demonfirzen
-
Posts
191 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by demonfirzen
-
-
All my uplodates/downloads for work are encryped. And I can honestly say that I'm probbably sending/receiving close to 200GB of data a month, if encrypted data is suspicious, they would've had a go at me months ago.
That encrypted data might be treated as suspicious after the filter is introduced.
Simply sending encrypted data, even a lot of it, wouldn't be justification for an investigation.Ah, but you may(in the governments mind) be accessing illegal material(as it would be avoiding the filter), and justify an investigation from that.
-
Actually stopping people from circumventing such a filter is literally impossible - if you can use google you can find several very easy to use programs that encrypt all of your internet traffic, making your connection immune from any possible blocking attempts. As usual, this will do nothing but take away more of the people's fundamental rights. I know If i lived in Australia right now, I would be getting very familiar with tor.
Oh?
But surely, at the isp level they'd have a lot of ways to find out if such a process is being used, encrypted traffic would show up as suspicious.
But, after the initial slow-down of the filter, a proxy would slow that down ever further.
-
7) There are hundreds of anti-gov hacker websites and a fix will be out for this filter likely within hours/days.
Not really possible at all, because the filter works at the ISP level & is applied every time you send or recieve data. You can't just make a client-side 'fix' for it. Even if they somehow managed to hack an ISP's main server and remove the filter, it would be back up in no time. What's more likely is that proxies will just become more common for torrent users etc.
And then the government starts targeting proxies..
-
The point I was making is that they won't block opinionated sites, political sites or porn sites in the compulsory option - they can only block those in the "additional material" blocker, which under this system you can freely opt out from.
The is no true "opt out", only a porn enabled filter, and a porn blocked filter.
I don't buy the argument that you're being "forced" to use the additional material blocker just because it's opt-out. Absolutely no one is forcing you to stay opted in with this system, so you'll be free to view as much political crap and porno you like.You are being forced, you have no choice of using this filter or not.
As for the blocker of illegal material (compulsory under this plan), yes, ultimately this blocks what the government deems illegal, which I may not always agree with. Having said that, I'm waiting to see what exactly they propose to block under this plan before getting outraged about it. Added, passing laws is a bit more of a process than "the government says so, and it is". Obviously it has to go through the senate, and by observing the course of political proposals over the years, that's never straightforward.Ah, lets hope that the senate is not a bunch of old computer illiterates that don't understand the importance of the internet. ;)
As I said before, if it comes down to me being limited kiddy porn I won't mind at all, because that kind of thing is rightly illegal and shouldn't be tolerated.Sure, but what about your internet speed?
-
Opinionated and political sites aren't illegal, and neither is porn in this country as far as I'm aware.
Sure, but whats to stop them from blocking those aswell?
Porn is being blocked to protect children apparently.
What exactly is the problem here? That you don't want to be bothered opting out of the first option to get to the latter?-being forced to use it
-it's what the government deems to be illegal
-our access to the internet being limited by the government.
-(minor) slightly slower internet speed.
-this is one step closer to "big brother".
-
This will filter all porn, not just the illegal kind.
"blacklists which block content inappropriate for children, and a separate list which blocks illegal material."
You are forced onto the first one, and if you need to, you can get switched to that second one.
Those are the only options.
I'm angry at the media for not reporting this correctly.
Also, whats to stop this filter from stopping opinionated and political sites?
What about legit sites that are accidentally blocked?
WHAT ABOUT *CHANS?
-
No opt-out of filtered Internet
Policy to be set after trial
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.
The government will iron-out policy and implementation of the Internet content filtering software following an upcoming trial of the technology, according to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
A spokesman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the filters will be mandatory for all Australians.
Labors plan for cyber-safety will require ISPs to offer a clean feed Internet service to all homes, schools and public Internet points accessible by children, Marshall said.
The upcoming field pilot of ISP filtering technology will look at various aspects of filtering, including effectiveness, ease of circumvention, the impact on internet access speeds and cost.
