is a Calgary lawyer and author. He can be reached at ezra@ezralevant.com
 

 


www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

 
'Villain' Conroy defends broadband plan

By Dina Rosendorff for AM and staff

ABC NEWS


Villain of the year: Communications Minister Stephen Conroy (AAP: Alan Porritt, file photo)

Federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has rejected Opposition claims the development of the National Broadband Network (NBN) is in disarray.

The Government yesterday launched a report on its plans for the development of Australia's digital economy, of which the NBN forms a crucial part.

The Opposition has claimed Government policy on the proposed network has not been properly developed and that the project has shown little progress.

But Mr Conroy says the Coalition is out of touch and has missed the point of having the network.

"After 11-and-a-half years they had 18 failed broadband plans. They are living in the past," he said.

"Malcolm Turnbull said 'Oh, why do we need the national broadband network, I can download movies fast enough now'.

"This is about a revolution in healthcare, this is about a revolution in education, this is about a revolution in the way that businesses communicate with each other."


'Villain of the Year'

But there are growing concerns the Federal Government is promoting the internet with one hand while censoring it with the other.

Senator Conroy has just been named the Internet Villain of the Year at the UK's 11th annual Internet Industry Awards.

He beat other nominees including French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the European Parliament.

Judges said Senator Conroy earned the dubious title for supporting one of the world's most ambitious internet censorship plans, despite significant opposition and evidence that it will hamper internet speeds and could block more than just child pornography sites.

"I'm just sorry I couldn't be there to accept the award in person," he laughed.

Opposition communications spokesman Senator Nick Minchin says Senator Conroy's latest award is well-deserved.

"This is the trouble with Labor; they try to walk both sides of the street," he said.

"On the one hand, Labor is saying 'Oh well, internet speeds in Australia are too slow and we've got to spend $43 billion to have faster internet'.

"At the same time, they're trying to implement a policy to have compulsory censorship of the internet, which almost everybody agrees is almost certain to slow down the internet and result in over-blocking internet content.

"It's an extraordinary policy that runs counter to everything that Labor says about the importance of embracing the digital economy."

Members of the industry, such as Google's head of geo products Raul Vera, are monitoring the Government's movements nervously.

"We certainly believe in a free and open internet. We're waiting to see what the proposal, what the final plan actually looks like," he said.

Senator Conroy says he expects to receive the results from nine ISPs which are currently trialing the internet filters in the next couple of months.

Meanwhile, despite laughing off his latest award, he is seriously downplaying any reservations about his plans.

"I don't know why people are afraid of a test," he said.

"I've given an iron clad guarantee. It is only refused classification."

 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

AUSSIE DIGGER COMMENT

Internet filters and other pretend software are all political grandstanding. Politicians like to think they can spin information and actions to win votes.They all need to be seen to be doing something.  There is no substance to the attempts by many World Governments to control the internet. The genie is out of the bottle and the worlds population has never been so well informed. Technically internet filters and other junk products are easily circumvented.

Web filters allow freedoms to be quashed

Article from: COURIER MAIL

By Paul Syvret

July 14, 2009

GOVERNMENTS detest and fear what they can't control. As such, the internet is cause for increasing regulatory angst across the globe, not the least in Australia.

So, memo to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy: Here is why your bloody-minded push for compulsory web-filtering in Australia won't work.

Have your say: What do you think about filter legislation? http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25773857-27197,00.html#comments

Lesson One: And at this point I must sincerely thank those dozens of readers (you know who you are) who emailed me with various links and information on how to circumvent Big Brother's attempts to control what adults who believe in freedom of speech and artistic expression wish to view, read and discuss online.

But first, it's time to pose a question.

Thankfully, there is no legislation yet in place about internet filtering as the technology is still being trialled. (And trialled at great expense, with varying degrees of success, but that's a subject for another day.)

But what if the Great Firewall of Canberra was already in place? Would this column be able to publish information on how to get around it?

And, if we did, would The Courier-Mail website be blocked by the filter?

If I promised to email every individual reader who contacted me with new methods to thwart online censorship, would my mail traffic be monitored, taken down in evidence and used against me?

Would the countless thousands of computer geek forums and message boards devoted to arcane techno-babble matters also risk being blocked if such seditious discussion was hosted?

Answer me that, Senator. Or is this plan so half-cocked and politically motivated in terms of pandering to the Christian lobby that we're making it up as we go along?

For a start, Senator, there is a wealth of what is known as circumvention technologies available on the web.

Let's begin with a Google search.

Try keying in "bypass internet censorship filters", or perhaps try searching for what is known as "circumvention technology".

Surely your filter would never block Google searches? Would it?

Such searches provide a treasure trove of information on circumvention providers who, for example "install software on a computer in a non-filtered location and make connections to this computer available to those who access the internet from a censored location".

It's not rocket science.

Or, perhaps, for the slightly more tech-savvy, try looking for "open proxies".

These are tools, according to one very useful site, that will enable you to access "any resource that is accessible from the server it runs on".

"This is useful when your own access is limited, but you can reach a server that, in turn, can reach others that you can't. In addition, the user is kept as anonymous as possible from any servers."

These are servers that allow internet users to conceal their Internet Provider, because you are using someone else's (usually offshore) computer to conceal your identity and/or location.

A very simple explanation for this process can be found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open proxy

That web page will also give you links to a handy list of sites that provide open proxies. And we'd never block Wikipedia, would we?

Another useful resource for those of us wishing to duck below or fight the Orwellian radar is the Open Net Initiative, an academic site devoted to investigating, exposing and analysing internet filtering and surveillance practices in a credible, non-partisan fashion. Their words, not mine, and their resource can be found at opennet.net

Another thing, Senator Conroy, you do realise, don't you, that the internet is the most rapidly evolving thing on the planet?

For every page you block, another two will spring up in its place. The material you want to block right now is like weeds in the back lawn ? short of concreting over the entire back yard, they'll keep sprouting.

The compulsory internet filter is not about protecting our children from accessing unsavoury websites.

Any responsible parent, public library or school that wishes to do that can easily download (free) "net-nanny" software to block such material. Or, in terms of parenting, perhaps adopt the novel approach of monitoring what your kids do online rather than bequeathing responsibility to some third party.

And those personal, PC-based filters can be adapted to block whatever sites you wish, including the ones listed above.

Nor is the filter about attacking child pornography.

That sort of vile material is not hosted on easily accessible web pages but, rather, swapped among shadowy user-groups of like-minded perverts, and massive police resources are already devoted to monitoring and catching the grubs who traffic in it.

No, the filter is about control. It is about control of what we watch, what we read and what we discuss.

It risks capturing everything from literature to film to games and ideological debate on issues such as euthanasia and abortion.

Euthanasia is illegal in Australia, therefore should we ban sites advocating its adoption? Bret Easton Ellis's controversial but confrontingly brilliant novel American Psycho (yes, I have read it, twice) is banned in Queensland. Should we stop northern users accessing the text online?

How far does the filter go in terms of blocking material of an "illegal" nature? Forget pornography, violent video games or banned arthouse material for a minute.

Just imagine if the internet had existed in the days of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and how filtering might have been applied to sites advocating action on such issues as apartheid, street marching laws or police corruption.

Governments change. And they tend to adapt and amend existing laws to suit their own purposes.

Resist this madness at all costs. And spread the word.

syvretp@qnp.newsltd.com.au

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S. 773) grants Obama power to shut down internet, ignore laws
http://bytestyle.tv/node/37

A new Cybersecurity bill would grant the President unprecedented power to shut down the internet and ignore privacy laws. Learn more:

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Top French court rips heart out of Sarkozy internet law


http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/

(Eric Feferberg/AFP/Getty Images)

Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife Carla Bruni, a singer. Some have suggested his enthusiasm for the law stemmed from his close ties to the artistic community

Charles Bremner, Paris

France's highest court has inflicted an embarrassing blow to President Sarkozy by cutting the heart out of a law that was supposed to put France in the forefront of the fight against piracy on the internet.

The Constitutional Council declared access to the internet to be a basic human right, directly opposing the key points of Mr Sarkozy's law, passed in April, which created the first internet police agency in the democratic world.

The strongly-worded decision means that Mr Sarkozy's scheme has backfired and inadvertently boosted those who defend the free-for-all culture of the web.

Mr Sarkozy and Christine Albanel, his Culture Minister, forced the law through parliament despite misgivings from many of the President's centre-right MPs. It was rejected in its first passage through Parliament.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6067641.ece

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article6192352.ece

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6062558.ece

http://timescorrespondents.typepad.com/charles_bremner/2009/06/court-neuters-french-scheme-for-internet-police.html



COMMENT: the law is now effectively dead

The law innovated by creating an agency, known by its initials HADOPI, which would track abusers and cut off net access automatically to those who continued to download illicitly after two warnings.

The law was supported by the industry and many artists. They saw it as a model for the USA and Europe in the fight to keep earning a living from their music and film. Net libertarians saw it as the creation of a sinister Big Brother. Many called it technically unworkable. Some artists saw it as hostile to the young consumers who are their main customers.

The Socialist opposition appealed to the council on the grounds that the constitution was breached by the creation of an extra-judicial agency with powers to punish internet offenders.

The council, which includes two former presidents and is usually seen as elderly and out-of-touch, gave the Left more than it was hoping for.

Les sages ? the wise men ? as the council is known, took the teeth out of the law. They ruled that "free access to public communication services online" is a right laid down in the Declaration of Human Rights, which is in the preamble to the French constitution. It also said the law breached privacy by enabling the HADOPI agency to track people's internet activity.

It agreed that the law reached the separation of powers because if gave an administrative authority power to impose justice. And to boot, it violated the presumption of innocence because alleged pirates would be cut off without being able to defend themselves, the council said.

The Government insisted today that the HADOPI law would still be put into force, without its censured sections. Ms Albanel, whose job is now on the line, said that the agency would still send warnings to abusers although it was not clear how it would track them. It would then be up to prosecutors and the courts to take action, she said.

That situation already exists and does not work in France and most other countries. Courts do not have time to haul in the millions of ordinary users who pilfer copyright material online.

While bloggers and internet users cheered the council decision, announced last night, the affair has left a bad taste in the entertainment world. Young musicians opposed the law as a weapon designed to protect the big recording companies.

Old-school leftists like Juliette Greco, the grande dame of Left Bank song in the 1950s, strongly supported the crackdown and reproached the Socialists for betraying artists with their opposition to the law.

Patrick Bruel, a middle-aged popular singer with leftwing views, railed against the council decision this morning. Downloading a song free is like walking out of the bakers' with a baguette and refusing to pay for it, he said.

 

 


www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

 

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

COMMENT
I wonder how they will be "encouraged" to "volunteer?"

Mandatory internet filter could become voluntary http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/20090527-mandatory-internet-filter-could-become-voluntary.html
 
Wednesday 27 May 2009 11:05
Patrick Stafford
 
The Federal Government appears to have changed its approach to the proposed mandatory internet filter, now claiming that internet providers could join a filtering scheme on a voluntary basis.

 

The Government has also flagged changes to the blacklist of banned websites, and is now considering having the secret list reviewed by an independent panel.

 

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said in a Senate estimates committee yesterday that the Government could take two approaches to introducing a scheme, one mandatory and one voluntary.

 

"Mandatory ISP filtering would conceivably involve legislation ... voluntary is available currently to ISPs," Conroy said.

"One option is potentially legislation. One other option is that it could be (on a) voluntary basis that they (ISPs) could voluntarily agree to introduce it."

 

The comments are the first indication that the Government would consider a voluntary code, after having spent the last 18 months declaring the filter would be mandatory for all ISPs.

 

Senator Conroy has scaled back some elements of the filter recently, including changing the definition of content to be blocked from "unwanted content" to "content that is refused classification".

 

The changes may be a response to widespread criticism of the filter, with industry groups claiming it would slow internet speeds by over 80% and may inadvertently block the websites of innocent individuals and businesses.

 

Meanwhile, Conroy said in the same hearing that the Government is "considering options for greater transparency and accountability in respect of the blacklist".

 

A regular review of the list by a committee or independent panel may be formed, as well as a regular review of complaints made about the list.

 

The blacklist is maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and would form the list of sites to be blocked under a mandatory filter. A form of the blacklist was recently leaked to whistle-blower website "Wikileaks".

 

Several internet service providers are now undergoing trials of a filtering system, with results to be delivered to the Government in either July or August.

 

Senator Conroy did not return calls by the time of publication.

 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Internet Threatened by Censorship, Secret Surveillance, and Cybersecurity Laws

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13706

by Stephen Lendman
 
At a time of corporate dominated media, a free and open Internet is democracy's last chance to preserve our First Amendment rights without which all others are threatened. Activists call it Net Neutrality. Media scholar Robert McChesney says without it "the Internet would start to look like cable TV (with a) handful of massive companies (controlling) content" enough to have veto power over what's allowed and what it costs. Progressive web sites and writers would be marginalized or suppressed, and content systematically filtered or banned.

Media reform activists have drawn a line in the sand. Net Neutrality must be defended at all costs. Preserving a viable, independent, free and open Internet (and the media overall) is essential to a functioning democracy, but the forces aligned against it are formidable, daunting, relentless, and reprehensible. Some past challenges suggest future ones ahead.

Censorship Attempts to Curtail Free Expression

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 

Nonetheless, Congress and state legislatures have repeatedly tried to censor free speech, allegedly regarded as indecent, obscene, hateful, terrorist-related, or harmful to minors. However, the Supreme Court, in a number of decisions, ruled that the government may not regulate free expression, only its manner such as when it violates the right to privacy "in an essentially intolerable manner" - a huge hurtle to overcome, including online, because viewers are protected by simply "averting (one's) eyes (Cohen v. California - 1971)."

In 1998, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) passed, but was blocked by federal courts as an infringement of free speech and therefore unconstitutional and unenforceable. In 1999, the law was struck down at the Appellate Court level, but it stayed on the books. In 2002, the Supreme Court reviewed the ruling and returned the case for reconsideration. It remained blocked. Then in March 2003, the Appellate Court again ruled it unconstitutional on the grounds that it would hinder protected adult speech that's likely what it was about in the first place.

Other litigation followed at the District and Appellate levels until on January 21, 2009, the Supreme Court killed COPA by refusing to hear appeals to affirm it. The Electronic Frontier Foundation put it this way: "After 10 Years, an Infamous Internet-Censorship Act is Finally Dead." At least that's the hope, but censorship attempts never die. They just reinvent themselves in new forms made all the easier when powerful corporate interests and their congressional allies support them.

In 2000, the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) became law, and the Supreme Court upheld it - to regulate online content deemed "indecent (or) harmful to minors." The law requires schools, libraries and other public institutions to install blocking software to prevent minors from having access to it.

In 2006, the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) passed the House but not the Senate. It also would have mandated schools, libraries and other public institutions to prevent minors from accessing "commercial social networking websites (and) chat rooms." 

Its language was broad enough to apply also to sites like Amazon, Yahoo, Wikipedia and others and would have made the FCC a gatekeeper/censor. As the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, the law was reintroduced in the Senate in January 2007 but never passed.

In February 1996, the Communications Decency Act (CDA) was passed - to regulate alleged indecent and obscene online content in violation of the First Amendment. Under the law, classic fiction would be banned as well as any material deemed offensive. In June, 1996, a three-judge federal panel partially struck it down for restricting adult free speech. In June 1997, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.

