Little Aussie bleeders!

[Drift Spunk]

"Little Aussie bleeders" have no clue what that is

K Dudd will die Oh oh... hope the gov don't get my ip and track me down!

[manarak]

(BAM @ Sep. 23 2008,00:10) That'll be great for my VPN business!  

BAM, I might be interested in your VPN in future.

I would like to connect through a VPN router, so that several PCs can use the tunnel.

What are the specs of your VPN?
pricing?
Do you have a webpage?

[Torurot]

This just gets more ridiculous by the day


Wikileaks tells Aus censorship minister to rack off

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03...sie_firewall_/
Muddled Conroy threatens lawyers By John Oates €¢
Posted in Government, 20th March 2009 12:35 GMT

Wikileaks has told the Australian Chief Censor communications minister,
Stephen Conroy, to reel his neck in after the gaffe-prone politician
threatened a police investigation to find out who leaked his secret
blacklist of sites banned in Australia.

Conroy claimed the list published yesterday
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03...a_list_leaked/ of
sites banned in Australia was not the full Australian Communications and
Media Authority (ACMA) list. But he also threatened a police
investigation and possible legal action against the leaker.

So which was it? A fake list or a leaked list? We know at least some of
the URLs are on the blacklist because the page apparently showing images
of aborted foetuses is on the list, and ACMA told the man who reported
the page that it was going on the list. Bizarrely the list also
contained online gambling sites, Wikipedia pages and even the site of a
Queensland dentist. Wikileaks has since published new versions of the list.

Conroy said in a press release:

There are some common URLs to those on the ACMA blacklist. However,
ACMA advises that there are URLs on the published list that have
never been the subject of a complaint or ACMA investigation, and
have never been included on the ACMA blacklist.

ACMA is investigating this matter and is considering a range of
possible actions it may take including referral to the Australian
Federal Police. Any Australian involved in making this content
publicly available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution.

But the publisher of Wikileaks, Sunshine Press, and its legal adviser
Jay Lim said:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki....ter_you

Under the Swedish Constitution's Press Freedom Act, the right of a
confidential press source to anonymity is protected, and criminal
penalties apply to anyone acting to breach that right. Wikileaks
source documents are received in Sweden and published from Sweden so
as to derive maximum benefit from this legal protection.

Should the Senator or anyone else attempt to discover our source we
will refer the matter to the Constitutional Police for prosecution,
and, if necessary, ask that the Senator and anyone else involved be
extradited to face justice for breaching fundamental rights.

Wikileaks recently faced down the South African government which tried
legal action to get the site to remove documents relating to an inquiry
into the country's banking system. The site also published documents
outlining standard operating procedures at Guantanamo Bay and the
membership list of the BNP.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/18/bnp_loses_list/

Conroy wants the list to form the basis of feasibility trials for the
Great Aussie Firewall which will filter internet access for all citizens. ®

*
* comments
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03...all_/comments/

[robbo]

(Road Runner @ Dec. 23 2008,15:45) I have thought for a long time that whenever politicians create a new law it should apply only to them for the first 10 years and any penalties applied to them should be double those applied to the rest of the people.

The more I read of this preposterous, expensive and ill judged plan the more I think I'm right.

RR.

now that is a fuckin excellent idea,id just love to see that,at some point the peoples of the world will rise against the ever increasing intrusion to our privacy and rights ,this is starting to happen,look back in history and you will find that without fail people turn on the rulers that become too controlling.............revolution i say!

[Torurot]

The game of cat & mouse continues..... "think of the children"

Australia secretly censors Wikileaks press release and Danish Internet censorship list, 16 Mar 2009
http://wikileaks.org/wiki....ar_2009

and

German police raid wikileaks
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009....omments

[Torurot]

And the link police go mad on mescalin... again. More "ozzie" sites banned from Australian view.

Aussie censors implement six degrees of separation policy
Links to links now banned
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/07/oz_link_ban/
By John Ozimek €¢

Posted in Law, 7th May 2009 05:02 GMT

[Torurot]

First the games, then the Ladyboy forums.......

Great Australian Firewall to censor online games
Must suit the 15-year-old mind
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009....e_games
By Austin Modine  €¢ Posted in Music and Media, 26th June 2009 00:22 GMT


The Great Australian Firewall will try blocking websites that host or sell video games not suitable for children under the age of 15.

