Australian Government adds Wikileaks to banned website list; $11k/day fine for linking

http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/australia-issues-wikileaks-linking-fine-warning-585894

by nickb • 17 years ago

119 70 17 years ago

techradar.com

vaksel• 17 years ago

when will people learn that you can't censor internet

godDLL• 17 years ago

Same day as the record companies move on, I predict.

quellhorst• 17 years ago

When they die of old age.

jacoblyles5• 17 years ago

seems to work for North Korea.

TweedHeads• 17 years ago

And cuba

tptacek• 17 years ago

Well this is a clusterfuck of a trivial civil disobedience protest and concomitant selective enforcement defense just waiting to happen.

gasull• 17 years ago

FTA: Currently, it is not illegal for internet users in Australia to click on the sites found on the web blacklist. The people targeted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) are webmasters linking out to the sites that the government have flagged up as inappropriate.

This could all change, however, if a mandatory internet filtering censorship scheme is implemented – something that is being debated at the moment.

In case any Australian is reading this, you can bypass Internet censorship with Tor: http://www.torproject.org/

rms2• 17 years ago

>In case any Australian is reading this, you can bypass Internet censorship with Tor: http://www.torproject.org/

Or VPN'ing through your VPS, googling for "start using CGIproxy", using an online translator, Google cache, archive.org, etc. See http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15013 for as much info on this matter as you should ever need.

numair• 17 years ago

Or here's something that works on a ton of machines, with no major rocket science necsessary:

1. ssh -D1080 username@host 2. change proxy settings to have http traffic go through a proxy running on port 1080 3. enjoy.

Slzr• 17 years ago

The most important thing here its the censorship. Brainwashing has become very difficult since the internet showed up.

sketerpot• 17 years ago

So, they're only going after "webmasters", rather than the rest of us, who are purely passive consumers of information. That's an incredibly archaic thing for them to say, and it shows that they really don't get it.

There is no hard distinction between the people who make content online and the people who view it. If someone posts a comment on an Australian forum that links to Wikileaks, who gets fined? The person running the forum, who can't possibly police such things? The person who posted the link, who may be identified only by a username? Can Australia's policies deal with an indignant storm of linking to forbidden web sites? A thousand culprits, and not a webmaster to be found in the whole bunch!

The people writing the laws still think of the Internet as television 2.0, as a broadcast medium.

fallentimes2• 17 years ago

http://www.wikileaks.com/

I guess I've been taking linking for granted.

Could any HNers residing in Australia please add their thoughts to this? I could only imagine what would happen if the US did something similar...

rms2• 17 years ago

Australia also banned Grand Theft Auto. And kratom.

JacobAldridge2• 17 years ago

I'm not sure if GTA was 'banned', but it certainly went close.

Actually, banned isn't quite the right word. Down under we don't have an (R18+) Rating for video games. This means anything deemed not suitable for the lower (MA) rating is not given a Classification.

...And it's illegal to sell a game without a Classification Rating.

It's a fine distinction, and not one that can be made about the internet filtering debacle.

JacobAldridge2• 17 years ago

For the past year or so the federal government has been trialling software they will make mandatory for ISPs to filter the internet. The industry doesn't want it, the public doesn't want (trials show it demonstrable slows ALL internet traffic), but they persist.

The relief we have so far is that we're reasonably confident they won't really be able to enforce a lot of things, including links. I'm personally confident that they will eventually find an excuse to 'park' the project, but the closer it gets the louder we need to be about censorship.

Our PM speaks fluent Mandarin. A very useful skill for global diplomacy, but a skill that when combined with censorship draws comparisons he probably doesn't like.

jwilliams5• 17 years ago

sigh It's frustrating - because - we all know - technically, this just won't work...

I'm sure their reasons are somewhat valid, if only that they are pandering to a small, scared part of the community. However, putting in place this sort of apparatus to do that - with seemingly no checks and measures - seems negligent in the extreme.

The government doesn't inspect every letter, every package, every phone conversation. That's just ludicrous. Instead they just police it.

For some reason, they think this will work with the Internet. It's an embarrassment as all it demonstrates is that the government is completely out of touch with technology.

I've written to my local rep several times. It usually a form reply. They say don't want to stop "legal" activity. This scares the hell out of me. Does that include technically illegal acts such as those against corporate interests? property? political dissent?