The Act was Title V of the 1996 Telecommunications Act titled Broadcast Obscenity and Violence that applied broadcast standards to the Internet. Under Section 230, Internet services operators aren't considered publishers and thus have no liability for the words of third parties using their services.

In 2003, Congress amended CDA by removing struck down indecency provisions. In 2005, a three-judge Southern District of New York panel rejected Barbara Nitke's obscenity provisions CDA challenge (in Nitke, et al v. Ashcroft). The Supreme Court upheld the decision.

In 2005, the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act (VAWDOJRA) became law - and another blow to online free speech by prohibiting "any device (like a modem) or software that can be used to originate....(anonymous or other) communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the internet" for the alleged purpose of harassment, even if only vigorous constitutional debate was intended or ordinary free speech.


In October 2007, the House passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act called "the thought crime prevention bill." It was introduced in the Senate, referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, but never voted on or passed. 

If it ever becomes law in its present form, it will establish a commission and Center for Excellence to study and act against "thought criminals" (including online ones) for alleged acts of "violent radicalization (and) homegrown terrorism" defined as follows:

-- "violent radicalization (to mean) adopting or promoting an extremist belief system (to facilitate) ideologically based violence to advance political, religious or social change;"

-- "homegrown terrorism (to mean) the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any (US) possession to intimidate or coerce the (US) government, the civilian population....or any segment thereof (to further) political or social objectives."

In other words, this law, if passed, will criminalize whatever the government wishes to include under the above two categories, including constitutionally protected speech online or elsewhere.

Another ongoing censorship issue involves craigslist - a worldwide online community network featuring classified ads for "jobs, housing, for sale, personals, services, local community, and events."

On May 5, South Carolina Attorney (AG) General Henry McMaster notified its CEO, Jim Buckmaster, that unless an "erotic services" section is removed in 10 days, "craigslist management may be subject to criminal investigation and prosecution." Other AGs in Rhode Island, Illinois, and Connecticut issued similar threats even though all of them are baseless.
 

Previous courts have held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) protects "interactive computer service" providers like craigslist and lets them be self-regulating and free from liability. The law clearly states that they shouldn't be responsible for third party content because they didn't do enough to comply with individual State standards that may violate the First Amendment and federal law. 

In craigslist's case, it's gone way beyond its legal obligations. In November 2008, it agreed to technical and policy changes to curb the use of its site for illegal purposes by third parties, including requiring telephone and credit card verification for "erotic services" ads to reject ones deemed illegal.
 

Earlier, craigslist screened out 90% of these ads. Nonetheless, it's being unfairly targeted by AGs interpreting Section 230 and First Amendment rights as they please. Federal law, however, protects craigslist, but not against ambitious AGs harassment for their own political advantage and self-interest.


On May 20, craigslist announced that it filed suit against South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster seeking "declaratory relief and a restraining order with respect to criminal charges he has repeatedly threatened against craigslist and its executives." Craigslist is on solid footing. It's in full compliance with the law, but McMaster's persistent threats forced it to sue in federal court.

These and numerous other congressional and other attempts aim to censor protected speech, including online. Expect more of this ahead, some legislation to be enacted, at times upheld by the courts, and, as a result, our liberties to be chipped away incrementally and lost - unless a line in the sand is drawn and defended by enough of the committed to do it.

On February 29, 2008, one skirmish turned out successfully when a federal judge let the anonymous whistle-blowing WikiLeaks resume operations after a week earlier ordering its US hosting company and domain registrar (Dynadot) to shut down and lock out its site. In his reconsidered ruling, District Judge Jeffrey White conceded he was having second thoughts regarding "serious questions of prior restraint (and) possible violations of the First Amendment." He added that "the court does not want to be a part of any order that is not constitutional." Even so, one triumph doesn't  mean victory. The struggle for unimpeded free speech continues.

Secret Unconstitutional Surveillance, Including Online Data Mining

The right to privacy is sacred even though no constitutional provision specifically mandates it. Nonetheless, the First Amendment guarantees free and open speech and beliefs. The Third Amendment the privacy of our homes against demands to be used to house soldiers. The Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and privacy of our personal information. 

Also, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain (of the Bill of) rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution protects privacy in a case affirming the right to use contraceptives and that banning them violated the "right to marital privacy." 

In Justice Arthur Goldberg's concurring opinion, he cited the Ninth Amendment in defense of the ruling. Earlier High Courts also affirmed the constitutional right of privacy on matters of marriage, child rearing, procreation, education, termination of medical treatment, possessing and viewing pornography, abortion, and more as well as overall privacy protection.

The 14th Amendment's "liberty" clause also relates to privacy by stating: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." Courts have broadened the meaning of "liberty" to include personal, political and social rights and privileges. Thus, invasion of private spaces is unconstitutional.

In Olmstead v. US (1928), Justice Louis Brandeis stated:

"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect."

George Bush institutionalized lawless spying invasions of privacy on Americans and others. Barack Obama continues the practice under the same federal agencies, including the FBI, CIA, Pentagon and NSA. On April 15, The New York Times headlined: "Officials Say US Wiretaps Exceeded Law."

It cited the NSA's practice in recent months of intercepting private emails and phone calls of Americans "on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year...." Briefed intelligence officials and lawyers called it "significant and systematic....overcollection" in violation of the law.

The Justice Department acknowledged the problem but said it was resolved. For its part, the NSA said its "intelligence operations, including programs for collection and analysis, are in strict accordance with US laws and regulations." The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in overall charge, downplayed the The Times story, referred to "inadvertent mistakes," and claimed efforts were immediately implemented to correct them.

Nonetheless, the issue remains unsettled, and new details reveal earlier domestic surveillance, including wiretapping a congressional member without court approval, and systematically doing it against many American citizens.

Tom Burghardt writes often on these issues for various publications, web sites, and his Antifascist Calling blog...."Exploring the shadowlands of the corporate police state." In calling "Spying on Americans: 'Business as Usual' under Obama," he reported that working cooperatively with private corporations, the NSA collects vast amounts of "transactional data such as credit card purchases, bank transactions and travel itineraries....sold to (the agency) by corporate freebooters." It's then data-mined for "suspicious patterns," a practice begun pre-9/11 but expanded greatly since then.

More than just financial transactions are monitored. According to investigative journalist Christopher Ketchum, "as many as '8 million Americans are now listed (as) secret enemies....who could face detention under martial law (and subjected) to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning" and possible internment.

Nothing under Obama has changed in spite of serious privacy, civil liberties, and other constitutional issues. Director Rod Beckstrom of DHS' Cyber Security Center resigned in March because of NSA's "greater role in guarding the government's computer systems" and its concentrated power without checks and balances.


According to Electronic Frontier Foundation's senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston: Obama's "Justice Department (is continuing) the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts...." because doing so would harm national security.

Worse still is the DOJ's assertion that the US government is immune from illegal spying litigation even when in violation of federal privacy statutes, an unprecedented claim exceeding the Bush administration citing "sovereign immunity." Obama is going Bush one better by saying the Patriot Act immunizes the government from being sued under surveillance provisions of the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's (FISA) enhanced warrantless wiretapping powers in cooperation with complicit telecom providers. In other words, Obama's DOJ absolves itself and its corporate allies of accountability under existing federal statutes that prohibit illegal spying on Americans.

On April 26, Burghhardt reported that "The Pentagon's Cyber Command Formidable Infrastructure arrayed against the American People" will be headed by the NSA's director, Lt. General Keith Alexander, to protect the military's networks from hacker attacks, especially from countries like China and Russia. How this will "affect civilian computer networks is unclear. However, situating" it alongside NSA at Fort Meade, MD "should set alarm bells ringing (because of NSA's) potential for (greater) abuse....given (its) role in illegal domestic surveillance....(and its) tremendous technical capabilities."

"As a Pentagon agency, NSA has positioned itself to seize near total control over the country's electronic infrastructure, thereby exerting an intolerable influence--and chilling effect-- over the nation's political life." Recent history shows that "NSA and their partners at CIA, FBI, et. al. have targeted political dissidents," including anti-war protesters, environmentalists, and others for their activism and beliefs. Greater NSA powers will "transform 'cybersecurity' into a euphemism for keeping the rabble in line (and) achieving 'full spectrum dominance' via 'Cyberspace Offensive Counter-Operations.' "

Directed against ordinary Americans, democratic freedoms will be severely compromised. No matter as "the Obama administration (prepares) to hand control of the nation's electronic infrastructure over to a (rogue) agency" - with General Alexander telling the House Armed Services subcommittee that America needs a digital warfare force for defensive and offensive cyber operations. More resources are required to do it, not for public security, but for imperial conquest and containing dissent at home - in violation of constitutional freedoms and international law. 

In a follow-up May 4 article, Burghardt explored the secret, unaccountable world of FBI data mining through its Investigative Data Warehouse (IDW) containing over a billion documents, including many on US citizens. They come from our personal records and history, including what's obtainable online through illegal spying.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF) Kurt Opsahl, "The IDW includes more than four times as many documents as the Library of Congress, and the FBI has asked for millions of dollars to data-mine this warehouse, using unproven science in an attempt to predict future crimes from past behavior." This illegal spying violates our constitutional right to privacy and endangers our freedom by generating unsubstantiated threats based on pure supposition.

Besides the FBI, it's virtually certain that other, perhaps all 16, government intelligence agencies conduct similar spying illegally, and as such, endanger everyone's freedom.

Earlier on July 14, 2008, an ACLU press release headlined: "Terrorist Watch List Hits One Million Names" based on government reported figures. They include: "Members of Congress, nuns, war heros and other 'suspicious characters' (like anti-war and environmental activists)....trapped in the Kafkaesque clutches of this list, with little hope of escape."

According to the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program director, Barry Steinhardt, this data base represents "what's wrong with this administration's approach to security: it's unfair, out-of-control, a waste of resources, treats the rights of the innocent as an afterthought, and is a very real impediment in the lives of millions of (people) in this country. Putting a million names on a watch list is a guarantee (it) will do more harm than good" besides being ineffective to catch real criminals.

Given the current scope and intent of FBI data mining, with millions under surveillance, its potential for abuse far exceeds where it stood less than a year ago - because the Obama administration supports it. No longer is anything about us private, including:

-- all our financial transactions and records;

-- every check written;

-- every credit card or other electronic purchase;

-- our complete medical history;

-- every plane, train, bus or ship itinerary;

-- our phone records and conversations; and

-- every computer key stroke.

Our entire private world is now public - if spy snoops decide to invade it.

Key Internet-based companies, like Google, do it routinely - the company UK-based Privacy International ranked worst in its September 2007 "Race to the Bottom" report. It stated:

"....throughout our research we have found numerous deficiencies and hostilities in Google's approach to privacy that go well beyond those of other organizations." It tops them all "as an endemic threat to privacy. This is in part due to the diversity and specificity of Google's product range and the ability of the company to share extracted data between these tools, and in part due to Google's market dominance and the sheer size of its user base."

It's also unmatched in "its aggressive use of invasive or potentially invasive technologies and techniques." It's able to "deep-drill into the minutiae of a user's life and lifestyle choices" irresponsibly. Its attitude toward privacy is blatantly hostile at worst and benignly ambivalent at best. Specifically:

-- Google retains a large amount of user information with no limitation on its subsequent use or disclosure and with no chance for users to delete or withdraw it;

-- it retains all "search strings and associated IP-addresses and time stamps for at least 18 to 24 months (retention) and does not provide users with an expungement option;"

-- it has other personal information, including hobbies, employment, addresses, phone numbers, and more, and retains it even after users delete their profiles;

-- it "collects all search results entered through Google Toolbar and identifies all Google Toolbar users with a unique cookie that allows Google to track the user's web movement;" it also retains information indefinitely with no expungement option;

-- it doesn't follow OECD Privacy Guidelines and EU data protection law provisions;

-- users have no option to edit or delete obtained records and information about them; and

-- they can't access log information generated through various Google services, such as Google Maps, Video, Talk, Reader, or Blogger.

In 2004, Google also acquired the CIA-linked company Keyhole, Inc., that has a worldwide 3-D spy-in-the-sky images database. Its software provides a virtual fly-over and zoom-in capability to within a one-foot resolution. It's supported by In-Q-Tel, a venture capital CIA-funded firm that "identif(ies) and invest(s) in companies developing cutting-edge information technologies that serve United States national security interests."

In 2003, its CEO, John Hanke, said: "Keyhole's strategic relationship with In-Q-Tel means that the Intelligence Community can now benefit from the massive scalability and high performance of the Keyhole enterprise solution."

In 2006, former CIA clandestine services case officer, Robert Steele, said:

"I am quite positive that Google is taking money and direction from my old colleague Dr. Rick Steinheiser in the Office of Research and Development at CIA, and that Google has done at least one major prototype effort focused on foreign terrorists which produced largely worthless data....I think (Google is) stupid to be playing with CIA, which cannot keep a secret and is more likely to waste time and money than actually produce anything useful."

On April 29, Willem Buiter's Maverecon site headlined "Gagging on Google" and said:

"Google is to privacy and respect for intellectual property rights what the Taliban are to women's rights and civil liberties: a daunting threat that must be fought relentlessly by all those who value privacy and the right to exercise, within the limits of the law, control over the uses made by others of their intellectual property."

This company should be rigorously regulated, "and if necessary, broken up or put out of business." With about half the global internet search market, it threatens enhanced "corporate or even official Big Brotherism."

For example, Google Street View, an addition to Google Maps, "provides panoram(ic) images visible from street level in cities around the world. The cameras record details of residents' lives" on all sorts of personal matters that no one should be able to snoop on, then save, without permission, for whatever purposes.

The company also invades our privacy through tracking cookies or "third-party persistent cookies" to assist interest-based advertising, a practice known as behavioral targeting. In the wrong hands, this information can be used "to put a commercial squeeze on people, but also to extort and blackmail them." And in government hands, it enhances "a pretty effective and very nasty police state."

Can Google be trusted to use this information responsibly? "Of course not." It's a business run by "amoral capitalists," out to make as much money as possible by any means necessary. Google and other Internet search engines "should not be trusted because they cannot be trusted." However, because of its size and dominance, Google is "the new evil empire of the internet," a "Leviathan" that must be tamed.

Cybersecurity Legislation

On April 1, two bills endangering a free and open Internet were introduced in the Senate:

-- S. 773: Cybersecurity Act of 2009 "to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes."

S. 773 was then referred to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and thus far not voted on.

-- S. 778: A bill to establish, within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of National Cybersecurity Advisor (aka czar). The bill was referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and not yet voted on.

Accompanying information said Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe introduced the legislation to address:

"our country's unacceptable vulnerability to massive cyber crime, global cyber espionage, and cyber attacks that could cripple our critical infrastructure."

We presently face cyber espionage threats, they said, as well as "another great vulnerability....to our private sector critical infrastructure - banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, telecommunications - from disruptive cyber attacks that could literally shut down our way of life."

"This proposed legislation will bring new high-level governmental attention to develop a fully integrated, thoroughly coordinated, public-private partnership to our cyber security efforts in the 21st century" through what's unstated - government affecting our private lives by threatening the viability of a free and open Internet.

During a March Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing, Senator Rockefeller said that we'd all be better off if the Internet was never invented. His precise words were: "Would it have been better if we'd never have invented the Internet and had to use paper and pencil or whatever!" Left unsaid was that without a free and open Internet, few alternatives for getting real news and information would exist, at least with the ease and free accessibility that computers can provide.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Jennifer Granick expressed alarm about the risk of "giving the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet without necessarily improving security in the ways that matter most. (These bills) should be opposed or radically amended."

