Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:01:43PM +1100, Scott Ragen wrote: Now tell me how do you stop your children from connecting to porn sites from their mobile phone? Allow the PARENT to decide if the child needs internet access on their phone AT ALL. Seriously, what child NEEDS internet on their mobile phone? I can think of two uses. :) 1. mapping service 2. www.131500.info (and yes you can call, but only between certain hours :) Though I guess you can counter with 'well they can call' but still, legit kid uses for innanets on the mobile. :) -- Police noticed some rustling sounds from Linn's bottom area and on closer inspection a roll of cash was found protruding from Linn's anus, the full amount of cash taken in the robbery. - http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/robber-hides-loot-up-his-booty/2008/05/09/1210131248617.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
I am really most concerned about all the side effects of filtering that we are yet to uncover. For example: If I hosted on a dynamic IP, although I have been assured that it is unlikely, how would I deal with the event that my IP has been blocked to other users? Could the federal government consider not blocking domestic addresses and actually enforce Australian law on our own turf? What if I ran a VPN on port 80? How do I even know that I'm on the blocked list? What about lesser known sites such as the Internet WayBack machine? Would any objectionable material result in a blanket ban? Robbie -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
On 22/10/2008 10:13 AM, CaT wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:01:43PM +1100, Scott Ragen wrote: Now tell me how do you stop your children from connecting to porn sites from their mobile phone? Allow the PARENT to decide if the child needs internet access on their phone AT ALL. Seriously, what child NEEDS internet on their mobile phone? I can think of two uses. :) 1. mapping service 2. www.131500.info (and yes you can call, but only between certain hours :) Though I guess you can counter with 'well they can call' but still, legit kid uses for innanets on the mobile. :) Is it possible that you are confusing needs with wants. I can't imagine that either of these services are a need. Bloody useful perhaps but IMNSHO not sufficient reason, in isolation, to warrant the use. N/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
Nigel Allen wrote: On 22/10/2008 10:13 AM, CaT wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:01:43PM +1100, Scott Ragen wrote: Now tell me how do you stop your children from connecting to porn sites from their mobile phone? Allow the PARENT to decide if the child needs internet access on their phone AT ALL. Seriously, what child NEEDS internet on their mobile phone? I can think of two uses. :) 1. mapping service 2. www.131500.info (and yes you can call, but only between certain hours :) Though I guess you can counter with 'well they can call' but still, legit kid uses for innanets on the mobile. :) Is it possible that you are confusing needs with wants. I can't imagine that either of these services are a need. Bloody useful perhaps but IMNSHO not sufficient reason, in isolation, to warrant the use. We don't *need* lots of things we don't need Macdonalds, iPods, the latest computer, bottled water... but this is the world we live in. But you Canute do without them.:) -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
Theoretically, I believe the IP thing vs domain thing has been solved now. If we are willing to put aside the evilness of filtering for a second and limit the issue to the technical implementation, I know there are some implementations that use a two-phase filter to deal with IP issues (I think this might include China's) They take the list of block domains, and resolve a set of IPs for them. These IPs are then hijacked via some BGP trickery (although someone more clueful on that aspect would need to describe how) to the filtering servers. These filtering servers, although they receive request/response for all of the hosts that map to the IPs, only do the actual filtering on the basis of domain or URL subpaths. In other words.. If you aren't on a red IP, you never go through filtering at all. If you are a green host on a red IP, your request is slower but still works. If you are a green host with a red subsection, the request is slower but still works. I gather though (since this involves network-fu) that this isn't the sort of technology you can just drop a linux box into the network to implement. But it would seem to at least mitigate some of the computation costs to implement the filtering. Of course, this says nothing whatsoever about the accuracy of the filtering, just that your inaccurate blocking can be implemented with a lower computational cost. Adam K 2008/10/25 Robert Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am really most concerned about all the side effects of filtering that we are yet to uncover. For example: If I hosted on a dynamic IP, although I have been assured that it is unlikely, how would I deal with the event that my IP has been blocked to other users? Could the federal government consider not blocking domestic addresses and actually enforce Australian law on our own turf? What if I ran a VPN on port 80? How do I even know that I'm on the blocked list? What about lesser known sites such as the Internet WayBack machine? Would any objectionable material result in a blanket ban? Robbie -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
YES! AUSTRALIA is the pilot! Sounds like Paypal. Are we so gullible? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
