The Great Aussie Firewall to Go Ahead

[Ehtyar]

And in a final, resounding demonstration of the technical incompetence and complete lack of understanding of the current Australian Government, Crown Senatorial Twitrocket Stephen Conroy gave media outlets an hour and a half notice on Tuesday, December 15^th 2009 that a press conference was to be held to announce that the Great Aussie Firewall will be legislated into existence in the new year.

Despite abysmal results in the the "pilot" program run earlier this year, and the admission that any technically competent individual could easily circumvent the "filters" (among other astounding failures - see the full article), Australian ISPs will be forced to deny access to any overseas website "refused classification" by the Australian Communications and Media Authority at the network level.

All hail Chairman Rudd.

Ehtyar.

[zridling]

Australia, Britain, and China: three countries that are hard on netizens. Whenever a government wants to take away a liberty, they usually reach for the "child porn" card. Meanwhile, in the US and Britain, we're holding "piracy summits" to help corporations enact ACTA legislation. All this bodes ill for economic leadership to say the least.

[4wd]

I tried to think of something intelligent and articulate to say regarding this abuse of power by the technologically illerate cretins but all I could really come up with was.....

F@#$&^$ S!@%H%$#+!!!!!!!!!

[Innuendo]

F@#$&^$ S!@%H%$#+!!!!!!!!!

Took the words right out of my mouth. This scheme smacks of computer-illiterate politicians of the 1990s providing a knee-jerk reaction to dangers on 'the intertubes'. I'd have thought government would be more technologically more enlightened in 2009.

[4wd]

BTW Ehtyar, where'd you dig up that picture of the Chairman?

I need one that's 1680x1050

[Ehtyar]

Australia, Britain, and China: three countries that are hard on netizens. Whenever a government wants to take away a liberty, they usually reach for the "child porn" card. Meanwhile, in the US and Britain, we're holding "piracy summits" to help corporations enact ACTA legislation. All this bodes ill for economic leadership to say the least.

Oh don't you worry, Australia is in on ACTA just as much as the rest of them. I wonder how long it will br before someone suggests the Great Firewall be used to assist Big Media.

BTW Ehtyar, where'd you dig up that picture of the Chairman?

I need one that's 1680x1050

Sorry 4wd, that was the largest I could find. Seems to only come in roughtly 300x300.

Ehtyar.

[4wd]

I wonder how long it will br before someone suggests the Great Firewall be used to assist Big Media.

I believe that was one of it's functions in the initial proposal, (can't find a link right now), so it's already primed for BM use.  I'm sure quite a few torrent search/tracker sites are already on the blacklist.

Sorry 4wd, that was the largest I could find. Seems to only come in roughtly 300x300.

No probs, guess I'll have to improvise.

[Ehtyar]

I wonder how long it will br before someone suggests the Great Firewall be used to assist Big Media.

I believe that was one of it's functions in the initial proposal, (can't find a link right now), so it's already primed for BM use.  I'm sure quite a few torrent search/tracker sites are already on the blacklist.

Yay for DHT!!

Ehtyar.

[Innuendo]

Yay for DHT!!

DHT is no match for stateful packet inspection. Better start looking for torrent sites that support encrypted/obfuscated connections/transfers.

[Ehtyar]

I was under the impression that the scope of the Great Aussie Firewall included simply blocking specific domains/IPs. Am I mistaken? :O

Ehtyar.

[Innuendo]

I was under the impression that the scope of the Great Aussie Firewall included simply blocking specific domains/IPs. Am I mistaken? :O

Doesn't matter what it includes, Ehtyar. The standard operating procedure of politicians is to get something implemented ASAP that will offend the least amount of citizens. Then, once it is in place, they're free to make as many additions as they want later.

A great example of this is where I live a seatbelt law got passed a couple years ago, but it had to be put on a ballot to be voted on by the citizens of the state. During the campaigning for this new law it was repeatedly stated that no one would be pulled over for just a seatbelt violation. The new law would only affect those who had been pulled over for other reasons (accidents, DUIs, etc.). The law was passed by the citizenry....then six months later the law was amended (amendments to laws usually don't have to be put on a ballot) that people could be pulled over for just a seatbelt violation.

This kind of stuff happens everywhere. Sure, the Great Aussie Firewall may only block specific domains & IPs when it first goes into operation, but I bet it will have a whole slew of options that can be turned on at a moment's notice when the powers that be think the populace have their guard down.

[f0dder]

Innuendo: you haven't had a forced-seatbelt-use law until a couple of years ago? O_o

Still, while I do find that seatbelt use should be mandatory, whether you're just doing a 1km trip to shop groceries (in which case you really shouldn't be taking the car anyway, but I digress), I'm not a big fan of the way politicians always sneak stuff in through the back door; it's despicable

[Stoic Joker]

Innuendo[/b]: you haven't had a forced-seatbelt-use law until a couple of years ago? O_o

Here either, unless Innudeo lives in Florida also (I do). We just got the pull-over-for-seatbelts thing here. But that's not the weird part ... Helmets are required for bicyclists here, but not for motorcycles.