Here's what they'll do:

-- federalize critical infrastructure security, including banks, telecommunications and energy, shifting power away from providers and users to Washington;

-- give "the president unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in (whatever he calls) an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds....;"

-- potentially "cripple privacy and security in one fell swoop" through one provision (alone) empowering the Commerce Secretary to "have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access...."

In other words, the Commerce Department will be empowered to access "all relevant data" - without privacy safeguards or judicial review. As a result, constitutionally protected private information statutory protections will be lost - guaranteed under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act, and financial privacy regulations.

Another provision mandates a feasibility study for an identity management and authentication program that would sidestep "appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections."

At issue is what role should the federal government play in cybersecurity? How much power should it have? Can it dismiss constitutional protections, and what, in fact, can enhance cybersecurity without endangering our freedoms? S. 773 and 778, as now written, "make matters worse by weakening existing privacy safeguards (without) address(ing) the real problems of security."

In late February, Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, told the House Intelligence Committee that the NSA, not DHS, should be in charge of cybersecurity even though it has a "trust handicap" to overcome because of its illegal spying:

"I think there is a great deal of distrust of the National Security Agency and the intelligence community in general playing a role outside of the very narrowly circumscribed role because of some of the history of the FISA issue in years past...." So Blair asked the committee's leadership to find a way to instill public confidence.

On February 9, Obama appointed Melissa Hathaway to be Acting Senior Director for Cyberspace for the National Security and Homeland Security Councils - in charge of a 60-day interagency cybersecurity review, now completed.

On April 21, NSA/Chief Central Security Service director, General Alexander, told RSA Conference security participants that "The NSA does not want to run cybersecurity for the government. We need partnerships with others. The DHS has a big part, you do, and our partners in academia. It's one network and we all have to work together....The NSA can offer technology assistance to team members. That's our role."

But someone has to be in charge. It may or may not be NSA, but no matter. At issue is our constitutional freedoms. Any infringement on them must be challenged and stopped.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 

Also visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Stephen Lendman is a frequent contributor to Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByAuthor&authorFirst=Stephen&authorName=Lendman  Global Research Articles by Stephen Lendman

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

COMMENT

Australian adults will decide what information they read, and when they read it. There can be no informed, reasoned and rational debate about anything if the population can't access all the facts and all opinion.
 
Sen Conroy stop treating adult Australians like mindless and morally inept troglodytes who need to be protected by the Government.
 
We are not talking about breaking the Law. For those who willfully break the Law the Police and Courts are in place to handle such matters. We are talking about the ability of all adult Australians to access information.
 
Governments, Religious bodies and the public service have no place in the legal private lives of anybody.
 
Web filtering pulls plug on euthanasia debate
 
COURTESY SMH

Michael Duffy

May 22, 2009

They held a debate last week at the Oxford Union on the subject of voluntary euthanasia. Dr Philip Nitschke, the advocate of legalisation, was invited to speak. He accepted but the invitation was cancelled by union president Corey Dixon.

When I asked Dixon why he'd done this, he replied: "An administrative decision was made to ensure we had three speakers on each side of the debate, which was proving difficult due to Dr Nitschke's attendance. It is always in the interests of the Oxford Union to ensure a balanced debate with as wide-ranging views as possible represented."

Thus was a blow to free speech transmogrified into a triumph.

Nitschke went to Britain anyway, on a speaking tour. When he arrived on May 2, he was detained by the authorities at Heathrow Airport and grilled for nine hours. He's got other problems closer to home. It looks like the Australian Government is going to ban the website containing the online version of his book, The Peaceful Pill Handbook. It's on the blacklist maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority that's being used in the current internet filtering pilot project.

According to a press release from the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, the sites being filtered predominantly comprise "images of the sexual abuse of children".

Predominantly, but not entirely.

A copy of the blacklist (leaked to wikileaks.org) shows the peacefulpillhandbook.com in undistinguished company, lying in the murky alphabetical territory between panty-ass.com and pickyourperversion.com.

This is not an argument in favour of voluntary euthanasia, a subject on which I don't have a firm opinion. It's an argument in favour of freedom and free speech. As I've tried to find out more about voluntary euthanasia in recent months, attending several talks by Nitschke and speaking with lots of people, I've been struck by the number of laws that seek to prevent the flow of facts. They haven't been hugely effective to this point, but they're probably going to become more so soon.

This is despite the fact that killing yourself in Australia is actually legal, and 70 per cent of respondents in opinion polls support voluntary euthanasia.

Nitschke says the Australian Government's fervour in attacking voluntary euthanasia is unique. In 1996, it over-rode the Northern Territory's law legalising the practice. In 2006, it banned the use of telephones, faxes, emails and the internet to disseminate or acquire information for the purpose of counselling or inciting suicide, or of learning how to do it. (Nitschke's website is now based overseas.) In 2007, it banned his book. (This followed a complaint from Right To Life, which in this case argued for not just a right but an obligation.) And soon, if the pilot project proceeds to implementation, as is expected, it could make access to his book online not just illegal but physically impossible.

Last week, I spoke with Nitschke about this latest move. He said: "If the website is banned we might be forced to leave Australia. Increasingly we've had to make use of the internet to survive and to co-ordinate our activities, and I'm not sure if this will be possible for much longer."

One reason Nitschke is so vulnerable to government bans is that he doesn't just advocate, he provides information on methods, which is illegal.

The peaceful pill he advocates is the barbiturate Nembutal, which was advertised in the Women's Weekly in the 1950s but now, thanks to adverse events involving Marilyn Monroe and other deceased figures, is illegal (except for use on animals).

Nembutal will knock you out in seconds and kill you in half an hour or so. Nitschke says at least 300 Australians have gone to Mexico and other countries to obtain it over the counter from veterinarians' suppliers, and have brought it back here. Others have purchased it from Mexico by mail order. Importing Nembutal (except for use on animals) is illegal, too.

The civil resistance to government represented by this importation, and by the people I've seen at Nitschke's meetings, and by the voluntary euthanasia movement more generally, are an interesting modern phenomenon.

The seriousness with which those at the meetings discuss ways and means of ending life is slightly spooky, but their determination and anger with government is hot.

Nearly all of them are over 60. Nitschke says he's noticed the same in Britain, where he recently finished giving a number of talks. "Many elderly people see it as an important issue," he observes, "but younger people can be very critical of what I'm saying."

It's a rare case where the old - or some of them - are more radical than the young. But as Nitschke tells his audiences, waiting until you're old and sick before you think about this subject might mean you've waited too long. Especially if the laws continue to close in.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

 
"A Culture Of Surveillance"
by Chuck Baldwin
April 28, 2009






It is truly amazing how much news the American news media chooses to ignore. If one wants to discover what is actually going on in the world, he or she often has to go to the foreign press. This has again been the case with a story that every American should be extremely interested in, but which has been totally ignored by the American news media. I found this story in Russia Today.

According to RussiaToday.com, "The personal computer may soon be not-so-private, with the U.S. and some European nations working on laws allowing them access to search the content held on a person's hard drive.

"President Obama's administration is keeping unusually tight-lipped on the details, which is raising concerns among computer users and liberty activists."

The report also states, "In extreme secrecy from the public, the United States is hammering out an international copyright treaty with several other countries and the European Union. Under the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (or ACTA), governments will get sweeping new powers to search and seize material thought to be in breach of copyright. But why all the secrecy?"

Russia Today quotes Richard Stallman, prominent American software freedom activist, as saying, "Democracy gets bypassed and they can do to us whatever they want. I can only guess that it's going to be nasty, because if it weren't going to be nasty, they wouldn't need to keep it a secret."

The report also said, "Up until now, the breach of copyright has been a civil matter. The Obama administration seems to now want to criminalize it."

The report continued saying, "Some say modern America is being overtaken by a culture of surveillance."

A culture of surveillance indeed. What began in earnest under former President George W. Bush is now sharply escalating under President Barack Obama.

According to Ecommerce Journal, President Obama and his Big Brother fellow travelers in Congress are seeking power to "cut the whole world off the Internet." The report says, "Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe proposed the Cybersecurity Act that would create the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor. Its powers are detailed in the The Cybersecurity Act of 2009.

"If the President so chooses, he can call a 'cybersecurity emergency' and shut down or limit any 'net traffic or a 'critical' network 'in the name of national security,' though the bill fails to provide concrete definitions on what is 'critical' or what constitutes an 'emergency.'"

The report goes on to say, "This new legislation seeks to give even more power to the government to regulate the Internet and, in future, the possibility to regulate content and usage. What begins as a method of defeating terrorism and protecting telecommunications, can quickly become a method to regulate 'hate speech' to assign 'motive' or 'intent' to harm and even to regulate and legislate the flow of information that is deemed by the 'thought police' to be inflammatory or counter-productive to their cause."

The report says that the new cybersecurity legislation can be a "framework for future, more invasive legislation. It is a first step to the loss of internet privacy, free speech and the free flow of information."

So, once again, the passing of a Republican Presidential administration and the advent of a Democratic Presidential administration have resulted in zero change in the overall direction of the ship of state. In the name of "national security," the federal government of this country continues to deepen its commitment to what can only be described as a police-state mentality. And, once again, the national news media in America chooses to ignore the story, and by so doing, shows willful compliance with this disturbing phenomenon.

I wonder how many Obama supporters are paying attention?

During the Bush years, my "conservative" brethren (especially the ones calling themselves Christians) repeatedly turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the myriad foibles and falsehoods, and frequent fraudulence of President Bush because he was a Republican. Now we will see how many Obama supporters will look the other way in order to protect President Obama because he is a Democrat. I suspect most of them will show themselves of no better character than the Bush supporters.

Consider: Obama promised to end the war in Iraq. But what has he done since being elected? He merely moved the major combat theater to Afghanistan. He is even in the process of escalating the war in Afghanistan to possibly include Pakistan. So, where are the "peacenik" liberals who supported Obama? Why do they not loudly proclaim their opposition, as they did when Bush was in office?

Furthermore, Obama criticized Bush's undisciplined deficit spending, but what has he done since becoming President? He has deeply expanded Bush's failed financial policy of excessive deficit spending. Again, where are all the loud voices of protest?

George Bush wanted amnesty for illegal aliens. Barack Obama wants amnesty for illegal aliens. George Bush supported the assault weapons ban. Barack Obama supports the assault weapons ban. George Bush wanted to limit the legal rights of certain people charged with crimes. Well, friends, Barack Obama also wants to limit the rights of people charged with crimes.

Just last week, an Associated Press report stated, "The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

"The administration's action--and several others--have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat's call for change during the 2008 campaign."

So, where are Obama's supporters who thought they were voting for change? Will they do nothing, as did Bush's supporters, and accept this abridgment of personal liberty, simply because "their man" is in the White House? Probably.

In addition, George Bush created a Big-Government monster known as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Can there be any doubt that DHS is in the process of manufacturing a ubiquitous surveillance society that eavesdrops, snoops, and monitors virtually our entire lives? And what does Barack Obama do immediately after assuming office? He multiplies and expands the surveillance society to even greater degrees. So again I ask, where are all the Bush critics to denounce Barack Obama's draconian anti-privacy, anti-freedom policies?

The Internet is the last best source of free and independent information left. Think where the liberty movement would be without the Internet. But even as we speak, President Obama and his allies in Congress are attempting to obtain the authority to censor information on--and curtail access to--the Internet. Plus, in the name of "cybersecurity," they are plotting to obtain the authority to monitor and seize anyone's personal computer at will.

The Russia Today report is right: we do have a culture of surveillance. We also have a culture of cowardice by people from both sides of the political aisle who, in the name of partisan politics, are willfully accommodating and facilitating the demise of this constitutional republic.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

? Chuck Baldwin

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Plan to monitor all internet use http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8020039.stm

 
Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/node
If they could really do it, they could locate and shut down the hackers.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Spy chiefs size up net snoop gear

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/21/imp_dpi/

By Chris Williams 

Posted in Government, 21st April 2009 12:28 GMT

The security minister has confirmed officials are considering installing technology that could enable on-demand wiretapping of all communications passing over the internet by the intelligence services and law enforcement.

Lord West told Parliament on Monday that civil servants working on the Interception Modernisation Programme (IMP) were considering how Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) equipment "might support the lawful interception of communications and separately the lawful acquisition of communications data".

It's the first time the government has publicly acknowledged its interest in DPI equipment. A delayed Home Office consultation on IMP is due to be launched "shortly", West said.

The Programme as envisaged by GCHQ and MI6, according to sources, has two aims.

First, spy chiefs want to create a massive central repository of communications traffic data. Such data contains the powerful details of who contacts whom, how, when and where. Most major ISPs and telecoms firms already retain much of this data, but some do not, and many email, VoIP, instant messenging and social networking services retain little.

This in turn would facilitate the second aim of the system, the interception of the content of internet communications. As now, this would require a warrant under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), but each wiretap would be much easier to implement.

West's comments confirm our sources' information that officials are considering a network of DPI probes inside the UK internet and telecoms infrastructure that could fulfil each ambition. The equipment can monitor everything in each data packet passing its location in the network, allowing both "the lawful acquisition of communications data" and the "the lawful interception of communications".

The hardware would be much the same as that Phorm plans to use in its ISP-level targeted advertising system, albeit on a far grander scale. Leaked estimates have put the cost of a ubiquitous DPI network and central database at ?12bn. DPI would account for the lion's share of that figure. The two controversial systems have both arisen out of rapid advancements in chip and network technology that have made monitoring IP networks at line speed feasible, however.

That development of surveillance power in the last decade is illustrated by a letter to the editor of The Guardian by then-National Criminal Intelligence Service Director General John Abbott, in 2000.

He wrote: "Conspiracy theorists must not be allowed to get away with the ridiculous notion that law enforcement would or even could monitor all emails. The intelligence agencies have neither the inclination nor the resources, nor the legal ability to monitor the massive amounts of electronic communications that flow through the UK every day.

"It does not happen with letters or telephones and it will not with emails."

Nine years later, the DPI equipment being considered by the government would allow exactly that.

West did not address the thrust of Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Miller's question yesterday. She asked whether DPI would be used to peer into communications to ascertain identity where it could not be gleaned from the traffic data.

Security experts including the University of Cambridge's Professor Richard Clayton have pointed out that in such cuircumstances, where DPI technology is installed, the line between communications traffic data and the content of the communication could become blurred.

[Keith]

Internet set to be up to 60 times faster

Georgina Robinson

April 7, 2009

Australians will be able to download high definition feature films in eight minutes when the national broadband network is built, according to a leading supplier of the technology.

The $43 billion fibre-to-the-premises network will run underground cables of glass fibres the width of a human hair to almost every home and business in the country.

The network will deliver households internet speeds of up to 100 megabits (or 12.5 megabytes) per second, up to 100 times faster than many services on offer now.

Mobile broadband users also stand to benefit because the overhaul will improve connection speeds between reception towers.

Alcatel-Lucent chief technology officer, Ric Clark, said downloading a movie would be as much as 60 times faster on the new network than it is currently.

Alcatel-Lucent is a leader in fibre-to-the-premises technology and could play a large role in the construction of the new network.

Mr Clark joined Nextgen, the third largest provider of long distance optical networks in the country behind Telstra and Optus, in hailing the Government's announcement as a visionary step forward.

"It's the ultimate in technology and a very far-sighted position that the Government's taken because using copper (as the existing network does) is always a compromise," he said.