RE: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
I know there is no perfect solution. TV has always been censored throughout Australia. If TV becomes and online? What happens if it is uncensored? Mum and Dad who don't know how to filter their own web content what do they do? I know my grandfather cant use his mobile phone let alone filter internet content. Gareth -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of david Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 3:30 PM To: Rev Simon Rumble; slug@slug.org.au Subject: Re: [SLUG] Fortress err Firewall Australia Rev Simon Rumble wrote: This one time, at band camp, James Purser wrote: Here's a radical suggestion, why don't we mandate that ISP's must offer a filtered service and see who actually picks it up. Instead of forcing Telly Tubby land on everyone, give it to those who want it, and leave the rest of us who are able to take responsibility for our internet usage alone. I know it's out of fashion this week, but how about letting the market decide? There are already ISPs that provide a filtered service. great idea... I wonder what they filter? I wonder if they tell their customers... I wonder if they tell their customers when they *change* what they filter? I wonder if they have political views? Religious affiliations? Food prejudices? So much to think about. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
Has anyone seen this; http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/081016_copyrouter.pdf SMITH GARETH wrote: I know there is no perfect solution. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
AUSTRALIA is the pilot! Sounds like Paypal. Are we so gullible? Kyle wrote: Has anyone seen this; http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/081016_copyrouter.pdf -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
To summarise: This router disables all transport compression, and man-in-the-middles or disables all transport encryption, then relies on the police to send the network operator a list of every single child porn url and file hash in the entire world... What could possibly go wrong? Adam K 2008/10/21 Kyle [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Has anyone seen this; http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/081016_copyrouter.pdf SMITH GARETH wrote: I know there is no perfect solution. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
surely? -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
RE: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 21/10/2008 03:13:42 PM: Hi there, Maybe I missed something but the censorship on the website on the original post was to be applied to Australian homes, schools and public computers. If you're a techno head and want to view an UNCENSORED content get an UNCENSORED CONNECTION. EG a business connection and censor it yourself. Since business connections are always more expensive, that only gives the upper class this option, everyone else may have to live with a filtered feed. Now tell me how do you stop your children from connecting to porn sites from their mobile phone? Allow the PARENT to decide if the child needs internet access on their phone AT ALL. Seriously, what child NEEDS internet on their mobile phone? The internet web content is already censored!!! But we don't have control over it. If your under the impression that the internet is uncensored you need to realise that it already is. Illigal content like online gambling and terrorist information is already blocked. Neither is censored, and in my opinion neither should be censored. If I want to (in theory) learn how to make a bomb, who says I don't have that right? Schools and public computers are already censored with strict content filtering policies. Why not filter it at the ISP and not at the client site. Even charaty organistations don't have time or the money to have an IT admin just managing their content on the client side. LET THE ISP'S MANAGE THE FILTERING. I know I don't want to pay for the download of a site that ends up being blocked by my content filter. We are we paying for downloads that we don't want. So you are happy to be told what you can and cannot see? What if your ISP has a political view and decides to filter our certain political views? Just think of an ISP level net nanny managing your multiply internet connections. I think this would be great managing your internet connetions on any device you have. I know I don't want to download something that will be filted. I DON'T WANT PORN. Why shold I pay for the download of a an PORN ADD that I don't want. You can block it. You do realise that most censoring applications REJECT the connection, so you pay for VERY LITTLE if any downloads. By default the SEX companies shouldn't be able to propogate PORN to our children by default. Just like walking through kings cross at night with your children. (Although I understand they have cleaned it up a lot, but I hope you understand my meaning) I used to manage content filters for multiple businesses and managing client side content filters are annoying. I don't want to do this but the reality is we need content filtering!! Who needs it? I certainly DO NOT! especially if it is FORCED on me, without my concent, and without my COMPLETE knowledge of what is being blocked. OK, Lets look at this slightly differently Any child that is determined enough to view porn, Internet Censorship or not, WILL GET PORN! They may use encrypted bittorrent, or another method, but its not hard to get around content filters like these. Internet Censorship should START and END in the home, and the best thing the government can do to help this is EDUCATE the population on the best methods to do this. My favorite two are: 1. Place the computer in a public spot, like the living room, or dining room, so the children fear getting caught. 2. Regardless of if you do or not, let you children know that you log all website connections, but trust them enough to not have to look at those logs. Social problems (and this is a social problem) CANNOT EVER be solved simply with technology. It requires a mix of Education, Technology and persiverance. Regards, Scott -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