Frankly. It's not a tool I want in the hands of a government that seems to be prepared to barter almost anything in order to get legislation though. We've had the parliament held to ransom by crazy independents before (totally marginal, unrepresentative nutjobs on the whole). I hate to think what they will demand once they have this to play with.

I only wish this initiative would quietly die like everyone is mentioning - it still seems to kick on and on though.

ensignavenger• 17 years ago

Hmm, the great firewall of Australia?

cdr2• 17 years ago

You just got HN blacklisted. Way to go.

fallentimes2• 17 years ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=520341

jwilliams5• 17 years ago

I could only imagine what would happen if the US did something similar...

We don't have a bill of rights, which is the big difference - naturally, goes deeper than that, though.

ozanonay• 17 years ago

Those who comprehend the absurdity of what is really a series of internet censorship proposals have been unable to publicly embarrass Stephen Conroy (our Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) to the extent required to kill this thing.

As such it remains largely outside of the public consciousness, and something between a bad joke and a nightmare for civil libertarians on the 'net. The possibility of there being a crime of hyperlinking in this country is closer to the "bad joke" side of that spectrum, but the more of these bad jokes we're subjected to the less humorous they become.

... Oh and also, there's supposed to be a freedom of political communication implied in our Constitution. Not sure what happened to that.

pufuwozu• 17 years ago

Australia has always been far behind in terms of the Internet. My feeling is that most of the public here have hardly any idea what's going on with the censorship. It's hardly getting any major media coverage.

The saddest thing is that there's not much we can do about it at the moment.

tjmc• 17 years ago

Personally I don't think the filtering will ever become law. The Australian govt are pandering to a single evangelical senator (Steven Fielding) who's vote is critical in getting a lot of their legislation passed. My guess is that they're holding out filtering as a carrot to get other things through. They know it'll be blocked by the other parties if it ever comes to a vote so they don't have to worry about it.

[Edit] Yes, it is embarrassing all the same!

whatusername2• 17 years ago

As I understand it - it was actually ONLY the specific page on wikileaks that is actually blocked. So just linking to the Top Domain is not blocked yet. See here for a major news org linking to wikileaks: http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/banned-hyperlinks...

From the political side - this is likely (hopefully) a bit of a dead duck. Kevin Rudd (and the Labour Party) have the majority in the lower house (the House of Reps) - but don't have that in the upper house (Senate). To get through the Senate - Labour needs either the support of the Liberal Party (who are our 'right-wing' major party) - OR the support of The Greens (5 senators), Steve Fielding (from the 'Family First' party) and the one Independant (Nick Xenophon). The Greens and the Liberals have some out against this policy, as has Nick Xenophon. So unless something dramatic changes - then this wont pass the Senate.

We've also got the ridiculous lack of classification of R rated games. So games like GTA IV can't get released here (without being modified).

All that being said - I've been giving some thought to this.. If I import a package, bring home a suitcase, etc - it may get inspected (either based on a suspicion or on random screening). Can I get some wisdom from the HN crowd - how is random screening / occasional screening of Packets logically or legally different to this? Obviously there are technical problems - but I can't see a logical difference.

Another thought on our Internet access - it's slow and we all have download caps (usually with shaping after that - occasionally with extra charges) Parrt of this is our major telco (Telstra) dragging their feet - but large parts are the fact that theres only so many cables linking us to the rest of the world...

So what's so good about Australia? Good weather, great beaches, banks that aren't bankrupt, friendly people... :D

cousin_it2• 17 years ago

Can I get some wisdom from the HN crowd - how is random screening / occasional screening of Packets logically or legally different to this?

Bad analogy: a) internet packages are not suitcases but words spoken across the border, b) you think only sites hosted outside Australia will be censored? Ha ha.

shimi• 17 years ago

With all the stuff that happens in Aus there are far more important things to sort,

When Peter Garrett sang Bad On Fire there where lots of voices who called to censor him, I guess the wheel turned...

rgrieselhuber2• 17 years ago

This just put Wikileaks on my daily toread list.

EDIT: I think Wikileaks could benefit from a Reddit / HN style layout.

Sephr• 17 years ago

It's a collaborative wiki, not an index of links (of which you can comment on) sorted by current popularity or similar means like HN/Reddit/Digg.

rgrieselhuber2• 17 years ago

I know, but from a filtering perspective, it would be a nice tool, IMHO.

kiba• 17 years ago

Wee! Streisand effect.

Gottach love the effort of authorities trying to control information. It usually backfires. That's a good thing too.

