Australia Plans To Block Domains That Host Terrorist Material During Crisis Situations (gizmodo.com) 96
Australia laid out some of the country's first concrete steps to make good on its promise of combating the spread of extremism online at this year's G7 leader's forum, Reuters reported Sunday. From a report: Officials said the government intends to cut off all access to any internet domain that fails to block terrorist material during a crisis event, and legislation requiring online platforms to upgrade their safety measures is also being considered. "We are doing everything we can to deny terrorists the opportunity to glorify their crimes," said Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, per Reuters. These measures come in the wake of a terrorist attack in March that killed 51 people at two mosques in New Zealand. The tragedy was livestreamed on Facebook, with the footage quickly spreading to other online platforms that, in turn, hurried to shut it down. The incident prompted increased scrutiny from both Australia and New Zealand about how these platforms moderate their content.
Officials said they're establishing a framework to enable them to block access to domains hosting extremist violence, a decision which would be determined by Australia's eSafety Commissioner on a case-by-case basis. Hosting material "showing murder, attempted murder, rape, torture, or kidnapping" recorded by someone involved in the act, per Reuters, would also trigger a government block on that domain. To help police this new policy, the country plans to establish a 24/7 Crisis Coordination Centre to suss out such material online.
Officials said they're establishing a framework to enable them to block access to domains hosting extremist violence, a decision which would be determined by Australia's eSafety Commissioner on a case-by-case basis. Hosting material "showing murder, attempted murder, rape, torture, or kidnapping" recorded by someone involved in the act, per Reuters, would also trigger a government block on that domain. To help police this new policy, the country plans to establish a 24/7 Crisis Coordination Centre to suss out such material online.
It's not for terrorists, it's for you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as with warrantless NSA wiretapping, this about having control over the proles, not stopping terrorism. If the economy goes into the shitter and there is a Yellow Vest movement, or climate change really starts to do a number on Australia, count on having your Facebook and Twitter cut off if you get too uppity.
Turn the gun on them. (Score:5, Insightful)
So piss in their Vegemite, and have people put up all sorts of stupid spoofy satirical websites so that in the event of a crisis (no matter what topic), all the major social media sites will get blocked until someone figures out which ones are jokes, or maybe they don't care and let the block stand. Either way the point is to make the censorship as obvious and painful to Mr. "I Have Nothing To Hide" as to us. Make the masses feel the pinch.
Re: (Score:3)
So piss in their Vegemite
They wouldn't notice as the taste would remain unchanged. /Disclosure: Posted by the only Australian who doesn't like the stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
The really bizarre thing here is that they're complaining about sites like Facebook, which is about as mainstream and heavily moderated as it gets. If you allow users to share their own content at all, then of course you'll get terrorist livestreams. It's only after the stream or video starts treding that a moderator could be expected to discover it and shut it down.
This really looks like governments wanting RFC 3415 [ietf.org] extended to cover videos. Much like wanting a government encryption backdoor that won't
Re: (Score:2)
If a company isn’t kicking and screaming about some kind of proposed regulation, you can bet that it’s too their benefit even if you can
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, peer to peer is the big threat, but they do have their single throat to choke, the ISPs. China, New Zealand, doesn't make a difference, the single point of failure is the same. It should be our single point of focus on how to get around them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, encrypted networks (VPN, TOR, etc) bypass that, as long as that encryption is legal of course. Even so, lots of good reasons to find a way to bypass the ISP choke point, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's normal for authoritarian regimes to ban VPNs and TOR.
Re: (Score:2)
The Australian government doesn't understand the internet or maths. They have demonstrated it time and time again.
It's not even worth paying attention to this nonsense any more. They aren't going to learn.
Re: (Score:1)
Did a generation fail maths in the 1990's and the gov/mil lost all its "math" skills?
The ip part won't work for the gov? The internet wont be able to "display" the site/ip/isp on an average users consumer ISP account?
That ISP log data is kept for many months/many, many months. The math to go back and search for every IPS account looking at a site is not US mil only science.
ISP says it can't/wont/"privacy"/"cost"? Then th
Re: (Score:1)
This is why the everyone should carry a gun while in public and be well trained and prepared to use it as necessary.
Re:It's not for terrorists, it's for you. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just as with warrantless NSA wiretapping, this about having control over the proles, not stopping terrorism. If the economy goes into the shitter and there is a Yellow Vest movement, or climate change really starts to do a number on Australia, count on having your Facebook and Twitter cut off if you get too uppity.
Very true. Australia joins the like of China, Egypt, and other unsavory nations in this.
Re: (Score:2)
China and Egypt are free countries by comparison
This sort of thing just makes you look ridiculous.
Re: (Score:1)
Find a way around the ISP, and problem solved
Re: HARMFUL CONTENT PROBLEM OF INTERNET (Score:1, Insightful)
*.Facebook.com ?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: *.Facebook.com ?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People will lose their minds if they try to do that.
They already have.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse, they've given their minds away for a pocketful of mumbles such are promises.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The OS DNS Resolver is NOT DNS. It is merely an API that can be used by that host to look stuff up in a cache (like DNS names) and to generate DNS queries to a recursive DNS server if it does not have the requested data in its cache. A DNS Resolver does not "do" DNS. It is merely a common library for generating DNS protocol requests.
Re: *.Facebook.com ?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Do not be ridiculous. DNS propagation occurs at the speed of light (or the fraction of the speed of light that electrons propagate in copper, or that photons propagate in glass, or that radio waves propagate in air). If it takes longer that a few seconds globally it is because you decided to make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So are they going to block all of Facebook during such events? People will lose their minds if they try to do that. Some people would rather other people die than lose access to Facebook.