A spokesman for Senator for Victoria Stephen Conroy told The Age on Thursday that the government's internet censorship regime will extend to downloadable and web-based games that don't meet Australia's MA15+ rating standard.
http://www.theage.com.au/digital....rx.html

Because Australia's classification board currently lacks an adult R18+ rating for video games, games which exceed the impact of what the MA15+ rating allows are refused classification, making them illegal to sell or exhibit in the country.

Although games have historically received more lenient ratings in Australia than other countries, recent high-profile bans include Fallout 3 for depicting power-ups as syringes, tablets, pill bottles, and a crack-type pipe. The game was eventually cleared for release after modifications were made.
http://kotaku.com/5023636/heres-why-...d-in-australia

The government's decision would mean even Australians over 15-years-old will be unable to access websites that sell downloadable or physical copies of video games as well as those that host web-based games, The Age reports.

"This is confirmation that the scope of the mandatory censorship scheme will keep on creeping," Colin Jacobs of the Electronic Frontiers Australia told the publication. "Far from being the ultimate weapon against child abuse, it now will officially censor content deemed too controversial for a 15-year-old. In a free country like ours, do we really need the government to step in and save us from racy web games?"

The Oz government is currently undergoing a trial filtering program involving nine ISPs, expected to conclude in July or August. ®

[Torurot]

and the story continues

Oz Firewall still standing after inconclusive filter trial
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07...ltering_trial/
Government happy to fit results to policy
By John Ozimek €¢ Posted in Government, 28th July 2009 11:40 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009....omments


Looks like New Zealand is going to implement some kind of filter as well

[Socrates999]

This is depressingly, incredibly repressive. I've always been under the impression that there was a bit more of a live and let live policy downunder. Sorry to see you guys moving the way of Amerika.

[Torurot]

More lunacy from our Aussie friends. When will they learn!

Oz gov suggests world's worst copyright protection scheme
Desperate to retain internet villain of the year title
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08...yright_scheme/
By John Ozimek €¢ Posted in Government, 14th August 2009 14:52 GMT

[Torurot]

More fun for the land down under

Aussie Sex Party bursts upon political stage
Stand up for your rights
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/19/aussie_party/
By John Ozimek €¢ Posted in Government, 19th August 2009 11:32 GMT

It's official: the Australian Sex Party http://www.sexparty.org.au (ASP) is now a bona fide political party, entitled to appear on the ballot paper, raise funds and even - if they gain more than four percent of the primary vote - eligible for public funding.

This follows a long drawn-out tussle with the Australian Electoral Commission http://www.aec.gov.au (AEC), after several members of the public claimed that the Party€™s name was obscene. In a five-page minute (pdf) http://www.sexparty.org.au/enews....%27.pdf that carefully explored the precise meaning of the concept of obscenity and how it related to the electoral process, the AEC decided that the various objections received to the registration of the ASP were outside the grounds on which a refusal might be made.

They did, however, consider objections that the ASP name invoked "orgiastic notions", with a full analysis of the case and statute law surrounding the subject.

The AEC found that the name itself was unlikely to "deprave or corrupt" voters €“ the touchstone test for obscenity in both the UK and Australia. They were also swayed by the fact that the party membership forms state that "Sex is deeply rooted in the lives of all Australians. It is relevant to hundreds of pieces of legislation made around the country", as well as a message instructing members to "Vote 1 for personal freedom and sexual rights".

In an outbreak of establishment common sense, the AEC therefore ruled: "The name was most likely selected because of the substance and subject matter of many of the party€™s key policies, such as the legalisation of marriage for same sex couples, the introduction of sex education into schools, and the listing of drugs used to treat sexual dysfunction on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme."

Responding to this decision http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties....tsp.htm , the ASP urged party supporters to take pride in this historic event.

They had no criticism for the AEC, which also had to investigate accusations that party convenor Fiona Patten and its public officer are involved in abusing Asian sex workers, running illegal brothels, destroying the innocence of minors and generally corrupting public morality. According to the ASP: "It's not easy getting a political party registered. Neither should it be. You don't want every ideologue or collective in the country appearing on the ballot paper at election time."

Now that the registration process is done, and the ASP has joined the ranks of the other 27 political parties registered in Australia, the serious work will begin: policy development, candidate selection and fund-raising.

As the /Reg/ has previously observed, this phenomenon is one to watch. The ASP was born out of substantial exasperation that when it came to legislation on public morality, the Australian establishment appeared to be living on a different planet from the rest of Australia. In this sense, they mirror recent developments in Europe, where Pirate Parties http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/14/pirate_party_uk have been established out of a sense that government is only listening to one voice when it comes to internet issues.