FlorinAndrei• 17 years ago

So glad I'm not living there.

jacoblyles5• 17 years ago

It is possible that the anarchic nature of the present-day web is an aberration, a symptom of a new technology catching the authorities momentarily unaware.

The rapid innovation, widespread criminal activity, anonymity, and other hallmark features of the modern web will likely be tempered as regulation increases. However, humanity will still be better off for its existence than it would be without. It may be suboptimal, but it will not be the end of the world.

donaq2• 17 years ago

I do not think humanity would be better off if, to take this theory to its most extreme conclusion, the internet became a collection of sites whitelisted by the various governments around the world.

jacoblyles5• 17 years ago

There was a grammatical ambiguity in my sentence. I think we would be better off with a regulated internet than with no internet.

pg3• 17 years ago

I wonder if the government realizes how much damage they're doing to the country's reputation by ensuring that when the rest of the world thinks of the words "Australia" and "Internet," the next word that follows in most people's minds is "censorship." They're practically marketing themselves as a backwater, in the same way Kansas does every time they try to outlaw evolution.

ftse4• 17 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the source for HN censor links to certain websites?

chez17• 17 years ago

And what's your point? You don't see the difference between a free and private owned and operated website restricting access and a countries government making it totally illegal?

axod• 17 years ago

I think the other important point is that censorship of the net like this isn't something that will stop people visiting websites. It's easy enough to just get the content another way.

So the censorship will have pretty much no effect, apart from negative PR.

Chompy• 17 years ago

I suspect that we're talking about some old people here.. legislators who have literally no idea what they are attempting to regulate, or it's potential consequences.

froo• 17 years ago

The ironic thing that really amazes me about the whole censorship thing is that these proposals are being pushed primarily from the left wing side of our political system.

The other ironic thing is that our right wingers are called the Liberal Party.

Go figure eh?

katz• 17 years ago

I have a few problems with this. Their attempt to block wikileaks is so that no one can see the URLs they blocked. This is a bit of nonsense - no one can argue for the websites - so in effect they can block everything they want.

If they have a judge that decides which URLs are blocked maybe it would be right.

> The news comes after web forum Whirlpool was threatened with the fine for posting a hyperlink to a blacklisted anti-abortion website.

Hmmm... Why? Can they at least give a reason why a site was banned (except promoting a dissenting view)?

electromagnetic3• 17 years ago

Because if Whirlpool had refused they'd have been fined $11,000 a day, probably from the day the notice was sent out... probably in the slowest mail service imaginable so that by the time Whirlpool got the notice the government would consider them owing like $77,000 and an extra $11,000 for every day that passes between them refusing to take down the link and them getting taken to court.

It's a money making scam. There's no sense in a fine being levied per day for hosting a link other than to extract money.

Edit: It's like getting a speeding ticket, but instead of being charged for how fast over the legal limit you were going, they charge you for every meter you cover whilst speeding. Or being charged for drunk driving, but they charge you per 0.01% over, so for the same crime you get charged a ridiculous amount if you're so drunk you only managed to turn the key before passing out (which in most places being behind the wheel of a running vehicle and drunk, even if the vehicle isn't in motion, counts as drunk driving) but someone who's only 0.03% over the legal limit and is capable enough to drive, but drunk enough to be a danger is given a slap on the wrist.

This kind of system is just whole heartedly moronic. It's like a dentist charging, not for pulling a single tooth out but how many milligrams the tooth weighed. It's complete quackery.

electromagnetic3• 17 years ago

This just stinks of a moronic money making scheme. Many countries have a black-list of websites that ISPs don't host links to, most of which are child porn websites or sites used by known terrorists. So why is Australia planning on fining users for clicking on these links and not simply blocking the link?

This isn't about censorship, or protecting the greater good. It's about lining pockets and sheer greed.

ikor• 17 years ago

I think, from today Tor ( http://tor.eff.org) usage will increase in Australia.

carpo• 17 years ago

So, if you can't see the list of banned sites because the only place to see it publicly is banned, how do you know which links you're not allowed to post? I guess you wait for the $11,000+ fine in the mail which will hopefully tell you what link you then have to remove.

It's a monty-pythonish thought, but I keep imagining the letter you receive having the offending link blacked out by the censor's pen, and all the while new fines turning up every day and you frantically removing each link until you get the right one.

Australian Government adds Wikileaks to banned website list; $11k/day fine for linking

Related Stories