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) contacted by Computerworld say blanket content filtering will cripple Internet speeds because the technology is not up to scratch.
Online libertarians claim the blacklists could be expanded to censor material such as euthanasia, drugs and protest.
Internode network engineer Mark Newton said many users falsely believe the opt-out proviso will remove content filtering.
Users can opt-out of the 'additional material' blacklist (referred to in a department press release, which is a list of things unsuitable for children, but there is no opt-out for 'illegal content', Newton said.
That is the way the testing was formulated, the way the upcoming live trials will run, and the way the policy is framed; to believe otherwise is to believe that a government department would go to the lengths of declaring that some kind of Internet content is illegal, then allow an opt-out.
Illegal is illegal and if there is infrastructure in place to block it, then it will be required to be blocked end of story.
Newton said advisers to Minister Conroy have told ISPs that Internet content filtering will be mandatory for all users.
The government reported it does not expected to prescribe which filtering technologies ISPs can use, and will only set blacklists of filtered content, supplied by the Australia Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
EFA chair Dale Clapperton said in a previous article that Internet content filtering could lead to censorship of drugs, political dissident and other legal freedoms.
Once the public has allowed the system to be established, it is much easier to block other material, Clapperton said.
According to preliminary trials, the best Internet content filters would incorrectly block about 10,000 Web pages from one million.
I will personally develop/distribute a fix for this, as a big **** you.
And thanks to Mage_Man0103 for finding this article:
EFA says Filtering Trial a Failure
Thu 31-Jul-2008
Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) today labelled a recent government trial of ISP-based Internet filtering a failure.
The recently released ACMA report entitled Closed Environment Testing of ISP-Level Internet Content Filtering showed that of the six unnamed ISP-based filters evaluated:
* One filter caused a 22% drop in speed even when it was *not* performing filtering;
* Only one of the six filters had an acceptable level of performance (a drop of 2% in a laboratory trial), the others causing drops in speed of between 21% and 86%;
* The most accurate filters were often the slowest;
* All filters tested had problems with under-blocking, allowing access to between 2% and 13% of material that they should have blocked; and
* All filters tested had serious problems with over-blocking, wrongly blocking access to between 1.3% and 7.8% of the websites tested.
Despite this report highlighting the inaccuracy of these filters and the loss of performance caused by their use, Senator Conroy announced the government will press ahead with a real-world pilot program in furtherance of Labors pre-election commitment to force all Australian ISPs to filter their customers Internet access.
Leaving aside the serious privacy and free speech implications of mandatory ISP-based Internet filtering, the governments own trial shows that ISP-based filtering can cause serious performance degradation and is not accurate enough to be forced upon people who dont want to use them, said EFA Chair Dale Clapperton.
On average, these filters wrongly blocked access to 4% of the websites tested. Senator Conroy may regard this as an acceptable level of
collateral damage, but we think most Australian Internet users would disagree with him, Clapperton continued.
The ACMA report also showed that the average performance drop across all six filters tested was over 40%. It makes no sense at all for the government to be pushing their National Broadband Network agenda of faster Internet access for more Australians, while at the same time they want to introduce mandatory filtering which will make Internet access unnecessarily slower.
It is now apparent that the Governments plans extend far beyond merely blocking access to a list of web sites containing illegal material.
Mandatory ISP-based filtering will be disastrous for the Internet in Australia. It will become slower and more expensive, parents will be lulled into a false sense of security, meanwhile the filters can be trivially bypassed by anyone determined to get access to prohibited material online, Clapperton said.
-
What's that supposed to mean GW. :(
Wow, this just goes to show the whole Catholic church is a crock, not only are they all pedos, but atheists now too. :?
I mean, any Christian knows it's not "compatible," which goes to show if the whole section of Catholicism is Christian or not.
Ya know, I think you'll fit right in here.
The Catholic church has been accepting evolution for a few years now I think, great to finally see them catching up with society.
-
Yikes, get over 9/11 already.
The rest of the world doesn't care/never cared.
It was only 3000 people, nothing compared to the 2005 tsunami.
