Users to pay for censorship in ISP code
Woodster
******
My Note:
Compulsory filtering and I need to pay for it too!! YAY!!! (For those that
missed it - Major sarcasm being used here!! :) )
******
Users to pay for censorship in ISP code
By SIMON HAYES
31aug99
A NEW code of conduct for Internet service providers was unveiled
yesterday, forcing customers to pay for their own censorship.
The code, written by the Internet Industry Association (IIA), does
not require ISPs to block inappropriate content at the server end.
Instead, it supports client-side filters and the use of Net-nanny style
software for users.
IIA executive director Peter Coroneos predicted the software would
cost only $5 per customer when bulk discounts were applied.
"While that's a lot for a small ISP, it is insignificant for the user," he
said.
The code, launched in the aftermath of Federal Government
legislation to control the Internet, requires ISPs to obtain from users
a guarantee they are using client-side filtering.
Those without a filter must be provided with appropriate software,
with the cost passed on to the customer by the ISP.
The IIA will add a list of approved filters to the code after an
independent study.
"It's only the shonks and cowboys who will have a problem," IIA
executive director Peter Coroneos said.
"The code gives our membership a lot of confidence."
The draft code is open for comment until September 30, after which it
must be registered by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA)
before it can come into effect, along with federal legislation, on
January 1.
IT Minister Richard Alston had not seen the code and would not
comment, his office said.
The federal legislation requires that the Internet industry adopt a
code of conduct.
Censorship provisions in the code will have the force of law, once
ratified by the ABA.
ISPs that sign the code will be bound by other provisions, including
rules on privacy, dispute resolution and spamming.
The code relieves ISPs of any role in censorship apart from providing
access to the client-side software and reacting to ABA notices to pull
down a site.
Mr Coroneos said rules governing content-hosting required the host to
remove content under their control when told to do so by the ABA.
The ISP must then warn the publisher they have breached the code
and, possibly, the law.
The Internet access of repeat offenders must be terminated.
Mr Coroneos said the burden on ISPs would be lightened as
pornographic content moved overseas.
"Because the Government has made it illegal to host prohibited
content in Australia, most will move offshore," he said. "There will be
few calls to remove content."
Mr Coroneos said ISPs would ignore the code at their peril.
But many people in the Internet industry opposed regulation, he said.
Civil liberties group Electronic Frontiers Australia welcomed client-side
filtering, as outlined in the code.
"We still have concerns that some people will be intimidated into this,"
EFA executive director Darce Cassidy said.
The code was "a whole lot less draconian" than expected, but still
objectionable, he said.
ISOC-AU (Internet Society of Australia) director Leni Mayo expressed
concern that costs would hurt smaller ISPs, but added the the code
had attempted to address real issues.
"We accept that there are concerns in the community, but we are
basically anti-censorship," he said.
OzEmail spokesman Michael Ward said the code gave both ISPs and
customers greater certainty.
He welcomed the censorship provisions. "We'll never support
mandatory filtering, but it's a good compromise," he said. It's a
sensible path between rhetoric and reality."
Rob Orlowsky
that people/schools etc who want sensorship can have it while home uses can
find a way around it if they want??
correct me if i'm wrong.
Rob ;-)
Woodster
From what I can gather, Everyone MUST Have filtering software but rather than
being server based it is now client based.
From the article:
The code, launched in the aftermath of Federal Government
legislation to control the Internet, requires ISPs to obtain from users
a guarantee they are using client-side filtering.
Those without a filter must be provided with appropriate software,
with the cost passed on to the customer by the ISP.
From that, I gather that users need so guarantee they have an appropriate
filter or face some sort of legislation (??). If they don't have filtering
then the ISP is required to provide at at the user's expense.
That is the impression that I got...Anyone else??
See also The West Australia today (Page 36). There are 2 articles there on
censorship.
Mike
<wood...@spamfree.wantree.com.au> Woodster kindly informs us...
>From what I can gather, Everyone MUST Have filtering software but rather than
>being server based it is now client based.
mmm - That could cost less then $5 as suggested - er um:-
If (IP=0.0.0.0 or web_URL=*.gov.au) then restrict else No_action
;-)
--
Rgds ~`:o)
Mike Perth, Western Australia Mailto: <era...@wantree.com.au>
99% efficient RAPS charger, GMH Turbo with Twin tyres, surplus parts:-
http://www.wantree.com.au/~erazmus
.
Some say there is no magic but, all things begin with thought then it
becomes academic, then some poor slob works out a practical way to
implement all that theory, this is called Engineering - for most
people another form of magic.
.