"The original copper access network was never designed to handle very, very fast broadband data and it's only clever engineers who have come up with a way to make DSL (which shares a telephone line) work."

The fully-built network will bring Australia into step with Japan, Asia, the United States and much of Europe, Mr Clark said.

In the United States, Verizon was rolling out the same technology to about 18 million customers, while in Europe about five million users were being given access.

Mr Sykes said it was unknown how much the new technology would cost consumers but that it would likely be highly regulated.

"It's very hard to tell at this stage but it looks like there'll be a significant regulatory review undertaken as part of this whole process," he said.

"The ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) will be pretty significant in price-setting, that's my take."

Mr Clark said the scale of the $43 billion nation-wide project would lead to thousands of new jobs (Mr Rudd estimates 37,000) and a mini-industry geared towards constructing, providing and servicing the network.

"Because it's a fibre-to-the-premises network there's a large amount of civil work involved," he said.

"Then it's one thing to have the pipes (cables) but you've got to be able to secure those big pipes and you've got to be able to do it efficiently."

Alcatel-Lucent would wait for more detail on how the network would be constructed before announcing whether or not it intended to tender for any of the work, Mr Clark said.

"We are the world's number one supplier of (the) technology so we'd like to think we're in a good position to respond to what the Government's trying to do," he said.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

National broadband tender winner to be announced by Rudd, Swan

Article from: AAP
 
AAP

April 07, 2009


THE government is set to reveal who will construct Australia's national broadband network.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Treasurer Wayne Swan, Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner and the Minister for broadband, communications and the digital economy Stephen Conroy will hold a joint press conference this morning to reveal the winner.

The project has been described as the biggest infrastructure undertaking in Australia since the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electricity Scheme.

It will provide a major boost to economic growth and jobs at a time when the economy has ground to a halt under the weight of the global financial crisis.

Bids were made by six potential builders, but Telstra, Australia's largest telco, was expelled from the tender process after it failed to meet government guidelines.

That leaves five parties vying for the government's $4.7 billion contribution to the national broadband network (NBN) cost, which is estimated to total $15 billion.

The Acacia consortium, comprising wealthy businessmen and telco veterans, is the favourite to be named the winner, over Optus and Canadian telco Axia NetMedia.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Should Obama Control the Internet?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet

A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
Change we can believe in Hardly! Obama is continuing the same trend towards a police state that Bush did, and this latest attempt to create an "Off" switch on the internet only shows that Obama is the bigg$^&57x...[NO CARRIER]

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

 
iiNet pulls out of net censorship trials
 
Asher Moses
March 23, 2009
 
COURTESY THE AGE
 

Australia's third largest internet provider, iiNet, has withdrawn from the Government's internet censorship trials, saying it could not "reconcile participation in the trial with our corporate social responsibility".

The move comes after the anonymous whistleblower site Wikileaks last week published a leaked copy of the secret Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) blacklist of prohibited websites, which forms the backbone of the Government's censorship policy.

Far from containing just "illegal material" such as child pornography, the list of prohibited websites includes a wealth of legal material such as regular gay and straight porn sites, YouTube links, online poker sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites and even the sites of a Queensland dentist, a school canteen consultancy and an animal carer.

The Government's mandatory internet censorship plan, which is already being trialled by a number of small ISPs, will block sites contained on the ACMA blacklist for all Australians.

"We are not able to reconcile participation in the trial with our corporate social responsibility, our customer service objectives and our public position on censorship," iiNet managing director Michael Malone said.

"It became increasingly clear that the trial was not simply about restricting child pornography or other such illegal material, but a much wider range of issues including what the Government simply describes as 'unwanted material' without an explanation of what that includes."

Betty Peters, 78, a retired nurse educator from Melbourne whose pro-euthanasia YouTube videos were included on the blacklist, said she was "outraged" at the Government's big brother attitude to Australian senior citizens.

"We do not need a 40-year-old senator like [Communications Minister] Stephen Conroy deciding for us what is good and bad. I am appalled that our free country has come to this," said Peters, who does volunteer work for euthanasia organisation Exit International.

Senator Conroy and ACMA initially tried to discredit Wikileaks by saying the leaked blacklist was about double the size of ACMA's list. However, they admitted that both lists shared "some common URLs".

 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

COMMENT

Looks very much like the Christian far right has had an undue influence here in what may be banned.
 
 
 
Australia's Vast, Scattershot Censorship Blacklist Revealed
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/19/2321259&from=rss

"Australia's secretive Internet filter blacklist held by its communications watchdog has been leaked, revealing the government has understated the amount of banned Web pages by more than 1000. Multiple legitimate businesses and Web sites have been banned including two bus companies, online poker sites, multiple Wikipedia entries, Google and Yahoo group pages, a dental surgery and a tour operator.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
Wikileaks has been taken offline since publishing the list.
*************
The U.K. wants your Twitter chatter under surveillance
http://www.inquisitr.com/20227/the-uk-wants-your-twitter-chatter-under-surveillance/

Not happy with pushing the EU Data Retention Directive which would make ISPs store communication data for 12 months Vernon Coaker, the U.K. Home Office security minister, now wants all social networking sites and IM messaging service monitored as well. The Interception Monderisation Programme (IMP) is the government proposal for legislation to use mass monitoring of traffic data as an antiterrorism tool.

The IMP has two objectives; that the government use deep packet inspection to monitor the Web communications of all U.K. citizens; and that all of the traffic data relating to those communications are stored in a centralized government database.
*****************

 
The Internet Surging as a Major Influence in the Political Landscape
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/445


Democracy is only as good as the information that we receive. Our right to vote means very little if we don?t have enough information on which to make an intelligent choice in the voting booth.

That is why corporate monopoly control over much of our national news media, which was greatly facilitated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, has been so toxic to our democracy.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/
The blogs are already beating newspapers and magazines, and we are closing in on TV.

 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

Rudd's internet blacklist includes dentist, kennel, tuckshop
Article from: COURIER MAIL
 
David Earley

March 20, 2009

THE websites of a Queensland dentist, a tuckshop convener and a kennel operator have been included on a secret "blacklist" of sites to be banned by Australia's communications watchdog.

The seemingly innocuous websites were among a leaked list of 2300 websites the Australian Communications and Media Authority was planning to ban to protect children from graphic pornography and violence.

Several Queensland businesses yesterday expressed dismay at their inclusion on the Government's mandatory internet content filter.

Dental Distinction practice manager Kelly Wilson said the business had never been contacted by the ACMA and she was struggling to understand why the website appeared on the list.

"I am quite shocked and slightly amused that our name is on it," Ms Wilson said.

She said the practice's website had been hacked once, redirecting visitors to a website that sold sex enhancement products, but the problem had been fixed 18 months ago.

"People were automatically redirected to this website in the US that sold things like Viagra and sex toys," she said.

"That's the only thing I can think of as to why we're on it."

As well as the dental practice, a website for Maroochy Boarding Kennels and a Brisbane tuckshop convener were named.

Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy yesterday said the leaked list included proposed banned sites but denied it was the ACMA blacklist.

"There are some common URLs (links) to those on the ACMA blacklist," he said.

Senator Conroy said ACMA could refer the leak to the Australian Federal Police for further investigation.

"The leak and publication of prohibited URLs is grossly irresponsible," Mr Conroy said.

"No one interested in cyber safety would condone leaking these addresses."

The ACMA has warned people caught distributing the list or accessing child pornography sites on the list could face criminal charges and up to 10 years in prison, as well as fines up to $11,000 a day for linking to sites on the secret blacklist.

But yesterday the ACMA itself distributed the list, sending an email to one of the prohibited websites named in the blacklist, providing a direct link to the entire list of contents.

As well as links to child pornography, rape, incest and bestiality websites, up to half of the sites on the list are believed to be legal content, including a tour operator's website, links to online encyclopedia Wikipedia, legal adult material, online gambling sites, even a page with images of cats accompanied by amusing phrases, colloquially known as "LOL cats".

Opposition communications spokesman Nick Minchin said the Rudd Government would be best served ensuring law enforcement agencies were adequately equipped to address the problem.

"The Coalition also maintains that adult supervision is the most effective way of keeping children safe online and people shouldn't be led into believing, by Labor, that expanded blacklists or mandatory filters are a substitute for that," he said.
*****************
Internet filter list of porn exposedMitchell Bingemann
 March 20, 2009
Article from:  The Australian
THE Rudd Government's plans for a nationwide internet filter are in jeopardy after its top-secret blacklist of banned web pages was leaked.

The list, published on the internet, reads like a White Pages of porn and its release has provided a handy guide for young people to access the very material the Government wishes to banish from their eyes.

The secret blacklist, which was leaked to the whistle-blower website Wikileaks, is purportedly the same list the Australian Communications and Media Authority distributes to vendors of approved internet filters to ban offensive material -- such as child pornography, bestiality and violence.

ACMA and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy yesterday attempted to hose down concerns about the published blacklist, saying it was not the official list used by the communications regulator.

Of the 2395 web pages on the leaked list, approximately half relate to child porn -- one of the key targets of the federal Government's planned mandatory internet filter.

Many more web pages relate to online poker sites, YouTube links, pornography sites, Wikipedia entries and even links to a Queensland boarding kennel and a Queensland dentist.

"While Wikileaks is used to exposing secret government censorship in developing countries, we now find Australia acting like a democratic backwater," the website notes.

"History shows that secret censorship systems, whatever their original intent, are invariably corrupted into anti-democratic behaviour."

The content of the list of illegal, prohibited and potentially prohibited web pages is supposed to be strictly confidential and is being used as the backbone of the Government's internet censorship plan, which is undergoing trials with a number of internet service providers.

Senator Conroy has said he plans to use parts of the ACMA blacklist to block Australian internet users from accessing pornographic and violent material. Now the secret list has been made public, it is more likely it will be used by interested parties as a pornography database of unheralded proportions.

Child protection group Child Wise said whoever published the blacklist had opened up a Pandora's box of porn.

"Every 15-year-old boy in the country is going to be after this porn list," said Child Wise chief executive Bernadette McMenamin.

"The person who's done this should be prosecuted and jailed for effectively disseminating and promoting child pornography."

Yesterday's disclosure of the blacklist could also jeopardise efforts to block access to offensive material as the perpetrators will now know they were tagged by the secret list.

"The leak and publication of prohibited URLs is grossly irresponsible," Senator Conroy said. "It undermines efforts to improve cyber-safety and create a safe online environment for children."

ACMA and Senator Conroy attempted to cast doubt on the authenticity of the leaked list by highlighting discrepancies in the blacklist's size.

While the leaked list contains 2395 banned web pages, ACMA says its blacklist as of August last year contained 1061 links.

ACMA would not say how many of the 1061 links on its list also appeared on the leaked Wikileaks blacklist.

"I am aware of reports that a list of URLs has been placed on a website; this is not the ACMA blacklist," Senator Conroy said.

"There are some common URLs to those on the ACMA blacklist. However, ACMA advises that there are URLs on the published list that have never been the subject of a complaint or ACMA investigation, and have never been included on the ACMA blacklist."

Wikileaks said the disparity in the reported figure was probably due to the fact that the list contained several duplicates and variations of the same URL that stem from a single complaint.

ACMA is investigating the leak and is considering a range of possible actions it may take, including referral to the Australian Federal Police.

ACMA threatens fines of up to $11,000 a day for linking to sites on its secret censorship blacklist and said Australians caught distributing the list or accessing child pornography sites on the list could face criminal charges and up to 10 years in prison.




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Dallas]

George Orwell must be watching with interest our attempt to create a similar environment to his much quoted book 1984. By all means block things such as child pornography but it really is taking us into unchartered water where the state decides what we watch. Certainly makes it easy for a government that wants to hide its wrong doing. Apparently federal parliamentarians already are barred from accessing certain information some of which would appear to have more to do with the fruit  loop element that wants to push their brand of what ever they are pushing than protecting us from the evils that lurk on the internet.
This might not be 1984 but it sure as hell is starting to look decidedly what Orwell's envisioned. 

[Keith]

Banned hyperlinks could cost you $11,000 a day
http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/banned-hyperlinks-could-cost-you-11000-a-day/2009/03/17/1237054787635.html

The Australian communications regulator says it will fine people who hyperlink to sites on its blacklist, which has been further expanded to include several pages on the anonymous whistleblower site Wikileaks.

Wikileaks was added to the blacklist for publishing a leaked document containing Denmark's list of banned websites.



COURTESY http://www.crikey.com.au/index.html
 
Rundle: there is no bigger issue than net censorship
Wednesday, 18 March 2009

Guy Rundle writes from London:
 

With the news that communications watchdog ACMA has put some pages of Wikileaks on its list of banned links -- and threatened linkers with five-figure daily fines -- the fight against the compulsory internet filtering enters a new and vital stage.

Wikileaks -- the document repository, no association with Wikipedia -- has published the list of sites banned by the Danish government, and these pages have been put on the blacklist, presumably as part of a worldwide compact, formal or otherwise, between national web censorship authorities.

Of course, the ACMA decision doesn't affect many people at the moment, only sites hosted from Australia. But should mandatory filtering be introduced, the pages would be blocked for everyone. As would the pages telling you which pages had been blocked. And the pages telling you the pages that tell you the ... and so on, a repressive tower.

Such a move should make crystal clear to everyone, what has always been obvious to anyone paying attention -- that 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.

For the left, this involves reminding oneself of the old rule -- vital right up to the 1970s -- that civil liberties and free speech campaigns have to take priority over any other, because they are the precondition of political activity. In the 1930s, this involved a long campaign against the "vagrancy" laws used by the police to prevent anti-eviction campaigners, among others, speaking at street corners.

Through the 1960s it involved a campaign to abolish Australia's shockingly comprehensive book and film censorship laws, kept in place by the "Liberal" party as a sop to the DLP. In the late 60s it included a general strike in Victoria, when tramways union leader Clarrie O'Shea was jailed (and as a result of the strike, released) on archaic anti-combination laws, and the process didn't stop until the full decriminalisation of homos-xuality in the 70s, 80s, and -- ! -- 90s.

Throughout that series of struggles, the ALP was -- more often than not -- on the side of a freer and more open society. It was, in that sense, Australia's liberal party. For everyone up to and including Keating, the modernisation of Australia manifested in making it a fairer, better society was equally expressed in the idea that ideas, debate and media should be as free as possible, and that each was a condition of the other.

Like New Labour in the UK, the ALP has now abandoned that, for a number of reasons. Once it committed itself to neoliberal economics ("social capitalism") Labo(u)r became freaked about the social dissolution and rupture, the desocialisation created by turning the polis into a giant market of winners and losers. The tough answer to this is genuine social democracy, in which people have a social being not entirely defined by whether they're a "winner" or a "loser". The easy answer is to let the market rip, allow it to change the culture, and then seek to control and reshape people's behaviour, selling it to them as "protecting the many against the few".

Politically, this also serves as a way of outflanking the Right on the law and order issue, with a distinctive centre-left twist. The Right can talk about "throwing away the key", "three strikes", etc, sounding increasingly olde-worlde, while Labour can offer filters, ASBOs, CCTVs and so on, portraying themselves as both cutting-edge, high-tech, and hardline. And any objection concerning an open society from within its own ranks can be dealt with by reference back to the way in which "rights stopped Labour achieving real change" -- high courts striking down tax laws etc etc.