SMITH GARETH wrote: Our internet connections are already filtered and intercepted so why not filter the extra CRAP like PORN out. Why are you downloading porn if you don't want it? Adelle. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
2008/10/17 Morgan Storey [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This is very real and very scary. http://nocleanfeed.com/ I am a parent and I don't think this enforced censorship and limitation should be forced upon us. Do as that site says and spam... err email a delegate. ITYM write a paper letter. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
Rev Simon Rumble wrote: This one time, at band camp, Kyle wrote: Is this possibly for real? Yes. Our political overlords realise it will cost a fortune, will slow down our internets and won't work. They're being successfully wedged by the shrill wowsers like Hetty Johnstone that being anti-filtering is equivalent to being pro kiddy porn. Hi Simon, I think that fairly describes the last lot in government. This lot seem to be serious. That are being wilfully blind to the effects on reliability and performance. They still think of the Internet as the Interweb, forgetting about the huge amount of hidden traffic carrying phone calls, building global scientific instruments, and so on. Even from the perspective of the Interweb the proposal is stupid. Cheers, Glen -- Glen Turner -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
RE: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
Hi there, I don't think this is a bad idea to censor Home/School internet connections. I think business connections shouldn't be censored as you can setup your own filtering. Optus already block ports 138, 80 and 25 on home connections why not block some more content. I think censorship is a great idea. Young children need to be censored from harmful content. They don't need to be exposed to potentially damaging websites and now with internet on a mobiles, kids are being exposed to harmful content that they shouldn't see. I think home internet plans should be filtered and business plans can be unfiltered. That way everyone are happy. China filters the whole internet to the country and this works for them so it's feasable to do this technically. Censoring the whole internet is stupid but censoring HOMES and Schools is a great idea. firmly committed to a mandatory clean-feed internet to Australian homes, schools and public computers Our internet connections are already filtered and intercepted so why not filter the extra CRAP like PORN out. If you want it get a business connection. Gareth Smith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Turner Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 10:50 AM To: Rev Simon Rumble; slug@slug.org.au Subject: Re: [SLUG] Fortress err Firewall Australia Rev Simon Rumble wrote: This one time, at band camp, Kyle wrote: Is this possibly for real? Yes. Our political overlords realise it will cost a fortune, will slow down our internets and won't work. They're being successfully wedged by the shrill wowsers like Hetty Johnstone that being anti-filtering is equivalent to being pro kiddy porn. Hi Simon, I think that fairly describes the last lot in government. This lot seem to be serious. That are being wilfully blind to the effects on reliability and performance. They still think of the Internet as the Interweb, forgetting about the huge amount of hidden traffic carrying phone calls, building global scientific instruments, and so on. Even from the perspective of the Interweb the proposal is stupid. Cheers, Glen -- Glen Turner -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
RE: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 10:31 +0800, SMITH GARETH wrote: Hi there, I don't think this is a bad idea to censor Home/School internet connections. I think business connections shouldn't be censored as you can setup your own filtering. Education Department already filters their internet connections. I am perfectly able and capable of deciding what I do and don't want to look at online. Optus already block ports 138, 80 and 25 on home connections why not block some more content. Port blocking is a completely different question to content blocking. I think censorship is a great idea. Young children need to be censored from harmful content. They don't need to be exposed to potentially damaging websites and now with internet on a mobiles, kids are being exposed to harmful content that they shouldn't see. Hey guess what? That's the parents job. I have three kids, it is my job to determine what is right and wrong for them to view. I also do not need to be subjected to a Telly Tubby friendly internet for the sake of the children. I think home internet plans should be filtered and business plans can be unfiltered. Why? What makes businesses so special? That way everyone are happy. Umm no? China filters the whole internet to the country and this works for them so it's feasable to do this technically. Censoring the whole internet is stupid but censoring HOMES and Schools is a great idea. firmly committed to a mandatory clean-feed internet to Australian homes, schools and public computers In other words Hey look, a nation well known for abusing basic human rights is doing it, so let's do it as well. Yeah while we're at it, let's jail people for joining a religion or we could try bringing back the death penalty. Our internet connections are already filtered and intercepted so why not filter the extra CRAP like PORN out. Isn't that my choice? -- James Purser signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