Given the electoral arithmetic in Australia, whereby the balance of power in Federal and State Senates has often been held by one or two independents (in turn tending to represent fairly reactionary moral positions), the specific limited electoral aims of the ASP - to supplant these senators, and themselves to hold the balance of power - is by no means unrealistic. ®

Comments here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08...arty/comments/

[Torurot]

The never ending on going saga.  "Porn" today, 'The Ladyboy Forums' tomorrow

The Great Aussie Firewall is dead: Long live the firewall

Details of Australian ISP blocking now public
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009....easures
By John Ozimek €¢ Posted in Government, 15th December 2009 13:38 GMT

The Australian government announced new laws today €“ or yesterday in local time €“ that will force all Australia-based ISP€™s to block dodgy material entering the country from overseas, or face swingeing penalties if they fail to do so.

The announcement came in an official statement http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding....ltering from the Department of Communications which made clear the Government€™s intention to "introduce legislative amendments to require all ISPs in Australia to use ISP level filtering to block overseas hosted Refused Classification (RC) material on the Australian Communications and Media Authority€™s (ACMA) RC Content list".

They added: "Content defined under the National Classification Scheme as Refused Classification includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act."

This represents a retreat from initial hazy plans to introduce a great state-run firewall to shield the country from the tidal wave of "unsuitable material" that lurked just outside its shores. Insofar as the scheme is actually workable, it is viewed by many as a dangerous assault on freedom of speech in Australia.

/El Reg/ spoke to Colin Jacobs, Vice-Chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia http://www.efa.org.au/ (EFA). He confirmed the gradual evolution of government thinking, from the technologically unfeasible through to the solution advocated today.

He explained that the present government were elected on a platform that included protecting the nation from child abuse on the internet. This quickly translated into vague plans for some sort of shield, and a long drawn-out testing process http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07...ltering_trial/ to "prove" that filtering based on the Australian Communications and Media Authority [ACMA] blacklist would not excessively degrade internet speed.

According to the Communications Department, the tests carried out have shown that this can be done.

Mr Jacobs said: "The real problem was never technical, but political. Although the government rhetoric is all based on child abuse, only about a third of existing RC material could be considered to be child abuse: the RC classification is notorious for including all manner of material on grounds it might incite crime."

That is the presumed reason why a Youtube film site on euthanasia has been included on the RC list. The Australian ratings system is also notorious for not having an R18 categories for games, which means that many games passed for play in the UK and the rest of the world are simply banned in Australia.

In recognition of this, the announcement from the Communications Department highlights an ongoing consultation http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding...._review on the status of RC as classification.

Mr Jacobs added: "It is not at all clear why the RC list includes many gambling sites €“ as well as that of an Australian dentist, who suffered the misfortune of having his site hacked some years previously".

The Australian government is keen to draw parallels between this list and the IWF http://www.iwf.org.uk/ scheme in the UK. EFA Supporter and /Register/ reader Cameron Watt explained: "A key difference is that it is mandatory, leaving little leeway for ISP€™s to make mistakes. That is likely to create a need for greater network complexity and add to the cost overhead.

"It will also be state run, leaving the suspicion that even if people agreed 100% with what is on the list now, a future government might block more widely. There are already suspicions that [Communications Minister] Stephen Conroy is anticipating the result of a landmark copyright case http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...rt_isp_piracy/ and is thinking of using filtering as a means to block piracy."

Not unsurprisingly, the Australian Sex Party is spitting feathers. Their official blogger http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/blog writes: "I have just started reading the Enex report http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding....e_pilot into mandatory filtering and my blood is already starting to boil." More seriously, their concern is that if filtering ends up being applied at site level, almost every X-rated site to which Australians have access now will eventually be blocked.

Equally unsurprisingly, the Australian Christian Lobby http://www.acl.org.au/ were supportive of the government announcement, and are nudging already for the principle to be extended further to "deal with other harmful X and R-rated material on the internet". ®

Comments: http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum....easures

[Torurot]

Yet another in a long on going saga of the whack a mole world of Aussie nutbar pollies. Won't someone PLEASE think of the adults for a change! Look out Donnnnnny, your next.