The result -- a party committed to a timid shadow of social democracy, waging a foreign imperial war, and trialling a world-standard setting system of secret censorship is obviously a force that is neither progressive, nor politically liberal nor left in any sense of the terms, and which has jumped wholly across to a space on the reactionary right (some might argue it always was, save for the period between the 60s and 90s, but that's a historical discussion).

Thus, the most important act is twofold -- recognising the categorical primary importance of this issue, and the need for total separation from any remnant or sentimental attachment to the ALP regarding it.

In that respect -- and I apologise in advance to anyone who's been campaigning on this issue, irritated at getting lectured from London -- several concrete moves seem crucial:

A significant number of left activists have to drop particular campaigns, and commit to full-time focus on an anti-filter campaign.

Through that, existing organisations need to be got to the next level of visible full-time campaigning, fundraising etc.

The campaign needs to be fought as an internet matter, still less attacked for its technical unworkability, but head-on as an attack on fundamental free speech.
The focus has to be not only on defeating the bill by a single Senate vote, high court repudiation of a regulation-only road, but as a comprehensive and mass rejection of it.
The various talk about mass public support for it has to be disregarded -- firstly because there's about six different figures floating around, and secondly because that opinion is not static. The campaign has to be addressed to people qua citizens, without any hesitation about whether "anyone cares about free speech" etc.

The campaign has to explicitly countenance strategically campaigning against ALP sitting members at the next election, even if a possible result of that was a return of the Coalition (presuming the Coalition maintains a credible opposition to the filter).
The activist left, right libertarians and anti-statist conservatives have to actively work together, not merely refrain from criticising each other, as part of a process of realigning Australian politics around different issues -- state vs. citizenship and control vs. liberation, primarily -- other than the secondary (GFC notwithstanding) left-right defining economic question.

I'm not suggesting one big group, with all the headaches that entails -- but I am suggesting that both a peak group which draws in the existing groups and connects them more explicitly to a free speech fight is pretty necessary, as is a more pointedly political action group, wholly focused on damaging the government for as long as it sticks to this idea.

Crucially that involves a moment of recognition from key activists -- no more than a dozen initially, would do it -- that this is an issue which demands they renounce their particular campaigns, and elevate this to a sole priority for a period of time. (For the record, your correspondent is involved in one of the groups feeding into CML, the Convention on Modern Liberty, the peak body formed last month in the UK).

That looks like a big ask, when such campaigns include the environment at a time when it is becoming visible to people that we are energetically undermining the basis of life on earth. But consider what can be banned if sites like Wikileaks are in the sights -- anything with back-of-a-truck commercial-in-confidence material, for example. Without anyone knowing they've been banned. Even the CIA redacts with a black texta, not a zippo. This is of another order entirely.

It is not despite the urgency of other (and contradictory) campaigns, but because of them that such a campaign has an absolute demand on attention -- in the same way as Vietnam, the Franklin Dam, or the Australia Card had at earlier times.

But that will depend not least on whether people on the left have the courage to make a final breach with the residual attachment to the ALP, and whether libertarians, as many have in the US, can overcome their distaste for collective action, especially with the left. That will largely depend on whether leading figures within each group see the situation in the same categorical and singular way as I do.

Crucially it involves experienced activists moving the campaign beyond the internet-focused action inevitably preferred by those in the net community, to a parallel and complementary strategy of visible leafleting, public meetings, civil disobedience, local government politics etc etc*.

I know there have been public demonstrations (quaint word), and maybe there are wall-to-wall public marches happening right now, and I'm exposing myself again, but I suspect not. One of the drawbacks of net campaigning/GetUp etc, is that it makes it easier to avoid the boring, embarrassing business of talking face-to-face with people -- because sending a GetUp email makes you not only feel you've done something, but in a 21st century hi-tech way too.

But there is no substitute for public, physical campaigning -- and the activists who know this, who I suspect will by temperament be more focused on other types of issues, need to recognise how many dimensions of struggle this campaign will need, and shoulder the wheel.

And now someone will tell me that the proposed filter won't be able to blacklist pages like Wikileaks, or whatever. But I won't believe them ... who would...?

*Which is not to say that the campaigning to date by EFA and others has not been substantial, and, no doubt, exhausting and thankless -- simply to suggest what more is needed.
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

COURTESY THE AGE
 
Web censorship plan heads towards a dead end
http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/web-censorship-plan-heads-towards-a-dead-end/2009/02/26/1235237810486.html

 ASHER MOSES 2:54pm | The Government's plan to introduce mandatory internet censorship has effectively been scuttled by independent Senator Nick Xenophon.

[Keith]

Lawyer says Queensland police can tap email, Facebook
Article from: COURIER MAIL
 
February 21, 2009

FEARS have been raised about police abusing new phone-tapping powers to snoop on social networking sites such as Facebook and private emails.

Leading criminal lawyer Jim Coburn accused the State Government of "fudging" the scope of the telephone intercept powers, which start this year, The Courier-Mail reports.

"(Police) will have authority to eavesdrop on communications, be they speech, music or sounds, data, text, images or signals," Mr Coburn said.

"Anything and everything will be part of the phone tap power laws."

A Justice Department spokesman said police had the power to access Facebook and email documents once they'd been received by the recipient. However the new powers would give police "real time access".

"Any communication passing across the telecommunications system can be lawfully intercepted under powers provided in a telecommunications intercept warrant," he said.

Mr Coburn also labelled the program's independent watchdog - the Public Interest Monitor - a "toothless tiger" that would be unable to reject phone tapping applications.

"Tight controls and restraints need to be imposed on these powers but looking at the legislation, there's nothing in there to stop the police from using these powers to launch fishing expeditions against citizens," he said.

The PIM has lobbied the Government for more resources to cope with an expected glut of applications once phone-tapping powers are in place.

Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice-president Terry O'Gorman dismissed concerns about the PIM, saying the final decision on phone taps would rest with a Supreme Court judge.

"If (Mr Coburn) is saying that the PIM accepts or rejects phone-tap applications, that is wrong," Mr O'Gorman said.

Premier Anna Bligh held off introducing the powers, which will be based on a federal model adopted in all other states, until the PIM oversight was included.

Mr Coburn, who works for Ryan and Bosscher Lawyers, also predicted lengthy court battles when police attempted to use evidence gained by phone taps in court.

"The police say having these powers will make it easier to catch criminals but phone tap recording and intercepted emails and texts can be manipulated so any such evidence is going to be challenged in court," he said.
 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://www.austvetmatters.net/ Fraud and Wannabe Website

[Keith]

COURTESY THE AGE
 
Labor stays mum on censorship trials

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/web/labor-stays-mum-on-censorship-trials/2009/01/30/1232818711139.html

 ASHER MOSES 4:00pm | The Government's lack of communication on proposed web censorship trials raises new questions over the workability of the proposed scheme

[Keith]

COURTESY BRISBANE TIMES

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/opinion/hey-senator--leave-us-discerning-viewers-of-pornography-alone/2009/01/23/1232471591602.html
 
In case you hadn't heard, Senator Stephen Conroy, the Communications Minister, will soon serve Australians a smut-free internet, warns Helen Razer.

[Keith]

COURTESY SMH
 
Big brother filter plan insults parents

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/big-brother-filter-plan-insults-parents/2009/01/21/1232471392459.html

 NICK MINCHIN | Underlying the Rudd Government's plan to screen the internet is an offensive message: that parents cannot be trusted to mind their children online.

[Keith]

COMMENT

You ever get the feeling Governments are becoming more and more frightened of the world wide web?
 
There is a trend right across our Western "Democracies" to shut down websites, filter websites and muzzle free speech. There is a growing trend right across these " Democracies" to apply pressure to ISPs......ISPs who make money from the web and rely on it for their livelihood. So, the wedge weapon is, do as we say or we will take away your livelihood.....we will shut you down and send you onto the dole queue.
 
A Government which is frightened of it's people is a Government which is corrupt and has much to hide.
 
Please read on.....................
 
Kiwis rally opposition to NZ copyright bill

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090106-kiwis-rally-opposition-to-nz-copyright-bill.html

Borrowing the "Not in My Name" slogan popularized by anti-war and pro-Palestinian activists, New Zealand's newborn Creative Freedom Foundation is leading a petition drive to block implementation of copyright legislation slated to take effect at the end of February. Critics charge that Section 92 of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act, enacted this past April, requires ISPs to act on a principle of "guilt upon accusation," cutting off the Internet connections of users merely alleged to be violating copyright.
 
Taxing ISPs to Prop Up Failing Newspapers?
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Taxing-ISPs-to-Prop-Up-Failing-Newspapers-100112

We recently noted how the RIAA has created an entirely new organization tasked with pushing the idea of collective music licensing, applying a $5-$10 "piracy tax" to consumer broadband bills, regardless of whether you pirate or not. The idea has several critical problems, not least of which being that it rewards the music industry for their failure to adapt, but it also opens the door to every single industry impacted by piracy (music, film, porn, gaming, literature) to begin demanding their own tax.

Mike Masnick at Techdirt notes that it didn't take long for other collapsing business models to start putting their hand out. Canadian website Macleans recently published an article suggesting that because it's getting harder to make money in the news business, failing newspapers should be compensated for their losses by applying an ISP tax. Of course the ISPs won't pay it, you will.
**********
Why police hackers are a threat to your privacy
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/why-new-police-snooping-powers-are-a-step-too-far-498064

Imagine if the Home Office decided that the best way to fight terrorism was to ban curtains.

"Hang on!" we'd say. "That means Creepy Dave across the road will be able to see me in my underpants!"

The Home Office would nod sagely. "That's true, but you know who else has curtains? Terrorists! Terrorists and gangsters! So it's curtains for curtains!"

The Home Office hasn't banned curtains just yet, but it's getting closer. Over the weekend we discovered that incoming legislation means that the police will be able to install spyware on anybody's PC without asking the courts for permission. Inevitably it's to fight terrorism, organised crime and Gary Glitter.
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Federal Parliamentary List
Cc: Media List ; ESO List ; Veterans List ; GetUp
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:12 AM
Subject: SENATOR CONROY AND HIS GANG WOULD JUST LOVE TO DO THIS...GIVE HIM TIME


Police set to step up hacking of home PCs

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9949

The Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into peoples personal computers without a warrant.

The move, which follows a decision by the European Unions council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives a coach and horses through privacy laws.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/

Gee, you think that in this day of cheap computers (not to mention all the slightly older ones that were just thrown away after Christmas) that real criminals and real terrorists might have one computer for their private matters and a separate computer for communicating over the internet?

This is about spying on normal law-abiding people, to scare them into staying silent just a bit longer.

[Keith]

COURTESY COURIER MAIL
 
Workplace web filters revealed

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24871777-952,00.html
 
THEY'RE the websites blocked in workplaces, and according to opponents of the Government's internet filter, they're an indication of what we all can expect.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 

[Keith]

http://www.newsday.com/technology/wire/sns-ap-tec-australia-internet-filter,0,7568250.story

Public uproar in Australia over government plan to block access to 1,300 Web sites
 
The list of prohibited sites, which the government isn't making public, is arbitrary and not subject to legal scrutiny, Smith said, leaving it to the government or lawmakers to pursue their own online agendas.

Webmaster's Commentary: http://whatreallyhappened.com/node
Bloody drongoes!!!!!!

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 

[Keith]

Australia: Growing opposition to Labor?s Internet censorship

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/dec2008/cens-d27.shtml

More than 2,000 opponents of the federal Labor government's plans to censor the Internet rallied in cities across Australia on December 13?the second national protest in the past two months. The demonstrations, which were convened by the Digital Liberty Coalition (DLC), are another indication of the growing concern of industry technicians, scientists and a broad range of ordinary people over the government's attempts to control and regulate Internet access in Australia.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 

[Keith]

Brit Zionist Led Aristocracy Mass Internet Censorship

http://rense.com/general84/led.htm


The UK has recently introduced a national Internet censorship scheme, a national ID card and is about to spend 12 billion pounds pushing the British population's web-searches, emails, sms messages and telephone callings records through a central database run by its spy agency, GCHQ. This month saw a secret UK court hearing, with secret participants, produce a secret order to secretly gag the population, the terms of which are secret and the revelation of which is punishable by up to 15 years of imprisonment.

[Keith]

COURTESY ABC NEWS
 
Net filtering trial delay 'another Govt bungle'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/24/2454789.htm?section=justin

The Federal Opposition says it is not surprised the Government's mandatory internet filtering trial has been delayed.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 

[Keith]

COURTESY THE AGE
 
Internet censor scheme 'flawed'

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/12/22/1229794328860.html

Secret high-level report to Federal Government finds that filtering technology does not work.

 
 

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; GetUp ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 7:13 AM
Subject: Protesters aim at Canberra


COURTESY THE AUSTRALIAN

Protesters aim at Canberra

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24804682-15306,00.html

Mitchell Bingemann THE group responsible for last weekend's protests against the internet filtering scheme plans to take its fight to Canberra.
*****************

From: Keith Tennent
To: ESO List ; Veterans List
Cc: Federal Parliamentary List ; GetUp ; Media List
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 11:48 AM
Subject: ONLY GOVERNMENTS FRIGHTENED OF THEIR CITIZENS WANT TO CONTROL THE FREE FLOW OF LEGAL INFORMATION



MPAA to Obama: censor the Internet, kick people off the Internet, break other countries' Internet
By: malterwitty

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/11/mpaa-to-obama-censor.html

Tim Jones of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has some good commentary on the news that the MPAA has asked Obama to spy on the entire Internet, and to establish a system where being accused of copyright infringement would result in loss of your Internet connection (and your VoIP line, your access to your university, your lifeline to your parents in the old country, your means of participating in civic life, your means of fighting your parking ticket, etc etc etc). The MPAA also wants Obama to lean on other countries (notably Canada!) and force them to adopt US copyright laws.



www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Keith]

MPs: live, uncensored

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/mps-live-uncensored/2008/12/13/1228585174987.html

A plan to censor the internet is in tatters, writes Simon Webster

New hurdle for net censorship

http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/new-hurdle-for-net-censorship/2008/12/12/1228585100603.html

 ASHER MOSES 3:09pm | The ultra-conservative politician known for his attempts to censor television strongly opposes the Government's plans for mandatory internet censorship.

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Qld Parliamentary List ; Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 7:00 AM
Subject: Brisbane gets go-ahead for high-speed internet


COURTESY BRISBANE TIMES

Brisbane gets go-ahead for high-speed internet
Tony Moore | December 8, 2008

A high-speed fibre optic broadband network in Brisbane that could provide 15,000 jobs and tip an estimated $5 billion into the local economy has been given the go-ahead by Brisbane City Council.

Council agreed to spend an extra $500,000 to fast track the final design of a network which they estimate could deliver internet speeds of between 100 megabits and one gigabit per second.

This is faster than the broadband network being proposed by the Federal Government, which has an average speed of 12 megabits per second.

A similar State Government fibre optic project, Project Vista, has been shelved.

Council's Economic Development Committee chair Cr Jane Prentice said the extra money was a worthwhile investment for Brisbane, which needed a fibre optic network to help local business.

"These are the roads and tunnels of the future," Cr Prentice said.

"The economic benefits of connecting Brisbane with high-speed fibre connections are considerable."

Brisbane already has around 100 kilometres of fibre optic cable which connects traffic lights, security cameras and corporate locations.

"This project aims to deliver detailed designs and costings on how the existing fibre available in Brisbane could be connected and how, with further fibre added, we can provide economic benefits to Brisbane."