This one time, at band camp, SMITH GARETH wrote: I think censorship is a great idea. Young children need to be censored from harmful content. They don't need to be exposed to potentially damaging websites and now with internet on a mobiles, kids are being exposed to harmful content that they shouldn't see. 1. It doesn't work. 2. Who decides what is appropriate and what isn't? Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. - Attributed to Mark Twain The task of deciding what is appropriate for children is the job of the parents. All filtering systems have faults -- over or under blocking, so aren't a perfect solution. A much better option is to have the computer in a public location. I think home internet plans should be filtered and business plans can be unfiltered. Feel free to install whatever filtering system you would like on YOUR internet connection. The government even provides the software for free. Me, I'll stick to my own thanks! China filters the whole internet to the country and this works for them No, it doesn't work. What it blocks is trivial access to sites like CNN, BBC and ABC. A few obvious porn sites (playboy, penthouse) are blocked, while the rest are open. It is trivially easy to get around the censorship -- I set up just such a system for a friend when he lived in Shanghai. How the Chinese firewall works is through fear of being noticed. My friend was okay running a VPN to my server because, as a westerner, he would have been deported. A local would be locked up in a prison for ideological offenders. This is the model we want for Australia? so it's feasable to do this technically. Censoring the whole internet is stupid but censoring HOMES and Schools is a great idea. Sure, a great idea. Except it doesn't work. Internet Filtering - It's like WorkChoices for your computer: You never asked for it, you've repeatedly said you don't want it, but the Government is determined to ram it down your throat, all the while smirking, and telling you what a great favour they're doing you. -- Rev Simon Rumble [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rumble.net The Tourist Engineer Because nerds travel too. http://engineer.openguides.org/ If the designers of X-windows built cars, there would be no fewer than five steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same prinicples -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo. Useful feature, that. -- From the programming notebooks of a heretic, 1990. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
RE: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 13:44 +1100, James Purser wrote: Yeah while we're at it, let's jail people for joining a religion or we could try bringing back the death penalty. Don't forget torture, forced abortions and mutilations while we're at it. -Rob -- GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
hmm... well.. I haven't been following this thread, but now that I am. saying the following is probably bad politics, but that doesn't make it not true. I'm the father of 5 and grandfather of 2... censorship does NOTHING to protect kiddies. Child molesting festers in the dark and dies in the light of day. Kids have sniggered about smut since Adam used the fig leaf, and survived fine. What's really dangerous is censorship. Narrow minded people imposing their idea of what is acceptable, using protecting the kiddies as an excuse. There are much more dangerous things around than porn, much as I personally dislike it. Censorship is one of them. Most people I've met who want to censor porn actually are bothered by it themselves. You can rest assured that kids deal with it quite well. I've never seen a child agitate to not see porn. My kids saw porn on the net and got over it after a couple of months. They are now all well balanced adults in strong relationships. Definitely not damaged by porn. Anyone who thinks kids can't sort these things out themselves doesn't know much about kids. BTW I'm not talking about kiddie porn where the children are themselves abused in the making of the porn. That's a whole other thing that has little to do with censorship. If any sort of blanket censorship is introduced, you can be absolutely certain that some government (quite possibly this one) will use it inappropriately. If you doubt this, cf Chinese censorship, or the terrorist laws being used inappropriately against Iceland by the UK and against Dr.Haneef by our own beloved leaders. There are endless other examples. Finally.. if you really want to filter porn (I can't say I blame you), then do it at home on your own PC. Let *me* decide what I want to filter. David (compulsory linux content.. .does the government supplied filtering work on linux?) Important PS: This email would probably be censored by any blanket filter. It mentions porn and kiddies several times. SMITH GARETH wrote: Hi there, I don't think this is a bad idea to censor Home/School internet connections. I think business connections shouldn't be censored as you can setup your own filtering. Optus already block ports 138, 80 and 25 on home connections why not block some more content. I think censorship is a great idea. Young children need to be censored from harmful content. They don't need