back to article Aussie ISP pulls out of firewall trial

iiNet, Australia's third largest Internet Service Provider, is withdrawing from the government's censorship trial. Communications minister Stephen Conroy is pushing ahead with a trial of filtering technology to clean up the internet as seen by Aussie citizens. Conroy claimed the list of banned websites were all related to …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I can already see

    Whack-1-Out-A-Week Jacqui Smith's tongue hanging out. All the way down to her

  2. Anonymous Coward

    Straight talkers

    Strictly speaking, not EVERYONE is repulsed by child pornography, otherwise the issue wouldn't exist would it?! But in general, you have to love these aussies' tendency to say what they think and not pussyfoot about: calling the minister the "worst in history" is certainly not trying to dress things up is it??

    Good stuff :-)

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Setting the spooks on the public

    Seems the gov down here is now witch hunting online:

  4. John Smith Gold badge

    The list includes

    euthanasia sites, Christian and satanic sites.

    Equal opportunity bigotry. So that's all right then.

  5. Chronos

    Malone is correct.

    "Malone said the vast majority of child sexual abuse content was distributed using peer-to-peer networks - untouched by the Australian government planned blacklist."

    It is this that is the unforeseen result of censorship: Take away the right of access from people, and you drive them onto such things as TOR and darknets, which has the unwanted side-effect of making it harder to track such online child abuse due to the sudden hike in what should be legitimate content burying the very traffic you're trying to stop and forcing these technologies to expand to cope with increased usage. It also makes the technology more robust and legitimises it in the eyes of the general public. They really do seem to be making it difficult for both their law enforcement people to operate efficiently and the general population to support their efforts.

    Kudos to iiNet for pointing it out, albeit in a round about way.

  6. David Wilkinson

    only a court should get to decide ...

    Only a court of law should get to decide what is and isn't illegal.

    I think freedom of expression is a basic human right.

    There needs to be accountability.

    How about $500/day per illegally blocked website? More if the owner can prove real financial harm.

  7. Rob Crawford


    Err I hate to say this but such individuals tend to amongst the 2nd wave to drift to less traceable methods of accessing their material. With the 1st being us 'normal people' who simply value their privacy. You know the wierd sorts who prefer their bills to be inside envelopes to prevent strangers from reading stuff addressed to us.

    The great firewall idea doesn't work and anybody with 1/3rd of a clue knows this already. But the stated reason for the blacklisting (and the only one with a vaguely sensible reason for existing) is to stop people from accidently browsing those sites. I won't get into the whole thing of goverment control of information.

    The kiddie porn freaks have long since been tunneling (and using p2p) long before any great firewalls or national monitoring systems have been implemented. They may be sick puppies but they (on the whole) aint as dumb as rocks.

  8. Charles

    At this rate...

    They're gonna outlaw all encryption since encryption prevents the po-lice from seeing what you're doing. "Nothing to hide" and all that. And as for their legitimate uses? Want to shop? Go to a store. Want to bank? Go to the bank. Your grandparents did it the old fashioned way and never had to worry about identity theft. Why should you be no different?

  9. David Grimiore
    Thumb Up

    Good to see

    Good to see that someone in a position to make a difference has a clue, they will continue to get my service.

  10. Lindsay Silver badge

    Re: Good to see

    The fact that iiNet saw fit to involve themselves in the process in the first place is cause for concern. They knew what they were doing, so they deserve no applause for having realised what bad PR it was and abandoning it.

    Why would you continue to give them your custom as opposed to, for example, an ISP that refused to be involved and made its position clear from the outset?

  11. Anonymous Coward

    But isn't the Internets just..

    ... a bunch of tubes?

    Surely Senator Conroy should just employ some plumbers to block up the pipes in Australia.

    Then: Cracking a tube would become a criminal offence.

  12. Lee T.

    @Straight talkers

    Yep, if a politician down here is being an authoritarian prick, (s)he's going to fucking get called on it.

  13. Alan Newbury
    Thumb Up

    Re: Re: Good to see

    Iinet stated from the beginning of this sorry story that they only wanted to participate to prove that it was a flawed idea from the outset. More power to them

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    @ Lindsay

    iiNet wanted to participate to show how crap it was going to be. They told the govt that they wanted to run double blind trials and the govt said no. I guess it wasn't going to give Conroy the result he wanted.

This topic is closed for new posts.