[f0dder]

Helmets are required for bicyclists here, but not for motorcycles.

That sounds pretty insane :-s

[Stoic Joker]

Helmets are required for bicyclists here, but not for motorcycles.

That sounds pretty insane :-s

My guess is they're working off the assumption that if one's tender pink body bounces off a Buick at 85mph their probably better off dead.

[Eóin]

My understanding on that rule was that helmets for motorcyclists meant more and more people paralyzed. So relaxing that rule allowed people to chose between death and life rather than risking what many consider (for right or wrong) something in between.

[Ehtyar]

I was under the impression that the scope of the Great Aussie Firewall included simply blocking specific domains/IPs. Am I mistaken? :O

Doesn't matter what it includes, Ehtyar. The standard operating procedure of politicians is to get something implemented ASAP that will offend the least amount of citizens. Then, once it is in place, they're free to make as many additions as they want later.

Of course it matters what it includes. Until they get around to including SPI in the firewall laws (a lot more work/cost for ISPs, and much more invasive for consumers - very doubtful it would get passed) I can DHT as much as I like.

Ehtyar.

[Innuendo]

you haven't had a forced-seatbelt-use law until a couple of years ago? O_o

Nope...one of the quirks of living in Midwest America.

Still, while I do find that seatbelt use should be mandatory, whether you're just doing a 1km trip to shop groceries (in which case you really shouldn't be taking the car anyway, but I digress), I'm not a big fan of the way politicians always sneak stuff in through the back door; it's despicable

Yes, I agree seatbelt use should be mandatory, but I really didn't care for the promises of how there'd be no pull-overs for only that violation and then they went back on their word.

Here either, unless Innudeo lives in Florida also (I do). We just got the pull-over-for-seatbelts thing here.

I'm "up" in Indiana. Glad to see my state isn't the only one being dragged kicking & screaming out of the stone ages when it comes to safety. Unfortunately, politicians are still the same wherever one goes.

Of course it matters what it includes. Until they get around to including SPI in the firewall laws (a lot more work/cost for ISPs, and much more invasive for consumers - very doubtful it would get passed) I can DHT as much as I like.

You're not getting the point I'm making. Their only real hurdle is getting the law passed to bring the firewall into being in the first place. After that, any modifications & restrictions they want to make will just be slipped into other bills & laws as 'pork'. It's how politics work. Pass a version of the law that has the most you can get away with without public mutiny. Later, adjust & modify to what you wanted in the first place by piggy-backing on other legislation.

BitTorrent (I assume that is why you mention DHT) is a rather unsafe way to traffick in data, especially if it is anything less than 100% legal. It's something akin to pulling your car up in front of a busy shopping mall & then proceeding to load stolen goods into your trunk. There are better, more subtle ways, to do what BitTorrent does, but would keep you under the radar & probably would never trigger The Man's Firewall Of Death.

[f0dder]

Yes, I agree seatbelt use should be mandatory, but I really didn't care for the promises of how there'd be no pull-overs for only that violation and then they went back on their word.

Exactly.

BitTorrent (I assume that is why you mention DHT) is a rather unsafe way to traffick in data, especially if it is anything less than 100% legal. It's something akin to pulling your car up in front of a busy shopping mall & then proceeding to load stolen goods into your trunk. There are better, more subtle ways, to do what BitTorrent does, but would keep you under the radar & probably would never trigger The Man's Firewall Of Death.

With forced Protocol Encryption, they can't see what's being transferred - add DHT and it becomes really hard to prove anything but "there's a lot of data flowing through a truckload of connections". Once that is enough to get somebody convicted, I'm all for grabbing firearms and overthrowing the guv'ments.

[Ehtyar]

I'd also like to point out that where in a communist nation, it is a simple matter to procure the kinds of funds required to DPI every single packet leaving their borders (particularly when done from the very beginning), you very well run the risk of bankrupting all but the biggest ISPs by forcing them to filter their own traffic in any but the most mundane of ways. Heavy-handed law passing such as would be required to institute this sort of scheme in Australia does them no good if it results in the collapse of the nation's Internet infrastructure.

With forced Protocol Encryption, they can't see what's being transferred - add DHT and it becomes really hard to prove anything but "there's a lot of data flowing through a truckload of connections". Once that is enough to get somebody convicted, I'm all for grabbing firearms and overthrowing the guv'ments.

HAH, nice

Ehtyar.

[Target]

you didn't have anything to do with did you Ehtyar?

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/20/227224

[Ehtyar]

Yeah, heard about that. Good of the auDA to prove our point for us. However, at this point I've lost faith in the effectiveness of the "peaceful protest", particularly given the lack of support for this decision in the first place. Good of them for keeping the spirit alive though.

Ehtyar.