Australian Government dumps broad internet filtering plan


Recommended Posts

Tells ISPs to filter child abuse material using INTERPOL block list.

The Federal Government has formally abandoned plans to introduce legislation for mandatory ISP filtering, closing a dark chapter in politics concerning Australia's internet.

Instead, internet service providers will be directed by the Government and the Australian Federal Police to block "child abuse websites" that feature on an INTERPOL block list.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said in a statement that "Australia's largest ISPs have been issued notices requiring them to block these illegal sites in accordance with their obligations under the Telecommunications Act 1997".

"The Australian Federal Police will now begin issuing notices to smaller ISPs and will work closely to assist them in meeting their obligation under Australian law and prevent their services being used for illegal activities," Conroy said.

"Given this successful outcome, the Government has no need to proceed with mandatory filtering legislation."

Conroy unveiled plans for a mandatory internet filter plan in May 2008 as part of Labor's $125.8 million Cybersafety Plan.

The internet filter proposal outraged Australia's internet community, sparking a round of protests.

A live pilot of ISP filtering in 2009 provided further ammunition to the Government to pursue the mandatory filter proposal.

Following the release of the pilot results, Conroy fleshed out the Government's plans, saying that he aimed to "introduce legislative amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act to require all ISPs to block [Refused Classification]-rated material hosted on overseas servers."

Pursual of the proposal led to a fresh wave of grassroots activism, including more protests and DDoS attacks levelled against Government internet properties.

Conroy formally put the filter proposal on hold in July 2010, pending the outcome of a review of Australia's guidelines for content classification.

The announcement coincided with Telstra, Optus and iPrimus agreeing to voluntarily filter out a list of child abuse URLs, using a blocklist to be maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

In November 2010, strategy papers revealed that the introduction of mandatory ISP filtering legislation had been deferred until at least the second half of 2013.

Outwardly, Conroy maintained he had not abandoned the proposal entirely, and that it was still a key part of Labor policy.

He denied an internal reshuffle in June 2011 was the result of the Government scaling back its plans for mandatory filtering.

But the same month, the Internet Industry Association revealed plans to make the blocking of child abuse material against an INTERPOL blocklist part of a voluntary code applicable to all Australian ISPs.

The move sidelined ACMA's plan to maintain its own local blocklist. It also superseded the voluntary filter plan announced by Conroy in July 2010 that was to have used the ACMA list. ISPs had not actioned that plan anyway, in part due to the ongoing threat posed by internet hacktivists.

Telstra, Optus and CyberOne opted to voluntarily filter internet services using the INTERPOL list, which is locally maintained by the Australian Federal Police.

In March this year, the classification review recommended that ISPs be obliged to block a narrowly defined scope of 'prohibited' content on websites.

Conroy indicated initial acceptance of the review's key recommendations in May. The move indicated a further softenining in the Government's approach to mandatory internet filtering.

He said at the time that discussions were underway with "key stakeholders" before a final decision on mandatory filtering was taken.

Today's announcement sees the controversial proposal finally abandoned.

"I welcome the support of Australia's major ISPs and the Internet Industry Association for taking these steps," Conroy said.

"This means that more than 90 percent of Australians using internet services will have child abuse material blocked by their ISP.

"The Gillard Government takes the safety of children seriously and believes that there is never a place for child sexual abuse material in our society.

"There is also widespread community support for blocking access to child abuse material."

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/322333,conroy-abandons-mandatory-isp-filtering.aspx

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • According to Microsoft, Cause: One of the drivers controlling the device notified the operating system that the device failed in some manner.   https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/error-codes-in-device-manager-in-windows-524e9e89-4dee-8883-0afa-6bca0456324e
    • This looks awesome, I will request access via Steam later this afternoon!
    • Personally, I’ve found that it’s usually worth investing in the infrastructure you don’t want to replace later, especially cabling. Running Cat6A (or better, depending on your needs) during an upgrade is relatively inexpensive compared to having to re-cable a few years down the road. For switches I try to balance current specs with realistic growth. If my budget allows it Ill choose switches with higher uplink speeds which leaves room for expanding later on, but I don’t necessarily overspend on access ports if the endpoints won’t benefit from them anytime soon. One lesson I’ve learned is that planning for scalability pays off. It’s much easier to add devices, VLANs, or higher-bandwidth workloads when your network infrastructure already supports it than to replace hardware later.  What is your budget like?
    • I hate the term, "future-proof." We saw it back in the 90's / 2000's, if not before. You cannot future-proof anything, since there is no definition of how far into the future you plan on prepping for. Best idea is to tell us what you currently have and what its use is at the moment, and we can then offer ideas about some areas that might need an upgrade and other areas that can be left alone.
    • I can agree that it is being used in a small capacity. I worked for a company where their engineers still used XP, and when asked why it was because their sensor software wasn't compatible with newer operating systems and the software was discontinued so they couldn't upgrade the software. Given that the sensors were still in use by companies, they had to continue using XP to support the sensor, otherwise the price to the company would have gone into the millions or billions. Our response was simple: Ok, you can keep the XP machine. But we're removing it from the network. "But then it can't access the Internet or folder shares!" Yup, kinda the point. If someone wants to continue using an unsecure OS they can do, I have no problem with that. But it should be isolated. Simple. I had a fight with a guy in the engineering department for weeks before he finally relented. But we digress.   What do I plan on doing to commemorate the anniversary? Nothing. I have fond memories of the OS, but at the end of the day it's just an OS. If I had some time I might see if I could install it on my Raspberry Pi for a laugh. But my reflex memory with today's OS ideas would probably get me frustrated and I'd uninstall it after 5 mins.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      539
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      269
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      154
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      99
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!