Businesses can save 4.7 per cent of business costs by upgrading from a narrowband internet connection to high-speed broadband, Cr Prentice said.

"The implementation of a high-speed network could boost the Brisbane and Moreton region's economy by $5 billion and create more than 15,000 jobs over the next five years," Cr Prentice said.

Brisbane City Council could save $95.5 million a year once the network was in place, she said.

Cr Prentice said she was encouraged to push ahead with the project after visiting South Korea with Lord Mayor Campbell Newman in August.

"Here they enjoy fibre speeds of between 100mps to one gigabyte per second and it re-emphasised the benefits to me of Brisbane having a high-speed fibre optic network," Cr Prentice said.

She said there were advantages in creating a new work environment in Brisbane.

"I am assuming that most councillors in this place, the first thing you do when you get to work - as is done by by many businesses around the city - is turn on your computer and do your emails that come in overnight," Cr Prentice said.

"What we could do, is do that from home and then go to the city in off-peak," she said.

"Imagine the effect on traffic congestion around the city."

Cr Prentice said other advantages were high-speed video conferencing facilities.

"Imagine high-definition online video conferencing enabling you to easily interact with someone whether they are a block away or half a world away."

Cr Prentice said Brisbane City Council wanted to set up a core network which could be added to by business partners, suggesting Queensland Rail and Energex.

The business case should be ready to go to market in the first half of 2009, Cr Prentice said.

Labor councillor Kim Flesser questioned why such a project was largely underfunded in the Council's budget program.




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: ESO List ; Veterans List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List ; GetUp
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:10 AM
Subject: STOP THE HYSTERIA AND DEAL IN THE FACTS


Telstra says no to filtering trials

Fran Foo | December 09, 2008

COURTESY THE AUSTRALIAN

THE country's largest internet service provider has dealt the Rudd Labor Government a slap in the face by refusing to participate in content filtering trials.

Bernadette McMenamin says Telstra's decision is a black day for Australia Picture: Michael Potter

Child protection group Child Wise said Telstra's decision was bad for Australia, but other groups welcomed the news.

Political activist organisation GetUp is even planning an advertising blitz to rally opposition to the filtering plans.

ISP Internode has also declined to take part, while Optus and iiNet will participate.

On November 10, the Government released details of its long-awaited call for expressions of interest on live content filtering trials for internet service and mobile providers.

Telstra, which through its BigPond internet service has millions of customers, showed its hand even before the clock struck midnight, the deadline for expressions of interest.

The blow was delivered in a succinct statement.

"Telstra is not in a position to participate in the Government's internet filtering trial, primarily due to customer management issues," a company spokesperson said. The company said it was separately evaluating technology that allowed blocking via defined blacklists.

"We will continue to work constructively with all stakeholders, including the Government, to help provide a safe internet environment for children," the Telstra spokesperson said.

Internode managing director Simon Hackett said: "We feel the policy is deeply flawed as it stands and further dignifying that policy with additional tests that will repeat the results of the tests done over the last decade will not turn a flawed policy into a good one."

Child Wise chief executive Bernadette McMenamin said Telstra's decision was a black day for Australia, and questioned the telco's commitment to protecting children online.

"This indicates that Telstra is not committed to banning child pornography and we should question its values," Ms McMenamin said.

It is unclear if Telstra's no-show will derail the Government's plans to introduce mandatory content filtering at internet service provider level, but Ms McMenamin said she hoped it wouldn't.

Telstra's decision came as no surprise as ISPs have warned there were problems with the call for expressions of interest.

One major issue is how service providers would choose participants, their customers, to take part in the pilot.

"Do we pick names out of a hat?" said one ISP staff member who declined to be named.

Another issue was the sample size. The call for expressions of interest does not stipulate how many internet users ISPs would have to enlist for the live trials to be credible.

Sage-Au, a not-for-profit professional organisation representing system administrators, said the figure should be in the millions.

"How do you choose these participants? To make these trials really meaningful, it has to be done in a real-world environment with millions of internet users," Sage-Au president Donna Ashelford said.

"The bottom line is live ISP content filtering is simply not feasible."

There's also the question of legal liability and who would be held responsible if something went awry during the pilot.

If the Government can back up calls for mandatory content filtering with legislation, ISPs may be more willing to play ball.

Meanwhile, GetUp national director Simon Sheikh said more than $41,000 had been raised to fund an advertising campaign against filtering slated to start next week.

The country's second-largest internet and mobile phone provider, Optus, has submitted an expression of interest application, but on its own terms.

"Our participation will be strictly limited to filtering only the Australian Communications and Media Authority blacklist, which contains URLs of illegal content," an Optus spokesperson said. There are 1300 web pages on the list.

"The trial is anticipated to operate in a specific geographic area, with customers given the option to opt out of the trial."

Details will be finalised closer to the trial launch and Optus will decide on the size of the sample and where the pilot will be conducted.

A spokesman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy declined to comment on Telstra's announcement, saying only: "A number of ISPs have indicated their intent to participate in the trial. We won't be commenting further until all responses have been received."
****************
From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: GetUp ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:38 AM
Subject: Labor plan to censor internet in shreds


Labor plan to censor internet in shreds

http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/labor-plan-to-censor-internet-in-shreds/2008/12/09/1228584820006.html

 ASHER MOSES 3:31pm | Australia's largest ISP will not take part in live trials of the net filters while the second largest will run only a scaled-back trial.

COURTESY THE AGE




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Federal Parliamentary List ; Rockhampton Veteran List ; Media List
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 6:23 AM
Subject: ISP filtering a pipe dream: Telstra


COURTESY THE AUSTRALIAN

ISP filtering a pipe dream: Telstra
Fran Foo | December 05, 2008
TELSTRA chief operating officer Greg Winn says the federal Government's attempt to censor the internet is akin to trying to "boil the ocean".

"My view on that is that's like trying to boil the ocean ... to think that you're going to be able to centrally filter everything, I think that's a pipe dream," Mr Winn told reporters and analysts yesterday.

Child protection agencies have welcomed the Government's move to filter the internet but civil libetarians, ISPs and the technical community have rallied against it for various reasons.

The Government plans to have two streams of filtered content.

The mandatory portion will adhere to a blacklist of thousands of illegal web pages managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) and an optional clean feed of URLs that would automatically censor content, mostly adult material.

Mr Winn agreed with broad comments from the ISP community that internet filtering would make surfing the web a slower process.

"The one thing I do know is that once you start filtering, then you're going to add latency no matter what," he said.

The Government has invited ISPs and mobile phone providers to participate in a live internet filtering trial, releasing details of its long-awaited call for expressions of interest (EOI) on November 10.

ACMA has completed closed lab trials of ISP content filtering conducted by Enex TestLab. The live pilot, however, is the first step towards evaluating whether content filtering at a network provider level is feasible in Australia.

The trial will test against ACMA's blacklist that currently contains 1300 URLs and may expand to approximately 10,000 links.

The list mainly contains web pages of child sexual abuse web sites.

The deadline for the EOI is next Monday and the Government would like the trial to kick-off by December 24.

The nation's largest telecommunications provider, Telstra, still hasn't decided if it plans to play ball.

Meanwhile, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy came under fire this week for failing to reveal details of the trial.

During question time on Wednesday Senator Conroy was asked how many participants would ISPs have to enlist for the live trials to be credible.

South Australian Liberal MP Cory Bernardi also asked if the results of the trials would be independently verified.

Senator Conroy couldn't provide answers to both questions within the two-minute timeframe provided.
*******************
From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 7:01 AM
Subject: Step away from the porn, Senator


COURTESY BRISBANE TIMES

Step away from the porn, Senator
Blog Admin | December 06, 2008

So hands up anyone who's volunteered to be a good German for the gummint's internet filtering scam? Anyone? Anyone? Beuler? Are you out there?

They're not saying how many narcs they need to sign up to beta the system but apart from the sort of gimlet-eyed busy bodies who can always find time to push their noses into other peoples' private bits, and not in a good way, I'm wondering who else would offer to help build a digital iron curtain for the Ruddbot and his hapless Miscommunications Minister, Stephen Conroy.*

The signs don't look good for them because at the moment more people are signing up for the Resistance http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/technology/cash-floods-in-to-fight-rudds-web-censorship/2008/12/05/1228257284512.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 The country's ISP's, Telstra foremost amongst them, have all but ridiculed the proposal http://www.itwire.com/content/view/22120/127/

Me, I'm wondering what I could do to tear it down. Perhaps I should be spending even more time on porntube and fleshbot. Perhaps we all should, as a demonstration of our willingness to use our precious, precious freedoms before these sniveling, moist-handed punishers and straighteners have us all locked up for thought crime and inappropriate bodily urges.

Or perhaps we could pop on over to Getup.org.au and kick in a few bucks for the ad campaign they plan on running against the net sex laws. On the other hand if the global financial crisis has left you a bit skint, you could just click on the petition http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442 there, letting Conroy and the 'bot know that yet another punter has noticed what a pair of suck tooth little control freaks they are.

Because, apart from the gummint itself, there seems to be no support anywhere for this bit of Dark Ages legislation. Protest from the Greens, you can understand. And the Opposition has been unusually courageous in speaking out against Conroy's plan, given that they do have a significant support base amongst the busy-body demographic. But even the Won't-Somebody-Pleeeeeease-Think-Of-The-Children lobby has left the government dangling by its thumbs and surely we must be getting to the point where some hard head in the ALP Right does the numbers and has a quiet word with Conroy about folding up his tent and moving on.

Nobody wants this stupid, intrusive censorship system, or at least nobody with half a brain and a primary school understanding of what it is going to do our digital infrastructure, ie. slow it down and screw it up.

Oops! I said screw. Guess you won't be reading this blog once the Filter gets going.




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Keith]

COURTESY ABC NEWS

Govt's web censorship will hurt economy, group says

 
The consumer group Get Up says it does not know how much speeds will slump yet. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin, file photo)
Community advocacy group Get Up says the Federal Government's commitment to internet censorship will slow down speeds and hurt the economy.

The Federal Government will place mandatory filters on the internet as part of its cyber-safety plan, but Get Up says it will bring speeds to a crawl and limit productivity.

The national director of of Get Up, Simon Sheikh, says they are yet to see how low speeds will slump.

"The extent to which it slows it down will have is certainly dependent on kind of scheme the Rudd Government ends up going with," he said.

"We're calling on them to really consider the impacts of internet speeds on our economy, in a time like this anything that hurts our economy is a really bad idea."

The group has also called for more police resources to be directed to illegal online activity instead internet censorship.

Mr Sheikh says the key to preventing illegal content getting to children is a combination of better parental control and increased police campaigns.

"I think there's a very serious debate to be had here about how we stop illegal content being pushed around online," he said.

"The most crucial way that we can fight that battle is through the Australian Federal Police."

The pilot scheme is expected to start at the end of the year.

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List ; info@getup.org.au
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:12 AM
Subject: BERLUSCONI CAN TAKE HIS HANDS OFF MY INTERNET TOO...THIS WAS NEVER JUST AN AUSTRALIAN THORTIE


Berlusconi plans to use G8 presidency to 'regulate the internet'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/03/berlusconi_g8_internet/

Italian president and media baron Silvio Berlusconi said today that he would use his country's imminent presidency of the G8 group to push for an international agreement to "regulate the internet".

Speaking to Italian postal workers, Reuters reports Berlusconi said: "The G8 has as its task the regulation of financial markets... I think the next G8 can bring to the table a proposal for a regulation of the internet."




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List
Cc: info@getup.org.au
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:23 PM
Subject: What's the net cost?


From: GetUp
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 1:23 PM
Subject: What's the net cost?

Dear Keith,

What's the internet worth to you? Imagine trying to conduct business, find information, or connect with friends without an open, fast or accessible internet. It'd be like trying to go through life with one hand tied behind your back.

Yet our Government wants to censor Australia's internet with a system that goes further than any other democracy and experts say is unworkable, and will miss the vast majority of inappropriate material and threatens our democratic freedoms.

So to save the net we're taking our message online - check out these dynamic web ads that, with your help, we'll plaster all over the very sites that engaged internet users visit everyday. Your $50 will show 4000 people this ad, $100 will let 10,000 see it:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/WhatsTheNetCost

In just one week, an amazing 75,000 fellow Australians have signed our petition to save the net - imagine the result if we spread this message far and wide to the millions of other internet users and signal to the Government that, together, we won't stand for this plan.

Your donation can do just that, by plastering our web ad all over the websites Australians use everyday. Chip in today to save the net:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/WhatsTheNetCost

We all want a system that protects our children and community - mandatory filtering of all web traffic will not achieve that aim, and starts us down a slippery slope that encroaches on our cherished freedoms. As Liberal Senator Nick Minchin has said, a "web content filter at ISP level is misguided and deeply unpopular."1

Time and time again the GetUp community has demonstrated that when we all chip in to send a message to the masses, the sum total result is far greater than our individual parts. Let's take this message online to defend our online freedoms:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/WhatsTheNetCost

Thanks for being a part of the solution,
The GetUp team

PS - The freedom of the internet is what allows the GetUp community to achieve change. Check out http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/whatsthenetcost?dc=591,489158,2 the dynamic web ads and widget http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/whatsthenetcost?dc=591,489158,2 we've designed to save the net. Your $50 will show 4000 people this ad, $100 will buy 10,000 views.

1"Activists target Rudd's net censorship plans" - Sydney Morning Herald, November 27 2008


__________________________

GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate now https://www.getup.org.au/donate/?dc=591,489158,2 If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to www.getup.org.au. To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here.


Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 2, 294 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Kerry Davison ; Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List ; info@getup.org.au
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:41 AM
Subject: SAVING THE INTERNET


From: GetUp
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 9:43 AM
Subject: 55,000 and counting



Dear Keith,

Our campaign to 'Save the Net' is gaining momentum faster than all expectations, as the Government's ill-considered plans to slow down and censor the internet is "facing a major backlash", according to media reports.1

Only a massive public outcry will make the Government see sense on this issue. That's why we're taking a moment to ask you help build an unprecedented community movement to save the internet from being slowed and censored.

Please take a moment to tell all anyone you know who uses the internet to add their signature to yours on our petition:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&id=463

More than 55,000 fellow Australians have already signed the petition to Communications Minister Senator Conroy. His plan has even been slammed by children's welfare groups, who say the filter is "fundamentally flawed" and simply will not work.

Without an immense reaction from the community, the Government will claim they have the green light to begin limiting our freedoms - and who knows where that slippery slope will end? Already euthanasia, gambling, anorexia and legal adult content are being discussed.

Be part of the solution by letting your friends know about this campaign, and ask them to join you, children's welfare groups, internet providers, consumers, engineers, network administrators, and 55,000 everyday Australians in defense of our freedom and in defence of our internet:

www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&id=463

Help build a movement today in defence of our rights, to prevent Australia joining Iran, China, Saudi Arabia and Burma in an undemocratic club of governments who view the internet as a threat.

Thanks for being part of the solution,
The GetUp team

PS - 55,000 Australians have joined you in signing the petition to save the internet from being slowed and censored. Click here to help build the petition by telling your friends.

PPS - Hit the streets on Saturday 13th December in nationwide protests against this internet censorship. Click here for details.

1'Children's welfare groups slam net filters', The Age 1 December 2008


__________________________

GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate now! If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to www.getup.org.au. To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here.


Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 2, 294 Pitt St, Sydney NSW 2000

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 8:13 AM
Subject: Children's welfare groups slam net filters


COURTESY SMH

Children's welfare groups slam net filters

http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/childrens-welfare-groups-slam-net-filters/2008/11/28/1227491813497.html

 ASHER MOSES 9:21am | Support for the Government's plan to censor the internet hits rock bottom with even childrens' welfare groups saying the filters are a waste of money.




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 6:47 AM
Subject: GOVERNMENT INTERNET CENSORSHIP PLAN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

COMMENT

This list has been saying from the start of this mad grab to censor what adult Australians can read and view on the world wide web that the proposed blacklisting of websites has nothing at all to do with banning child pornography.It's all about Government big daddy control over the lives of ordinary Australians.
******************

Neutering the net is about repression, not protection

COURTESY THE AGE
Chris Berg
November 30, 2008
IT SEEMS like only yesterday that the country was prosperous and the Labor Party was going to make everyone's internet faster.

But now the Federal Government's great broadband gift is floundering in the waves of the financial crisis and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is pushing ahead with an internet filter that will dramatically slow Australian internet speeds.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority conducted tests earlier this year on six filters that could be imposed on internet service providers. Five slowed internet speeds by at least 20 per cent. And two of them crippled speeds by more than 75 per cent.

And this is before we look at their habit of falsely blocking legal sites. A 1999 trial of internet filtering (censoring the internet has long been a bipartisan goal) even accidentally blocked some government websites. Filters have improved since then but, as ACMA's test revealed, it is a certainty that some sites will be incorrectly blocked ? let's be honest, the technology to efficiently and effectively censor the internet isn't quite ready yet.

Nevertheless, technology has a habit of getting better, given enough time. It's more than just technical issues that makes internet censorship a terrible idea.

Last year, Mr Conroy said that: "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree." Fair enough. But to claim the filter is designed to eliminate child pornography is too tricksy by half.

After all, child pornography is already illegal. And imposing an elaborate filter on every Australian internet connection is unlikely to have a significant impact on the child pornography trade ? as everyone who has sent an email or tried to download a song is aware, there is a bit more to the internet than static web pages. Child pornography isn't just sitting on openly accessible websites waiting to be downloaded ? from what we know about it, it is traded clandestinely by abhorrent individuals. It takes police work and forensics to uncover those sorts of criminals. The dark recesses of the internet won't be disturbed at all by the new filter.

Who knows, perhaps accusing the entire country of being potential child pornographers polls really well in telephone surveys?

Nevertheless, the biggest problem with the filter isn't technical and it isn't its likely failure to reduce child pornography.

The biggest problem is a little word that Mr Conroy slipped out in the middle of a Senate committee hearing. The pilot filter program will not only target the existing blacklisted sites, most of which are child pornography, but will also target "unwanted" content, whatever that means.

The Government has developed a secret list of 10,000 unwanted sites (there are only 1300 on the current blacklist).

But what the Communications Minister wants on the internet and others want on the internet are likely to be two very different things. Nick Xenophon doesn't want online gambling. Stephen Fielding doesn't want hardcore pornography and "fetish" material ? if Mr Fielding gets to wield his senatorial power over the filter system, expect shares in www.feet.com to slump. If the Government gets the power to control internet content, legal pornography, gambling and violent images will all be candidates for online censorship.

Of course, whenever the censorship of legal material is raised ? with its massive implications for freedom of speech in Australia ? the Government immediately tries to bring the discussion back to child pornography.

It's a bit embarrassing that we're discussing censoring the internet at all. What does it say about Australian politics that the reaction of both major parties to such a liberating technology is to demagogue about its dangers? Our politicians rave about evils online more than any other liberal democracy. As a consequence, the Federal Government's proposal is far more extensive than any other internet censorship scheme outside the totalitarian world.

There is a certain element of Australian political culture that sees censorship and banning as the panacea to almost every social and policy question. But wowserism dressed up in concerned rhetoric about the sanctity of childhood is still wowserism.

Chris Berg is a research fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs and editor of IPA Review.




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Federal Parliamentary List ; info@getup.org.au
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 7:03 AM
Subject: SEN CONROY...TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF MY INTERNET


COURTESY THE AGE

Activists target net censorship plans

http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/activists-target-net-censorship-plans/2008/11/27/1227491695981.html

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Keith]

COURTESY THE AGE
 
Online spies hired by police

http://www.theage.com.au/national/investigations/private-spies-hired-by-police-20081125-6hh7.html

Emails and websites of activists are being secretly monitored by state and federal agencies.

 

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:16 AM
Subject: Film studios to become 'police, judge, executioner'

COMMENT

This is tantamount to holding the owner of a rented home responsible for a murder which has been committed on premises which they own.

This is the financial easy way out for copyright holders.Copyright holders should be able to subpoena records from ISPs which can then be used in a Court to prosecute those it says have infringed their copyright. To hold an ISP responsible for the activities of every account holder is nonsense but sadly indicative of the warped principles which have swamped our society.

Wrong is right, left is right, bad is good and stupidity is common sense.Blame everybody else but take no personal responsibility yourself.

The intentions about use of the internet in this country are devoid of common sense, due process, presumption of innocence and personal responsibility.

The way things are going it will be a waste of time having an ISP account. Maybe this is what Sen Conroy is intent on? Shutting down the great expanse of opinion and passage of information which we have become used to on the internet.
******************

Film studios to become 'police, judge, executioner'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/film-studios-to-become-judge-executioner/2008/11/24/1227491443731.html

Internet users would have their connections terminated summarily on the whim of the film and TV industry should it win its landmark legal battle against iiNet, legal experts have warned.

Seven of the world's biggest film studios and the Seven Network last week filed suit against iiNet, Australia's third largest ISP, in the Federal Court.

They claim iiNet authorised copyright infringement by failing to prevent its users from downloading pirated movies and TV shows.






www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 6:09 AM
Subject: PARENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR KIDS....NOT YOU AND ME


COURTESY DAILY TELEGRAPH

Glenn Milne: Too many holes in net filter

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24690428-5001030,00.html
*****************
COURTESY ABC NEWS
 
Axia confirms broadband network bid

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/24/2427928.htm?section=justin

The Canadian company Axia Netmedia has confirmed it is making a bid to build the Federal Government's national broadband network.

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 9:38 AM
Subject: SEN CONROY....TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF OUR INTERNET


Australias content filtering frightening

http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/267938/opennet_initiative_
australia_content_filtering_frightening

Deibert, who also co-authored the book Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, said optional filtering schemes in Canada and the UK had major transparency and accountability problems that may be duplicated, if not exacerbated, in Australia.

In Canada, for example, filtering of access to child pornography is left in the hands of private ISPs. Deibert said this lack of civilian oversight meant there was no measure of redress for sites that had been improperly blocked.




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Charlie]

Could I suggest that people who have concerns over this type of censorship, that you take your concerns direct to the PM via his website at

 http://www.kevinpm.com.au/

The government was quick to criticise China when they (China) attempted to censor internet activity during the Olympics, but here we have our own government trying to do the same thing.

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: ESO List ; Veterans List
Cc: Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 7:02 AM
Subject: TREATING US LIKE CHILDREN

COMMENT

Since the events of Sep 11 2001 in New York, Australian Federal Law enforcement and security agencies, and State Police, have been given extraordinary powers to investigate, phone tap, email tap, hold without arrest, enter premises without warrant and a whole host of measures which were implemented using the excuse of the so called War on Terror.We simply need to look at the powers which were wielded during the Dr Haneef fiasco.

If anybody is suspected of breaking the Law on the internet the Policing and Security agencies have plenty of authority to bring those suspects before a Court, and the Courts have hefty penalties they can impose if a person is found guilty.All these authorities need is the will to do their job justly.

So, why now do we need to Government to ban certain websites as illegal?

This has nothing to do with child protection and everything to do with controlling the lives of adult Australians.

Please read on...................

10,000 websites to be blocked

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24643380-952,00.html
 
AUSTRALIA'S mandatory internet filter will block 10,000 websites as part of a blacklist of unspecified "unwanted content", says the Rudd government.

COURTESY COURIER MAIL


www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 7:29 AM
Subject: Net censorship plan backlash


Net censorship plan backlash

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/net-censorship-plan-backlash/2008/11/11/1226318639085.html

 ASHER MOSES 4:59pm | The head of one of Australia's largest ISPs labels the Communications Minister the worst we've had in the past 15 years.



COURTESY THE AGE

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:58 AM
Subject: THIS IS ABOUT CONTROLLING WHAT CHOICES ADULTS MAKE ON THE INTERNET


Canberra calls net filter trial

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24632210-15306,00.html

Fran Foo THE federal Government has released details of its long-awaited call for expressions of interest on live ISP content filtering trials.

COURTESY THE AUSTRALIAN
*******************
From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:43 AM
Subject: IF IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE US PRESIDENT, IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR US


The world wide web has been the present for ages.It's not some distant hope and experiment.

Daily newspaper sales have been falling across the board, particularly now the financial crisis is seeing advertising fall because of tight budgets.Many, many Australians get their news online.

The web [ or internet if you prefer ] has done more than anything to inform our population like never before.

Sure, there is a lot of junk on the web, and some undesirable websites.

However it's here to stay, and will become more dominant as an information resource as time unfolds.

Now Sen Conroy wants to take us back to a child minding mentality where the Government will decide what decisions adults make about what they read and see.

This is troglodytic stuff from Sen Conroy, and ultimately his attempts to control what information adult Australians access will fail. In the meantime he seems intent on disrupting the costs and technicalities of ISPs at a time when margins are small and competition fierce.

Sen Obama's campaign team fully grasped the power of the web, Veterans in Australia have been using it very effectively for 10 years and even PM Rudd's campaign team understood the power of the web at the last election with the Kevon07 website.

Sen Conroy, and the cargo cult, self righteous moralists in the Parliament from the Christian right wing who see the Senators proposals as a chance to ram their brand of morality down out throats, need to get out of our lives and treat us as the adults we are.

Finally parents are responsible for their children, not you and me.


**************

Under Obama, Web Would Be the Way
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/10/AR2008111000013_pf.html

Armed with millions of e-mail addresses and a political operation that harnessed the Internet like no campaign before it, Barack Obama will enter the White House with the opportunity to create the first truly "wired" presidency.

Webmaster's Commentary:
The internet is now the mainstream media!

***************

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:47 AM
Subject: LOOKS LIKE GORDON BROWN HAS BEEN ON THE PHONE TO SENATOR CONROY


MPs seek to censor the media
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-seek-to-censor-the-media-1006607.html

Britain's security agencies and police would be given unprecedented and legally binding powers to ban the media from reporting matters of national security, under proposals being discussed in Whitehall.



www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 5:39 AM
Subject: Government uploads hypocrisy with internet censorship

COMMENT

This Government proposal has nothing to do with protecting children. It has everything to do with the Government deciding what adults can access, whether it be news, information, alternative views or adult content websites.


COURTESY THE AGE

Government uploads hypocrisy with internet censorship

Antony Loewenstein

November 10, 2008


BEFORE this year's Beijing Olympic Games, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd chastised the Chinese authorities for blocking full access to the internet for the assembled world media: "My attitude to our friends in China is very simple", he said. "They should have nothing to fear by open digital links with the rest of the world during this important international celebration of sport."
Although Rudd expressed no concern for the average Chinese web user being unable to view tens of thousands of banned websites, his intervention was nevertheless a welcome call for transparency and greater democracy.

But now the Rudd government is working towards implementing an unworkable filtering process in Australia that suggests a misguided understanding of the internet and worrying tendency to censor an inherently anarchic system.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy told Radio National's Media Report recently that the aim of the project is to "protect Australian families and kids from some material that is currently on the net . . . such as child pornography and ultra-violent sites".

Conroy tried to assure a sceptical interviewer that although the idea had been ALP policy for years, "we are committed to work with the industry to see if it is technically feasible".

He further claimed that similar kinds of filtering already exist in UK, Sweden, Norway, France and New Zealand and "there has been no detrimental effect on internet speed or performance".

But Conroy is and ignoring the wider social, moral and political implications of the issue. A number of politicians, including Family First Steve Fielding and independent Nick Xenophon, have advocated blocking online gaming sites and general pornography sites. What next?

It is not hard to imagine a push to block sites that allegedly "support" terrorism. Take Hamas, the democratically elected party in Palestine and yet regarded as a terrorist group by much of the West. For many individuals around the world, myself included, Hamas is not a terrorist entity and should be engaged. But will over-zealous politicians make it illegal to view the organisation's websites?

This is a feasible scenario, as US Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman this year successfully pressured YouTube owners Google to remove videos from "Islamist terrorist organisations".

Many in the Australian gay community are equally concerned about the current proposals. The Australian Coalition for Equality (ACE), which advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, has called on the Rudd government to guarantee "websites will not be accidentally filtered out purely because they contain the words poof, fag or dyke".

Technologically, the ability for internet service providers to successfully censor banned websites is arguably impossible. Three of the country's leading players, Telstra Media's Justin Milne, iiNet's Michael Malone and Internode's Simon Hackett, have all spoken on the record about the difficulties of implementing ISP-level filtering.

Hackett imagines a future where the government mandates a blacklist of IP addresses that by law an ISP is not permitted to serve to a customer. "Two problems with that", he argues. "One is collateral damage. What if that IP address is a virtual host with 2000 web sites on it and only one of them doesn't follow the government's morality? The other (problem) is, what if it's done by mistake? (What) if the IP address is just straight out wrong? Another obvious (problem) is that the internet is full of anonymous proxies. None of this stuff actually works."

Numerous programs such as TOR are used by users in repressive nations to communicate anonymously and without detection and are likely to be used by people in Australia.

Perhaps most worryingly, should we feel comfortable with the idea of privately owned ISPs being the gatekeeper of administering the law of permissible and blocked websites? Telstra's Milne rightly believes it should be the police implementing the rules of the land.

Furthermore, has the government even considered the massive financial burden on ISPs, especially the smaller ones, forced to play the role of Big Brother for Rudd's obsession with "protecting the children"? It seems clear that the will of small, unrepresentative Christian groups, including the Australian Family Association and the Australian Christian Lobby, are increasingly able to dictate social policy to Rudd ministers with little transparency as to their real role and influence.

The government completed a closed trial of web filtering products at a Telstra laboratory in Tasmania in June. The results were largely negative and found that most filters could not identify illegal or inappropriate content. It is not surprising that many industry insiders fear the government's moves are little more than populism dressed up as courageous social policy.

Colin Jacobs, chair of the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said recently that Rudd's "model involves more technical interference in the internet infrastructure than what is attempted in Iran, one of the most repressive and regressive censorship regimes in the world."

This is certainly unnecessary rhetoric - I examine a host of authoritarian regimes in my book The Blogging Revolution, including Iran, and the Islamic Republic's censorship is far more extreme and life threatening than anything proposed by Rudd. But Jacobs is right to raise the alarm about the path Australia appears to be embracing.

Free speech is never absolute in any Western country but vigorous public debate should be the pre-cursor to any profound shift in freedom of the internet. History teaches us that governments have an unhealthy tendency to ban material deemed inappropriate for groups allegedly exposed. In this day and age, young children are seen as the most vulnerable. Cynicism is the only healthy response.

