Net filter circumvention: it's completely legal

Net filter circumvention: it's completely legal

www.itnews.com.au

The Federal Government's $23.8m ISP-level internet filtering initiative will not block encrypted content or web applications and can be circumvented legally, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has admitted.
In an official response to parliamentary questions on notice released yesterday, Senator Conroy said he had attended an hour-long demonstration of filter circumvention on 5 June 2009.
Although Enex expected "technically competent" users to be able to circumvent the filter, Conroy said mon

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Senior Australians learn to circumvent censorship filter
A Guide To Bypass Internet Filters
Pay Attention Now Internet User!!

[edit on 4/5/10 by Zelong]

Ok here it is folks Conroy has known about this since 5 June 2009 after attending an hour-long demonstration of filter circumvention at the Enex TestLab in Victoria..

When asked if an ISP would be held responsible for knowingly allowing customers to bypass the filter, Conroy reiterated that ISPs would not be required to block circumvention attempts.

What a Clown Conroy is and all this time he's been acting like a Bully fully knowing it won't work, it can't work

While he said it would be "irresponsible" of the Government to publish circumvention techniques, the Government took no measures to prevent other organisations from doing so.

Hopefully this goes the same for England there has to be something in this England can use to stop Her mouth being gagged?

Circumvention is unmonitored, unreported and completely legal.




Zelong.

www.itnews.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4/5/10 by Zelong]

s & f

So in essence Conroy knows he is building a sand castle below the high tide mark but keeps shovelling anyway?

What a clown.

Maybe he is just getting a payoff here.

Maybe the company selling the filter is giving him the kick back for supporting it.

But they actually don't care if you circumvent it.

They only wanted money for getting the system in place.

Am I right? Do I win a cookie??

Boy, I thought American politicians were corrupt.

Think of it, they are installing something that is going to cost billions.

Now the good part, it will not work, and they are going ahead with it anyway?

Oh the humor.

Well, now if that was in the states, you would be assured the husband of some Senator woman like say Barbara Boxer would have gotten the contract.

This is what we deal with. Maybe you should do some investigation into the relationship between the contracts and your representatives.

Might find some interesting info.

Corporate media and her money is so blatantly obvious when it comes to this case. Someone must be pouring green drink down Conroy's throat for him to be so dedicated to this when he knows it won't work. They have postponed legislation now though, haven't they? Well... here's to vainly hoping for an independent victory in the next election, because the Liberal party won't be as sloppy once its their turn to push this through parliament.

Hang on, what's Steven up to here , later in question time he is still talking about a Black List 'Refused Classification (RC) Content blacklist'

Conroy promises filter review at 10,000 URLs

The Federal Government plans to undertake a technical review of its Refused Classification (RC) Content blacklist if and when it reaches 10,000 web addresses.
In an official response to parliamentary questions on notice yesterday, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said ISP-level filtering of 10,000 URLs would have no discernable impact on network speeds.
..."The Government will monitor the number of URLs contained on the Refused Classification Content list and liaise with ISPs if the list begins to approach 10,000," Conroy said.

According to Electronic Frontiers Australia chair Colin Jacobs, there was a "significant risk" that the 10,000 milestone would be reached very quickly.
"If a website contained 10,000 images, each at a separate URL, how would this be handled by ACMA?" he wrote on an EFA blog.
"Or if somebody renamed a legal but RC image 10,000 times and uploaded them to a web server, and complained about all 10,000 URLs?

The Electronic Frontiers Australia blogSenate answers shed some more light on filter


Zelong.

As I mentioned a few times before, due to the nature of how the Internet has grown, there is absolutely no way to lock down all content without completely closing off the subnet. A simple VPN connection can create a private encrypted tunnel that cannot be filtered and all the user has to deal with is a minor speed reduction due to encryption and decryption of the data. This was phooey from the start and will continue to be so.

Hang on, what's Steven up to here , later in question time he is still talking about a Black List 'Refused Classification (RC) Content blacklist'

Isn't all online gaming, by it's very nature, (RC) though? You can't classify content that is input from other gamers (ie in-game chat). So does this mean all online gaming will be blacklisted? And if you extrapolate that, then also all online forums and chat rooms would have to be (RC). The problem here is old mindsets looking at new issues with an archaic perspective.

I don't think Conroy is 'on the take', i just think he is a bumbling clown trying to score votes by waving the flag of "morality". He knows the majority of society hates pedophiles and the majority of society doesn't understand that he is building a firewall out of paper. He will get votes. He's a politician. That's what matters.