" ...mmm thats because the laws of physics exceed the boundaries of
the contractual agreement (and the money ain't enough either)... "
Zac Charlesworth
kind and noble person known as wood...@spamfree.wantree.com.au
(Woodster) bestowed upon us the following pearls of wisdom:
<snip>
Well, i would have thought ISP side (like Webtrack) filtering to be a
much better solution than (hackable) client-side soloutions.
I've been using Webtrack at school, and besides a few pain in the
rectum bugs with it it works great, and does the job.
Zac
Mitch
spelling.....
MItch
Zac Charlesworth <z...@zcs.net.au> wrote in article
<37cd6ebd...@news.m.iinet.net.au>...
Mark Fletcher
ability to use censorware if they so desire, not that using it will be
compulsory. Somehow I don't think this is going to win Big Nanny in
Canbarra's approval, how dare people be given the opportunity to think for
themselves.
Fletch
Rob Orlowsky <r...@XXXdrilladvisor.com.au> wrote in message
news:7qfbr5$193$1...@news.iinet.net.au...
> Is it just me, or does this sound like a very very good idea. Does this
mean
> that people/schools etc who want sensorship can have it while home uses
can
> find a way around it if they want??
>
> correct me if i'm wrong.
>
> Rob ;-)
>
>
Bilbo
>
> For those that missed this Article in "The Australian" web site.
>
> ******
> My Note:
> Compulsory filtering and I need to pay for it too!! YAY!!! (For those that
> missed it - Major sarcasm being used here!! :) )
> ******
>
> Users to pay for censorship in ISP code
> By SIMON HAYES
>
> 31aug99
>
> A NEW code of conduct for Internet service providers was unveiled
> yesterday, forcing customers to pay for their own censorship.
>
> The code, written by the Internet Industry Association (IIA), does
> not require ISPs to block inappropriate content at the server end.
>
> Instead, it supports client-side filters and the use of Net-nanny style
> software for users.
>
> IIA executive director Peter Coroneos predicted the software would
> cost only $5 per customer when bulk discounts were applied.
>
> "While that's a lot for a small ISP, it is insignificant for the user," he
> said.
>
> legislation to control the Internet, requires ISPs to obtain from users
> a guarantee they are using client-side filtering.
>
> Those without a filter must be provided with appropriate software,
> with the cost passed on to the customer by the ISP.
>
Considering the absolute shit laws they passed regarding censorship,
this is the best solution to get more control of your own surfing. The
only worry now is that IIA are going to evaluate and recommend software
for the Code. I hope they look at a wide range of software on alot of
platforms.
Hell, now I think about it, I do my surfing with Linux, and I can't
remember anyone looking at solutions for non windows or Mac machines.
:-) Cool, no cost to me.
Zac Charlesworth
kind and noble person known as "Mitch" <no...@nowhere.com> bestowed
upon us the following pearls of wisdom:
>Didn't know you were still at school Zac, but then seeing some of your
>spelling.....
Bite me :)
I work at 3 schools down here.
Zac
Peter F Bradshaw
wood...@spamfree.wantree.com.au (Woodster) writes:
> For those that missed this Article in "The Australian" web site.
>
> ******
> My Note:
> Compulsory filtering and I need to pay for it too!! YAY!!! (For those that
> missed it - Major sarcasm being used here!! :) )
> ******
>
Hi;
The new draft IIA code is avaliable at http://www.iia.net.au/code.html.
From the point of view of ISPs it does not look as bad as it might have.
From the user's point of view it is as bad as it was always going to be.
One of the best bits is section 13.6 which states that:
"13.6 Prior to engagement, Code Subscriber Internet Content Hosts will
take reasonable steps to inform users, whether by contractual
notice or otherwise, that the user should obtain legal advice
about the potential liability for the consequences of the publication
of material on a Web Site or content database."
This does not bode well for those individuals that wish to use their home
pages for personal expresion involving controversial subjects.
Cheers
--
Peter F Bradshaw | http://www.nautronix.com.au/, p...@nautronix.com.au
Nautronix Ltd. | PGP public key at
108 Marine Terrace | http://www.iinet.net.au/~pfb/public_key.html
Fremantle, WA, 6160 | "Needs more salt" - Archimedes
Paul Day
> Well, i would have thought ISP side (like Webtrack) filtering to be a
> much better solution than (hackable) client-side soloutions.
How secure is webtrack as a firewall? I'm sure if people had a need to get
through a webtrack firewall it has _some_ bugs to allow it.
PD
Zac Charlesworth
1999 03:32:22 GMT a mysterious being known only as Paul Day
<bon...@opera.iinet.net.iq> escaped the abyss to utter the following
foreboding words:
>How secure is webtrack as a firewall? I'm sure if people had a need to get
>through a webtrack firewall it has _some_ bugs to allow it.