Is it art or is it pr0n? Australia decides it's ALL filth
Won't someone think of the pictures of children?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010....roversy
By John Ozimek €¢ Posted in Law, 12th January 2010 16:25 GMT

Australian painters and photographers may soon need to watch their step,
as an overhaul of child pornography laws in New South Wales looks set to
remove the defence of "artistic merit" from the statute books.

The issue arose
http://www.news.com.au/henson-....7853610
when Police raided an exhibition of works by Melbourne artist Bill
Henson in May 2008. They were responding to a public outcry over the
picture of a naked 12-year-old girl featured on an invitation to the
exhibition. The exhibition was closed, and 32 pictures were seized.

However, the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery, QC,
declined to prosecute, while the Classification Board declared the
images were not pornography. The controversy was taken up by the State
Government, which instructed the Child Pornography Working Party to
review the existing laws and to create a clear distinction between child
porn and art.

This they have now done with the simple recommendation, contained in a
report presented last Friday, that art cease to be a consideration when
determining whether an image is or is not pornographic.

This conclusion has been supported by NSW Attorney-General John
Hatzistergos, who said that any new laws should apply to the production,
distribution and possession of child pornography. He added: "The fact
that it is art cannot be used as a defence. The report recommends that
once such material has been found to be unlawfully pornographic, whether
or not it is intended to be art is irrelevant."

This conclusion has been welcomed by Hetty Johnston
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news....7886119 ,
chief executive of Child protection group Bravehearts. She said: "This
makes the intention clear that legislatively the mood is to change on
child sexual exploitation.

"The arts community might be concerned about the loss of their rights
but I'm more concerned about the rights of children."

She also expressed the hope that the legislation, would be replicated in
other parts of Australia, such as Tasmania, South Australia and the
Northern Territory.

This issue goes to the heart of what is considered pornographic, with a
growing tendency in some legislatures to regard nudity €“ particularly
nudity of children €“ as sexual and therefore, by definition,
pornographic, irrespective of the content of the picture.

Back in October 2008
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news....7785120 ,
a New York art gallery responded to the Henson controversy by deleting
images of naked adolescent girls from an online promotion of a new
exhibition by that artist.

In autumn 2009
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009....ensored ,
the Tate Gallery removed a picture of a young Brooke Shields from public
display after the police suggested that it might fall foul of laws on
child pornography.

Whilst it is easy to understand the intention behind this proposed
change to the law, it is less easy to see how it will work in practice.
In the UK, the Obscene Publications Act 1959
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1959...9590066_en.pdf
specifically exempts material produced for artistic, scientific or
literary purposes. Removing these exemptions would see huge swathes of
material €“ from books on medieval art, to modern medical textbooks €“ at
risk of prohibition.

Even the extreme porn laws
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008...#pt5-pb1-l1g63
much criticised by libertarians within the UK make it plain that whether
material is deemed to be pornographic or not will depend on the purpose
for which it was created (i.e., material created for purposes of sexual
arousal is likely to be deemed pornographic). Whilst this is not a
full-blown artistic exemption, it is clear that the scope exists within
the legislation for the courts to build one into the law.

Assuming that the NSW government gets its act together on these
proposals, they could be brought before the State parliament within the
next month. ®


* Many comments

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/latest/2010/01/12/australia_child_art_controversy

[Torurot]

The madness continues at the control of the moral minority. Liking small tits means your a paedo!

Aussie censor balks at bijou boobs
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01...alian_censors/
Gets confused about other female bits also
By John Ozimek €¢ Posted in Law, 28th January 2010 12:03 GMT

The proposed Australian Government clampdown on smut just got a whole
lot broader, as news emerged of a ban on small breasts and female
ejaculation in adult material.

The end result of this widening of the censor€™s net could be the
addition of millions of websites to the internet filter
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009....easures
now being proposed.

Breasts came under the spotlight a year ago, as Senators Barnaby Joyce
and Guy Barnett commenced a campaign
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/storymf00370.htm against publicly
available porn. Rounding up magazines from corner shops and filling
stations, Senator Joyce claimed that publications featuring
small-breasted women were encouraging paedophilia.

The result of this campaign is now visible in the decisions being made
by the Australian Classification Board, which is beginning to apply RC
(refused classification) categories to such material, as opposed to the
previous X-rating. According to Fiona Patten, Convenor of the Australian
Sex Party: "We are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s
being banned because they have an A cup size.

"It may be an unintended consequence of the Senator€™s actions but they
are largely responsible for the sharp increase in breast size in
Australian adult magazines of late."