Antony Loewenstein is the author of The Blogging Revo-lution, published by Melbourne University Press.
****************

COURTESY SMH
 
Internet could save Earth says Gore
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/internet-could-save-earth-says-gore/2008/11/09/1226165363539.html

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:43 AM
Subject: INTERNET CENSORSHIP....THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO SHUT DOWN ACCESS TO ALL FORMS OF NEWS AND INFORMATION


Voice of the White House October 30, 2008
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9610

Even as the Bush righwingers are smelling defeat in the air, they are allying themselves with American law enforcement agencies in an attempt to completely censor and control the Internet usage and reception inside the United States.



www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 7:50 AM
Subject: Protest logged on internet filter for illegal sites


Protest logged on internet filter for illegal sites
Article from: QLD SUNDAY MAIL

By Renee Viellaris

October 31, 2008

THE Rudd Government is facing a backlash over its plan to ask internet service providers to test filters on a blacklist of about 1000 illegal websites.

The majority of online readers of The Courier-Mail yesterday angrily hit out at the Government plan, which wants to test how filters could effectively block illegal material.

A poll http://www.news.com.au:80/couriermail/poll/1,,953-5036556-0,00.html asking readers if they supported the proposed internet filter
http://www.news.com.au:80/couriermail/story/0,23739,24567413-8362,00.html
were against the plan and likened it to mandatory censorship. Only 11 per cent, or 426 people, supported it.

Do you support the internet filter? Tell us.

http://www.news.com.au:80/couriermail/poll/1,,953-5036556-0,00.html
Opponents also urged others to lobby Communications Minister Stephen Conroy http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/ and their local MPs.

A spokesman for Senator Conroy failed to comment when asked yesterday to respond to the public's reaction.

Senator Conroy is soon expected to ask internet service providers, such as BigPond and iiNet, to take part in a live pilot trial to test internet filters.

The blacklists would likely apply to "real depictions of actual sexual activity", child pornography, bestiality, material containing excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and material which advocated the commission of a terrorist act.

It immediately sparked concerns within the industry that the plan could slow down networks, an issue also raised by respondents to the poll.

"I urge everyone who opposes this harebrained scheme to snail mail or email Senator Conroy and/or your local federal member. This craziness can't go ahead on technical reasons alone," one reader said.

Another claimed that: "As someone that sits behind such a filter system for one of my jobs (in a state education department), I can tell you the filters simply don't do squat.

"Those who use the internet a lot or for banned purposes will simply bypass it to avoid the problems associated with it."

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam accused Senator Conroy of failing to reveal how far the Government would push its censorship agenda.

Senator Ludlam said classifying offensive material was subjective and asked who would decide what was too obscene.

He said it would be better if the Government directed extra resources to the Australian Federal Police to catch online predators and education campaigns.


About 1000 sites are already prohibited under the Australian Communications and Media Authority but some can still be accessed if they are "hosted" overseas.




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/  Military News Blog

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 5:55 AM
Subject: Internet screening move hits hurdle


COURTESY THE AGE

Internet screening move hits hurdle

Katharine Murphy and Matthew Ricketson

October 30, 2008
A HEADLINE-GRABBING election promise to crack down on internet nasties looks to be in trouble as Senate opposition grows.

As part of its election-winning pitch, the Rudd Government promised families far-reaching measures to block prohibited content at the internet server level. It now faces a concerted backlash against the proposal by the internet industry.

The Greens have added their voice to Coalition concerns about the plan, with the Greens' communications spokesman calling the proposal "daft".

If the Liberals block legislation imposing server-level filtering, the Government will need the support of the Greens, Family First senator Steve Fielding and South Australian senator Nick Xenophon.

Greens communications spokesman Scott Ludlam told The Age yesterday that he was concerned the Government was trying to implement a policy that was technically difficult and very expensive for taxpayers.

The industry says mandatory filtering by internet service providers ? as distinct from a "net nanny" that families can put on their own computers ? will slow internet speeds significantly.

Senator Ludlam said server-level filtering imposed a kind of censorship that "runs counter to what the internet is all about". The Government would be better investing the filtering money in law enforcement and education.

"I think it's really quite misguided," Senator Ludlam said.

Senator Fielding has signalled he wants a range of material blocked, including hard-core pornography and fetish material. Senator Xenophon has indicated he wants access to offshore gaming sites restricted.

The Government is still a way from producing legislation to effect its policy, but indications are that it will be difficult to achieve consensus in the Senate.

An industry trial of various technologies will come before any legislation.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has launched a strong defence of the policy, hitting back at claims by the internet industry that the Government wants a sweeping ban on controversial content.

"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."




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/  Military News Blog

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:33 AM
Subject: YOU CAN'T PROTECT IDIOTS FROM THEMSELVES



No opting out of Australian plan to censor websites
Article from: COURIER MAIL

By Jennifer Dudley-Nicholson

October 29, 2008

THE Federal Government will 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
http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/
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.

Do you support the internet filter? Have your say.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24567413-952,00.html#comments

Despite planning to hold "live trials" before the end of the year, Senator Conroy said it was not known what content the mandatory filter would bar, with euthanasia or pro-anorexia sites on the chopping block.

"We are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material," he told a Senate Estimates Committee. http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/estimates/index.htm

Previously the net nanny proposal was going to allow Australians who wanted uncensored access to the web the option to contact their internet service provider and be excluded from the service.

Groups including the System Administrators Guild of Australia http://www.sage-au.org.au/ and Electronic Frontiers Australia http://www.efa.org.au/ have slammed the proposal, saying it would unfairly restrict Australians' access to the World Wide Web, slow internet speeds and raise the price of internet access.

EFA board member Colin Jacobs said it would have little effect on illegal internet content, including child pornography, as it would not cover peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.

"If the Government would actually come out and say we're only targeting child pornography it would be a different debate," he said. But the Australian Christian Lobby yesterday welcomed the Government's proposals.

Its managing director Jim Wallace said he expected resistance from the industry but the measures were needed.

"The need to prevent access to illegal hard-core material and child pornography must be placed above the industry's desire for unfettered access," Mr Wallace said.
****************

From: Keith Tennent
To: ESO List ; Veterans List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 7:02 AM
Subject: THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT'S NET CENSORSHIP IS NOT ABOUT PORN...IT'S ABOUT CONTROLLING WHAT WEBSITES ADULTS CAN VISIT

COMMENT

The Federal Communications Minister seems hell bent on censoring what news,information and entertainment websites adults can visit.This is not about protecting children, this is about controlling the lives of adults who can make their own decisions.

And we have news for Sen Conroy. Hasn't he ever heard of mirror sites.....you can have as many mirror sites for a base website as you like, so listing a url at an ISP as banned simply won't work. There are always work arounds on the web and on computers.

Additionally, apart from choosing their own news and information sites, adults can also make their own decisions about what adult content sites they visit.They do so on TV and with the legal videos/CDs they buy. The adults of Australia don't need the moralists in the Federal Parliament like far right, religious Sen Fielding [ elected with about 2% of the vote ] deciding what they should do in their private lives.

Keith Tennent.

COURTESY SMH

Google, Microsoft, Yahoo move to protect freedom of speech
October 29, 2008


US technology giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo and a coalition of human rights and other groups have unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.
The Global Network Initiative, bringing together leading companies, human rights organisations, academics and investors, commits the technology firms to "protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users".

The move, which follows criticism that the companies were assisting censorship of the internet in nations such as China, requires them to narrowly interpret government requests for information or censorship and to fight to minimise cooperation.

The initiative provides a systematic approach to "work together in resisting efforts by governments that seek to enlist companies in acts of censorship and surveillance that violate international standards", the participants said.

In a statement, Yahoo co-founder and chief executive Jerry Yang welcomed the new code of conduct.

"These principles provide a valuable roadmap for companies like Yahoo operating in markets where freedom of expression and privacy are unfairly restricted," he said.

"Yahoo was founded on the belief that promoting access to information can enrich people's lives, and the principles we unveil today reflect our determination that our actions match our values around the world."

Yahoo was thrust into the forefront of the online rights issue after the Californian company helped Chinese police identify cyber dissidents whose supposed crime was expressing their views online.

China exercises strict control over the internet, blocking sites linked to Chinese dissidents, the outlawed Falun Gong spiritual movement, the Tibetan government-in-exile and those with information on the 1989 Tiananmen massacre.

A number of US companies, including Microsoft, Cisco, Google and Yahoo, have been hauled before the US Congress in recent years and accused of complicity in building the "Great Firewall of China".

Google has been criticised for complying with Chinese government's demands to filter internet searches to eliminate query results regarding topics such as democracy or Tiananmen Square.

Earlier this month, Skype, the online text message and voice service owned by auction giant eBay, acknowledged that its Chinese partner, TOM Online, had been archiving politically sensitive text messages.

Microsoft has come under fire for blocking the blog of a prominent Chinese media researcher who posted articles critical of a management purge at the Beijing News daily.

internet firms contend they must comply with China's laws in order to operate there.

AFP




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/  Military News Blog

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 7:13 AM
Subject: WHO WILL DECIDE WHAT VETERAN AND NEWS SITES ARE ILLEGAL........AND LET'S NOT LET THE HYPOCRITICAL MORALISTS TAKE CHARGE OF THIS DEBATE


COURTESY THE AGE

Net filters may block porn and fetish sites

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/net-filters-may-block-porn-and-fetish-sites/2008/10/27/1224955916155.html

www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/  Military News Blog

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:39 AM
Subject: Labor's web gag 'worse than Iran'

COURTESY BRISBANE TIMES

Labor's web gag 'worse than Iran'
Asher Moses | October 24, 2008

The Federal Government is attempting to silence critics of its controversial plan to censor the internet, which experts say will break the internet while doing little to stop people from accessing illegal material such as child pornography.

Internet providers and the government's own tests have found that presently available filters are not capable of adequately distinguishing between legal and illegal content and can degrade internet speeds by up to 86 per cent.

Documents obtained by Fairfax Media show the office of the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, tried to bully ISP staff into suppressing their criticisms of the plan.

Senator Conroy has since last year's election victory remained tight-lipped on the specifics of his $44.2 million policy but, grilled by a Senate Estimates committee this week, he said the Government was looking at forcing ISPs to implement a two-tiered filtering system.

The first tier, which internet users would not be able to opt out of, would block all "illegal material". Senator Conroy has previously said Australians would be able to opt out of any filters to obtain "uncensored access to the internet".

The second tier, which is optional, would filter out content deemed inappropriate for children, such as pornography.

But neither filter tier will be capable of censoring content obtained over peer-to-peer file sharing networks, which account for an estimated 60 per cent of internet traffic.

Senator Conroy said Britain, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand had all implemented similar filtering systems. However, in all cases, participation by ISPs was optional and the filtering was limited in scope to predominantly child pornography.

Colin Jacobs, chair of the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said: "I'm not exaggerating when I say that this model involves more technical interference in the internet infrastructure than what is attempted in Iran, one of the most repressive and regressive censorship regimes in the world."

Critics of the ISP-level filtering plan say software filters installed by the user on their PC, which are already provided by the government for free at netalert.gov.au, are more than adequate.

Mark Newton, an engineer at Internode, has heavily criticised the Government and its filtering policy on the Whirlpool broadband community forum, going as far as saying it would enable child abuse.

He said the plan would inevitably result in significant false positives and degrade internet speeds tremendously. Those views were subsequently widely reported by technology media and blogs.

Although Newton identified himself as an employee of Internode - as Whirlpool's rules stipulate - he always maintained his views were personal opinions and not necessarily shared by the company.

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.

Newton said he found the bullying "outrageous" and Senator Conroy was "misusing his influence as a Commonwealth Minister to intimidate a private dissenting citizen into silencing his political views".

A spokesman for Senator Conroy said Newton's accusation that the Government was promoting child abuse was "disappointing and irresponsible". He said the purpose of the email was "to establish whether Mr Newton's views were consistent with the IIA position".

Ironically, Senator Conroy has himself accused critics of his filtering policy of supporting child pornography - including Greens Senator Scott Ludlam in Senate Estimates this week.

ACMA released a report in July detailing the results of laboratory tests of six unnamed ISP-level filters.

Only one of the filters tested resulted in an acceptable speed reduction of 2 per cent or less. The others caused drops in speed between 21 per cent and 86 per cent.

The tests showed the more accurate the filtering, the bigger the impact on network performance.

However, none of the filters were completely accurate. They allowed access to between 2 per cent and 13 per cent of material that should have been blocked, and wrongly blocked between 1.3 per cent and 7.8 per cent of websites that should have been allowed.

"Why would you want to damage the performance and utility of the internet and not actually keep the bad stuff out anyway," said John Lindsay, carrier relations manager at Internode.

In Senate Estimates, Senator Ludlam expressed concern that all sorts of politically-sensitive material could be added to the block list and otherwise legitimate sites - for example, YouTube - could be rendered inaccessible based on content published by users.

"The black list ... can become very grey depending on how expansive the list becomes - euthanasia material, politically related material, material about anorexia. There is a lot of distasteful stuff on the internet," he said.

Despite this, the Government - which distanced itself from the tests by saying they were initiated by the previous government - is pressing ahead with live trials of the filtering system and will shortly seek expressions of interest from ISPs keen to participate.




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List ; ESO List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 8:31 AM
Subject: How government tried to gag censor critics

COMMENT

As stated in an earlier email, we will want to see the detail about this proposal. We once again say parents are responsible for what their children access, and we also once again say you can't legislate to protect idiots from themselves.Collectively we are not responsible for stupid, irresponsible and devil may care parents.

The issue we are concerned about as Veterans is just what implications this proposed legislation will have on the free flow of sometimes challenging, feather ruffling and controversial information on Veteran websites and Forums.

It goes without saying we don't support the activities of those who would break the Law. However we also believe adults ought to be free to make their own decisions about what legal material they read and see on Veteran websites, even if the material is controversial in that it challenges individuals and Governments.

Keith Tennent.

*********

How government tried to gag censor critics

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/how-government-tried-to-gag-censor-critics/2008/10/23/1224351430987.html

 ASHER MOSES 7:00am | The Federal Government is attempting to silence critics of its controversial plan to censor the internet, which experts say will hobble internet speeds.




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/  Military News Blog

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: ESO List ; Veterans List
Cc: Media List ; Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 10:06 AM
Subject: GOVERNMENT SNEAKS IN NET CENSORING

COMMENT

This is not just about porn or websites which publish underage content for the world to see.

This is about the right of adults to choose what news they will read and from what websites, what videos on current events and opinion they will watch and from what websites and what entertainment they will watch and read on the web.

It is the responsibility of parents to discipline and control their children, it is the responsibility of parents to edit what their kids watch and read on the internet. It is not our collective responsibility. In any case there is plenty of software available for installation by parents to control their kids net habits.

Who is going to decide what websites are illegal, how are they going to decide and what criteria will they use?

I mean if I publish something on my website which is controversial and which ruffles some feathers will my website then be deemed illegal by some well paid boffin hidden in some backroom?

And if we want to go and see what Al Jazeera has to say about world events will we be stopped from doing so?

You can't legislate to protect fools from themselves and you can't legislate to make irresponsible parents responsible.


Keith Tennent.
***************

 
THE GEEK: The digital chastity belt
http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/thegeek/archives/2008/10/post_2.html

The PM is about to clean up your net browsing habits




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/  Military News Blog

[Keith]

From: Keith Tennent
To: Veterans List
Cc: Federal Parliamentary List
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 12:06 PM
Subject: MATURE ADULT AUSTRALIANS DON'T NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY CAN READ AND SEE

No opt-out of filtered Internet

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1399635276

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.




www.theaussiedigger.com The Aussie Digger
 
http://theaussiedigger.com/TheAussieDiggerForum/  Forum
 
http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/  Military News Blog