to be exposed to potentially damaging websites and now with internet on a mobiles, kids are being exposed to harmful content that they shouldn't see. I think home internet plans should be filtered and business plans can be unfiltered. That way everyone are happy. China filters the whole internet to the country and this works for them so it's feasable to do this technically. Censoring the whole internet is stupid but censoring HOMES and Schools is a great idea. firmly committed to a mandatory clean-feed internet to Australian homes, schools and public computers Our internet connections are already filtered and intercepted so why not filter the extra CRAP like PORN out. If you want it get a business connection. Gareth Smith -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Turner Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 10:50 AM To: Rev Simon Rumble; slug@slug.org.au Subject: Re: [SLUG] Fortress err Firewall Australia Rev Simon Rumble wrote: This one time, at band camp, Kyle wrote: Is this possibly for real? Yes. Our political overlords realise it will cost a fortune, will slow down our internets and won't work. They're being successfully wedged by the shrill wowsers like Hetty Johnstone that being anti-filtering is equivalent to being pro kiddy porn. Hi Simon, I think that fairly describes the last lot in government. This lot seem to be serious. That are being wilfully blind to the effects on reliability and performance. They still think of the Internet as the Interweb, forgetting about the huge amount of hidden traffic carrying phone calls, building global scientific instruments, and so on. Even from the perspective of the Interweb the proposal is stupid. Cheers, Glen -- Glen Turner -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
RE: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
Hi there, Maybe I missed something but the censorship on the website on the original post was to be applied to Australian homes, schools and public computers. If you're a techno head and want to view an UNCENSORED content get an UNCENSORED CONNECTION. EG a business connection and censor it yourself. Whouldn't it be great if the ISP provided an content filter at the ISP level where you can manage your own content. You login and unrestrict the content you want to view. Now tell me how do you stop your children from connecting to porn sites from their mobile phone? The internet web content is already censored!!! But we don't have control over it. If your under the impression that the internet is uncensored you need to realise that it already is. Illigal content like online gambling and terrorist information is already blocked. Schools and public computers are already censored with strict content filtering policies. Why not filter it at the ISP and not at the client site. Even charaty organistations don't have time or the money to have an IT admin just managing their content on the client side. LET THE ISP'S MANAGE THE FILTERING. I know I don't want to pay for the download of a site that ends up being blocked by my content filter. We are we paying for downloads that we don't want. Just think of an ISP level net nanny managing your multiply internet connections. I think this would be great managing your internet connetions on any device you have. I know I don't want to download something that will be filted. I DON'T WANT PORN. Why shold I pay for the download of a an PORN ADD that I don't want. By default the SEX companies shouldn't be able to propogate PORN to our children by default. I used to manage content filters for multiple businesses and managing client side content filters are annoying. I don't want to do this but the reality is we need content filtering!! Why should schools pay for the bandwidth of content that just gets stripped out by your content filter anyway. Gareth -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rev Simon Rumble Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 2:22 PM To: slug@slug.org.au Subject: Re: [SLUG] Fortress err Firewall Australia This one time, at band camp, SMITH GARETH wrote: I think censorship is a great idea. Young children need to be censored from harmful content. They don't need to be exposed to potentially damaging websites and now with internet on a mobiles, kids are being exposed to harmful content that they shouldn't see. 1. It doesn't work. 2. Who decides what is appropriate and what isn't? Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. - Attributed to Mark Twain The task of deciding what is appropriate for children is the job of the parents. All filtering systems have faults -- over or under blocking, so aren't a perfect solution. A much better option is to have the computer in a public location. I think home internet plans should be filtered and business plans can be unfiltered. Feel free to install whatever filtering system you would like on YOUR internet connection. The government even provides the software for free. Me, I'll stick to my own thanks! China filters the whole internet to the country and this works for them No, it doesn't work. What it blocks is trivial access to sites like CNN, BBC and ABC. A few obvious porn sites (playboy, penthouse) are blocked, while the rest are open. It is trivially easy to get around the censorship -- I set up just such a system for a friend when he lived in Shanghai. How the Chinese firewall works is through fear of being noticed. My friend was okay running a VPN to my server because, as a westerner, he would have been deported. A local would be locked up in a prison for ideological offenders. This is the model we want for Australia? so it's feasable to do this technically. Censoring the whole internet is stupid but censoring HOMES and Schools is a great idea. Sure, a great idea. Except it doesn't work. Internet Filtering - It's like WorkChoices for your computer: You never asked for it, you've repeatedly said you don't want it, but the Government is determined to ram it down your throat, all the while smirking, and telling you what a great favour they're doing you. -- Rev Simon Rumble [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rumble.net The Tourist Engineer Because nerds travel too. http://engineer.openguides.org/ If the designers of X-windows built cars, there would be no fewer than five steering wheels hidden about the cockpit, none of which followed the same prinicples -- but you'd be able to shift gears with your car stereo. Useful feature, that. -- From the programming notebooks of a heretic, 1990. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
This one time, at band camp, SMITH GARETH wrote: If you're a techno head and want to view an UNCENSORED content get an UNCENSORED CONNECTION. EG a business connection and censor it yourself. No. The point of the proposed internet censorship regime is it is MANDATORY. Whouldn't it be great if the ISP provided an content filter at the ISP level where you can manage your own content. You login and unrestrict the content you want to view. Their are indeed ISPs that provide this service. You are free to use one. I don't want to and resent you trying to force me to not have the option to be uncensored. Now tell me how do you stop your children from connecting to porn sites from their mobile phone? This has already happened. Look at the ACMA site. However, like all these filtering systems, it isn't 100% effective. The internet web content is already censored!!! But we don't have control over it. If your under the impression that the internet is uncensored you need to realise that it already is. Incorrect. You are clearly misinformed. There is no government filtering of the Internet in Australia. If the site is hosted in Australia, the government is able to get the site taken down. In all other circumstances, it is only filtered in the government-approved client-side filtering systems. Illigal content like online gambling and terrorist information is already blocked. Online gambling is not illegal. Nor are either types of information blocked. Schools and public computers are already censored with strict content filtering policies. Why not filter it at the ISP and not at the client site. Sure. As an option available to consumers it already is. LET THE ISP'S MANAGE THE FILTERING. I know I don't want to pay for the download of a site that ends up being blocked by my content filter. We are we paying for downloads that we don't want. Feel free. By default the SEX companies shouldn't be able to propogate PORN to our children by default. By default corporations shouldn't be able to propogate unhealthy foods to our children by default. When is my position going to be imposed on the entire population? I used to manage content filters for multiple businesses and managing client side content filters are annoying. I don't want to do this but the reality is we need content filtering!! So pay someone else to do it. Why should schools pay for the bandwidth of content that just gets stripped out by your content filter anyway. I don't think you understand how filtering works. -- Rev Simon Rumble [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rumble.net The Tourist Engineer Because nerds travel too. http://engineer.openguides.org/ The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. - Somerset Maugham -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
RE: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 12:13 +0800, SMITH GARETH wrote: Hi there, Maybe I missed something but the censorship on the website on the original post was to be applied to Australian homes, schools and public computers. If you're a techno head and want to view an UNCENSORED content get an UNCENSORED CONNECTION. EG a business connection and censor it yourself. Here's a radical suggestion, why don't we mandate that ISP's must offer a filtered service and see who actually picks it up. Instead of forcing Telly Tubby land on everyone, give it to those who want it, and leave the rest of us who are able to take responsibility for our internet usage alone. -- James Purser signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
This one time, at band camp, James Purser wrote: Here's a radical suggestion, why don't we mandate that ISP's must offer a filtered service and see who actually picks it up. Instead of forcing Telly Tubby land on everyone, give it to those who want it, and leave the rest of us who are able to take responsibility for our internet usage alone. I know it's out of fashion this week, but how about letting the market decide? There are already ISPs that provide a filtered service. -- Rev Simon Rumble [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rumble.net The Tourist Engineer Just because you're on holiday, doesn't mean you're not a geek. http://engineer.openguides.org/ I call Windows the petri dish of choice on the Internet. It's the opportunity to download a virus from anywhere and infect corporate information. - Scott McNealy -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:26 +1100, Rev Simon Rumble wrote: This one time, at band camp, James Purser wrote: Here's a radical suggestion, why don't we mandate that ISP's must offer a filtered service and see who actually picks it up. Instead of forcing Telly Tubby land on everyone, give it to those who want it, and leave the rest of us who are able to take responsibility for our internet usage alone. I know it's out of fashion this week, but how about letting the market decide? There are already ISPs that provide a filtered service. Yar, however given the choice between mandated telly tubby land for everyone and ISP's having to offer such a feed without moving everyone onto it wholesale, I know which one I prefer. If wishes were unicorns I'd love to see it being and entirely voluntary thing. -- James Purser signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