-
Its a risk well known to everyone who uses protection.
Doesn't mean it was their fault. So you suggest that nobody has sex, because that is the 100 percent protection that isn't surgery.
http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=condomwj0.jpg
Obligatory.
(image tags wont work :cry:)
-
sorry to double post but no ur wrong its about 50-70% of us north americans tht dont belive in fact i belive in the band Korn better then scintists on evolution as there song which is Korn - Evolution makes more since to me cuz in fact people may say we came from gorillaz or something like tht but the have no proof it is all 1 big guess all bcuz we have close DNA a fly can have close DNA to a misquito but dosnt meen tht a fly was once a misquito
Obvious troll.
-
Whats at the end of the universe? A wall? and whates behind that wall?
I've thought about this, my explanation can only be described as a honeycomb. Each of the hexagons of this honeycomb is the same universe. So if we (theoretically) hit the edge of the universe, we'd be at the opposite side of that universe.
-
Nobody. Everybody accepts evolution.
Quote from fstdt:(most recent fstdt at the time of this post)
ok so you admit nothing is 100% certain in science. So don't go claiming that evolution is the reason why were here today. Because we evolved from a fish . Don't go claiming this [cabbage] to be fact, cause its not.According to you evolution takes thousands and billions of years to happen, but sadly the human life span is nowhere close to that.
In science don't you have to be able to observe something to actually say its fact and run tests. Not have some [cabbage] written down a piece of paper on how we "THINK" it happens. You guys are quick to call believers in God arrogant and blind and all this garbage.
When in turn you guys say we started from a SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM. HAHAHAHAHAHHA honestly thats really funny. Like im laughing just thinking of that.
Wasn't it like 40% of north americans don't agree with evolution?
-
This got me thinking, if we DID manage to get an object up to 0.99c, and if it had a light on it, and we pointed that light forward, what would happen?
-
Christians don't go to Mass, those people are Catholics.
Catholics are Christian too. That statement sounded like they were different groups.
I was forced to go to church as I went to a catholic school. I just made origami out of the pamphlets to pass the time lol.
-
They're worried that Poland will shoot at them, and they won't be able to shoot back.
It's a missile defense system, right? If so then that concern makes no sense and the Russians shouldn't have it.
The US could shoot at the Russians, and they couldn't shoot back.
The shield could stop Russian missiles, and allow the US' right through.
-
I honestly hope they nuke the U.S, would certainly make the world a more interesting place. On the contray, I hope they don't nuke Poland, they've never done anything seriously wrong.
But based on the first article, just tells us who/where Russia would attack. Not necessarily threatening.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555858.stm
Russia 'ends Georgia operation'
That was over much faster then most expected.
-
If youse were, you'd certainly know about it. Russia's firepower is notorious.
Yeah, i'd rather be on Russia's side.
-
Lol, if global warming means its getting colder, then it definately exists.
Considering we'e just had the first snow in my city ever and the coldest winter...
Way to understand climate shift.
Infact, that snow is more evidence for global warming.
I thought it was only the fundies and conspiracy theorists that didn't believe in global warming lol.
-
Mmm, compare Australia's crime rate with America's. Guns SHOULD be outlawed.
-
"If hes kissing that guy, that means the other guy is gay too!"
-
Anyone else use the WoW private servers?
-
atheists = 'more likely to be jerks'religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities
1. The religious have been brainwashed into doing that.
2. That statistic is for the USA.
3. That survey is laughable at best too, for example.
"And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual."
Well, idk, maybe because your in a country where 90% are religious!
Australia to adopt China-like firewall.
in Off-Topic
Posted
But, could you put it past the government?
Ah there could be a system in place, such as the local police take in your hard drive(when you set off alarms at the filter), do a quick investigation etc..
Well, a variety of things can narrow this down.
The number of people that use encryption, the number of people that use encryption in Australia, the number of people that continue to use encryption after the filter is introduced, and finally, the number of people that continue to use it after a government crackdown on it.