Mainstream companies such as Larry Flint€™s Hustler produce some of the
publications that have been banned. These companies are regulated by the
FBI to ensure that only adult performers are featured in their publications.

At the same time, the Australian Sex Party claims, Federal government
censors are directing Customs officials to confiscate depictions of the
female orgasm when it is accompanied with an ejaculation, as the
Classification Board is also starting to classify films that feature
female ejaculation as RC. Films that show both male and female
ejaculation have routinely been given an X rating since 1983.

The new ruling follows a boom in the numbers of adult films featuring
female ejaculation since the pioneering research of Professor Emeritus
Beverly Whipple was published in her book /The G Spot/.

The films are being banned on one of two grounds:

1) That the depictions are a form of urination which is banned under the
label of €˜golden showers€™ in the Classification Guidelines or

2) Female ejaculation is an €˜abhorrent€™ depiction

However, as Ms Patten points out, one of the objections raised the Board
is that film performers have been faking the production of ejaculate:
this suggests that they are trying to both have their cake and eat it on
this issue, since if the liquid in question is fake, there is no policy
requiring the censorship of douching or enemas.

In terms of impact on the net, The Australian Sex Party (ASP
http://www.sexparty.org.au ) suggests the impact could be enormous, as
not only are banned sites to be blocked €“ but also sites that link to
banned sites are also in line for blocking. The ASP argue: "There are
over one million sites featuring female ejaculation and for Australia to
be banning depictions and discussion of this important issue, takes us
back into the Victorian era where they didn€™t even believe that women
could have orgasms."

Both issues have featured recently in Europe. Back in November 2008,
Hustler Europe filed a constitutional complaint against a section of
German law that criminalises sales and distribution of content depicting
"adult actors who show a youthful appearance".

Meanwhile, the question of female ejaculation continues to be hotly
debated in the UK
http://carnalnation.com/content....ship-uk ,
as film director Anna Span claims that the BBFC have now acknowledged
its existence, whilst the BBFC continues to deny they have done any such
thing.

And back in Australia, so great was the outrage over the Classification
Board's actions that the ASP website went down
http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.p....-school
under the weight of traffic. ®


Read more:

* comments here

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum....censors

[Torurot]

Adding to the sorry saga. Your dentists website today, TLF tomorrow:

Your internet policy sucks, US tells Aussies
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03...orship_policy/
America tuts as Oz tightens screws
By John Ozimek €¢ Posted in Government, 30th March 2010 14:11 GMT

Critics of the Australia€™s proposed internet filtering scheme just keep on coming. This week, it's the turn of one of Australia€™s biggest and most formidable allies, the United States, to put the boot into a scheme that would turn Australia into the free world€™s strictest regulator of  internet content.

This follows objections
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/23/google_oz/ raised last week by those well-known purveyors of internet smut, Google and Yahoo, and before that by Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF http://www.rsf.org/ ), a French campaigning group dedicated to defending the rights of the press and freedom of expression across the globe.

It remains unclear, however, who in the US administration said what to which bit of the Australian government, as neither side is prepared to say more than that they are in discussion over this topic.

Speaking to the Associated Press earlier this week, a US State Department spokesman, Michael Tran, said: "Our main message of course is that we remain committed to advancing the free flow of information which we view as vital to economic prosperity and preserving open societies globally."

He then added: "We don't discuss the details of specific diplomatic exchanges, but I can say that in the context of that ongoing relationship, we have raised our concerns on this matter with Australian officials."

So it is difficult to gauge exactly who the United States are talking to or what they are talking about.

No clarification whatsoever was provided from the Australian side of the exchange. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy declined to provide any further comment on the US concerns. However Suzie Brady, a spokeswoman
for the Minister, said: "The Australian and US governments liaise regularly on a broad range of issues. It would be inappropriate to discuss the details of these consultations."

What is clear is that as well as stirring up controversy at home, the Australian government is starting to annoy some very powerful players across the globe. One serious concern, expressed by RSF, is that by adopting such a strict approach to censorship Australia will undermine
the West€™s case when arguing freedom of expression with more repressive regimes such as China and North Korea.

Australia is not yet in the same censorship league as those countries, but it was placed "under surveillance" in the latest RSF report on internet censorship, Internet Enemies http://www.rsf.org/ennemis.html/ .

We must now wait and see whether the Australian government will take account of the effect its policy is having on its friends and allies when the matter comes before parliament later this year. ®

  * Many comments, some worth a read
    http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum...._policy