Rev Simon Rumble wrote: This one time, at band camp, James Purser wrote: Here's a radical suggestion, why don't we mandate that ISP's must offer a filtered service and see who actually picks it up. Instead of forcing Telly Tubby land on everyone, give it to those who want it, and leave the rest of us who are able to take responsibility for our internet usage alone. I know it's out of fashion this week, but how about letting the market decide? There are already ISPs that provide a filtered service. great idea... I wonder what they filter? I wonder if they tell their customers... I wonder if they tell their customers when they *change* what they filter? I wonder if they have political views? Religious affiliations? Food prejudices? So much to think about. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
This is very real and very scary. http://nocleanfeed.com/ I am a parent and I don't think this enforced censorship and limitation should be forced upon us. Do as that site says and spam... err email a delegate. On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Kyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this possibly for real? Does anyone here have any insight pls? http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/15/australias-great-fir.html 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. ... -- Kind Regards Kyle -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- Regards Morgan Storey,A+, MCSE:Security. Senior Network and Security Consultant. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
Is this possibly for real? Does anyone here have any insight pls? http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/15/australias-great-fir.html 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. ... -- Kind Regards Kyle -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008, Kyle wrote: Is this possibly for real? The government has certainly been planning to require that ISPs filter-by-default. The exact status of: - whether complete opt-out is possible - the extent of filtering of, eg, encrypted traffic (I have been told by a sysadmin, although without a source, that there are rumours that they will require ISPs to do Man In The Middle on HTTPS) - whether this is a serious plan, or some kind of stunt along the lines of: - oh we tried to filter your Internet we really did but it turns out the trial was a failure, the tech just isn't there yet! or - an aggressive starting position they intend to back away from so that something still problematic is perceived as 'reasonable': as a noble compromise, we agree to take your second born rather than first born children, isn't compromise great? I wrote about this in my blog, but in short I suspect the best response is to send a letter to Senator Conroy and the shadow minister Senator Nick Minchin expressing your disapproval of the plan and calling on them to drop the plan/oppose the plan, as appropriate http://puzzling.org/logs/thoughts/2008/October/14/internet-filtering -Mary -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
This one time, at band camp, Kyle wrote: Is this possibly for real? Yes. Our political overlords realise it will cost a fortune, will slow down our internets and won't work. They're being successfully wedged by the shrill wowsers like Hetty Johnstone that being anti-filtering is equivalent to being pro kiddy porn. Our job is to get across why it's a bad idea, and most importantly that it won't work: it will not prevent bad people from viewing bad things, but it will block innocuous things. Of course we're told it won't be used to block unpalatable political ideas. Like the terrorism laws that would never be used on peaceful protesters. Does anyone here have any insight pls? http://nocleanfeed.com/ -- Rev Simon Rumble [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rumble.net The Tourist Engineer Just because you're on holiday, doesn't mean you're not a geek. http://engineer.openguides.org/ Arguing online is like being in the Special Olympics. You might win, but you're still retarded. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Fortress .... err Firewall Australia
I dont think it would be fair to say 'filtering will make mistakes so dont use them', because that argument would therefore logically extend your morality to 'police make mistakes, so get rid of them' also this thread should be in slug-chat. Dean Rev Simon Rumble wrote: This one time, at band camp, Kyle wrote: Is this possibly for real? Yes. Our political overlords realise it will cost a fortune, will slow down our internets and won't work. They're being successfully wedged by the shrill wowsers like Hetty Johnstone that being anti-filtering is equivalent to being pro kiddy porn. Our job is to get across why it's a bad idea, and most importantly that it won't work: it will not prevent bad people from viewing bad things, but it will block innocuous things. Of course we're told it won't be used to block unpalatable political ideas. Like the terrorism laws that would never be used on peaceful protesters. Does anyone here have any insight pls? http://nocleanfeed.com/ -- http://fragfest.com.au -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