They can try all they like, all traffic goes through one proxy (which
uplinks to hymn) and all that TCP traffic is firewalled first (using
encryption and authentication).
None of the computers can access anything on the net unless they
authenticate through the server.
Everything is also logged.
I feel confidnet in that if they manage to bypass both the local AND
webtrack security, we'll know who they are anyway.
(It's only a Primary school!)
BUt really, do you think client-side software is better than ISP side?
(From a security/hackability standpoint).
Zac
Paul Day
> I feel confidnet in that if they manage to bypass both the local AND
> webtrack security, we'll know who they are anyway.
Point understood. But is Webtrack 100% secure, is there _no_ way through
it without leaving tracks? After all, the best firewall is unplugging the
network (oh no, I just gave Alston another bright idea - "Let's make
AusInternet and not connect it to the rest of the world. Yeah, that's a
good idea.").
> (It's only a Primary school!)
So, it's not _that_ importnat. I still thought I'd raise the issue.
> BUt really, do you think client-side software is better than ISP side?
> (From a security/hackability standpoint).
Yes, definately. A program on the Windows PC isn't exactly secure as the
hacker has access to the machine itself. This isn't secure at all,
especially if it's running on a Windows box. By removing the hacker's
access to the software and the number of different ways he can touch the
software (in one way or another) you are removing a huge amount of
insecurities that it may have.
So, IMHO, webtrack would be much better way to go than Net Nanny etc, but
purely from a security/hackability stand-point, as you've mentioned.
We won't get into a debate as to who's responsibility it is, the ISP etc
etc.
When it comes down to it, Webtrack is only _so_ intellegent. It can't
block everything illegal or that needs censoring. Sure, you can add sites
that Webtrack has missed, but those sites need initial viewing by those
who you don't want to view it.
And vice versa, it can block perfectly acceptable pages.
When it comes down to it, nothing beats supervision, but obviously it
isn't always practical.
PD
Zac Charlesworth
<bonfire@opera..net.iq> escaped the abyss to utter the following
foreboding words:
>So, IMHO, webtrack would be much better way to go than Net Nanny etc, but
>purely from a security/hackability stand-point, as you've mentioned.
Good, 'cause that's what I told them when they wanted to site-license
Net Nanny. :)
(Hey, ti's free. WHy pay umpteen dollars for an easily bypassable
nanny program)
>We won't get into a debate as to who's responsibility it is, the ISP etc
>etc.
Obviously it's the end-user, though the 'common carrier' argument just
doesn't cut it for some applications (most natably user web pages and
USENET).
(Next up is a discussion about a fictional Perth ISP called yyNet)
Call me idealist, but let's take sulsah for example. It hosts web
pages for clients, but it's actually owned by yyNet. Joe User uploads
a child porn site into his account. This is illegal, and I'd expect
yyNet (once they're notified by someone, don't expect them to activly
look at 10,000 pages they host) to immediatly contact the police and
suspend the account. (Can anyone say breach of AUP?).
Now let's take mooootown. It's also owned by yyNet. It stores all the
USENET articles. A quick search in Agent shows it contains groups like
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children.
Now, I'm probably missing something here but
a) yyNet are aware that a group such as this exists
b) It is illegal in Australia
c) They are allowing an illegal group to be hosted on their servers.
Now, you and I both know that this happens. You and I both know that
there are certain groups used for certain things which are illegal.
(Can anyone say Pirate Software). The argument "but how are we to know
what goes on" just doesn't cut the cheese. I would expect yyNet to
remove access to these groups (or at the very least remove binary
posting ability).
Is this an infringment on users rights? NO - it's illegal to begin
with.
Also, the 'but they'll go elsewhere' argument doesn't quite cut it
either. Sure, they may go elsewhere. Chances ar eit'll be somewhere
more privsate and unable to be moderated (IRC). But does this mean
that we should just give up and not bother? NO!
We know crime is out there. We know that by busting certain drug
houses or arresting people we are not going to solve the crime
problem. But we still do - because every little bit makes a
difference. It make sit that little bit harder for crimes to be
committed. Why should ISP's be any different in this regard.?
Or, as a (perhaps) better alternative (as yyNet currently do not carry
all groups) how about removing access to these groups so that you have
to email support to have them re-enabled ?
>When it comes down to it, Webtrack is only _so_ intellegent. It can't
>block everything illegal or that needs censoring. Sure, you can add sites
>that Webtrack has missed, but those sites need initial viewing by those
>who you don't want to view it.
Yep - the 'no dotted decimal domains' is real pain.
Zac