They won't because Facebook also has a 24x7 system that'll block the offending content. But if you don't jump quick enough or unquestioningly enough to the government's "request" they'll /dev/null your site. What this means is probably that 99% of the sites that want to stay online will write a parser to block whatever URL the government wants without any meaningful checks or balances.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah... all the cool kids moved over the Instagram, Tik Tok, and Snapchat years ago.
Maybe Facebook should try to get Snapshot and Tik Tok classified as a "terrorist recruiting tool" to fight their competition!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So are they going to block all of Facebook during such events?
No of course not. Facebook has it's only policy and method to remove such content, and for all the shit people heap on it precisely zero live streams have actually survived the duration of an event about it on Facebook.
I would wager content is taken down before the government even gets its blocking act together.
DNS over HTTPS (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: DNS over HTTPS (Score:1)
This is of limited use. Vpns and cloud providers with IaaS. It's near trivial to setup acess around it.
You'd have to block so much of the Internet... not much would be left.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: DNS over HTTPS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
saved them groom their lack of self control..
Some need this service
The US is not participating. Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Five of the biggest names in tech and 18 governments endorsed this statement, but in a bizarre twist, the U.S. decided to sit this one out. The Trump administration cited First Amendment concerns in a letter to the Washington Post, despite the call being non-binding, and argued that “productive speech” and “credible, alternative narratives” were the best defense against the spread of extremist content online. As to what exactly that entails is anyone’s guess.
It's a "bizarre twist" that the US doesn't want to stomp all over personal liberty in the name of safety? That we should argue against extremism with better ideas instead of controlling content? And if the call is non-binding, why does it matter except for political posturing?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Five of the biggest names in tech and 18 governments endorsed this statement, but in a bizarre twist, the U.S. decided to sit this one out. The Trump administration cited First Amendment concerns in a letter to the Washington Post, despite the call being non-binding, and argued that “productive speech” and “credible, alternative narratives” were the best defense against the spread of extremist content online. As to what exactly that entails is anyone’s guess.
It's a "bizarre twist" that the US doesn't want to stomp all over personal liberty in the name of safety? That we should argue against extremism with better ideas instead of controlling content? And if the call is non-binding, why does it matter except for political posturing?
It's a "bizarre twist" because the Trump administration, when its own self-interest is at stake, has treated the First Amendment with ambivalence, if not hostility. [theconversation.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The US is just saying they are not participating.
What they actually do . . . could be quite different.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems bizarre to those who think, for some bizarre reason, that the USA is the problem, instead of the solution.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a "bizarre twist" that the US doesn't want to stomp all over personal liberty in the name of safety?
Not bizarre in an "inconsistent with the Constitution manner" but in a different reality Hillary in her grey mandarin tunic would have signed on in a heartbeat, perhaps with a cackle, and then there would have been a CFR party the next day to celebrate the, um, protecting, of the American public.
In the meantime, you can bet your ass this will be incorporated into Google's Machine Fairness system.
In other words, blocking opponents (Score:1)
I wish they would stop this.
Re:In other words, blocking opponents (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, Fascists of all colors and their enabler and helpers pretty much do this and they are creeping out of their dark holes and grabbing for power again. Seems that there are few enough people left that remember what a stellar bad idea that world-view is.
Re: (Score:3)
ANTIFA is a perfect example of this.
They may have "anti-fascist" in their name, but their methods, tactics and actions have fascism written all over them, especially if compare them to history.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Antifa" is, for the most part, an imaginary boogeyman.
This is such a blatant lie, that it can't be uttered out of ignorance but only malicious intent.
Here is the real Antifa. [twitter.com] The image itself is symbolic in so many ways.
That would-be Antifa member learned an important lesson that day [oregonlive.com] about being fooled by euphemisms like "anti fascist."
They are more of a media darling than an actual group.
Yes, CNN and the rest of the leftist media whitewash this group for a reason, despite all the evidence of their malignant purpose. Quo bono.
Re: (Score:1)
Count terrorist action and historical atrocities and you find that the Nazis have everyone beaten by a large margin, with the likely exception of the large religions. Painting the "Antifa" as a real big threat is basically supporting the Nazis by relativizing their crimes. Are you a Nazi supporter?
BTW, your Latin is broken.
Re: (Score:3)
People associating themselves with Antifa sometimes vandalize stuff and assault people. So basically your average drunken Friday night.
Calling them terrorists or comparing them to right wing terrorism is ridiculous. Over the last decade only 3.2% of all extremist murders in the US have been by left wing groups, mostly anarchists and black nationalists. 23.4% was Islamic extremists and the bulk, 73.3% or 3 in 4, were by the far right. White nationalists, white supremacists, Nazis, the KKK, Proud Boys and all
Re: (Score:3)
People associating themselves with Antifa sometimes vandalize stuff and assault people. So basically your average drunken Friday night.
Downplaying the branding of people who are not extremists as "fascist" for the purpose of targeted assault, intimidation, property damage, harassment, and heckler's veto. Threats of violence is their favored cudgel for getting what they want or deplatforming someone. They have chapters across many states, and are also an international group organized in different countries.
As far as I can tell Antifa affiliated people have not been responsible for a single death in the last decade in the US.
Not for a lack of trying. [youtube.com]
If you're fooled by the euphemism of "anti fascist" then it doesn't surprise me you'd fall for the same tactic
Re: (Score:2)
Lumping Proud Boys in as far-right extremists
The Proud Boys are far right extremists. Their Wikipedia article has plenty of citations for that, take your pick.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Be sure to check the page of their founder, Gavin McInnes, too. Despite having some pretty awful views and promoting white supremacy, he left the Proud Boys because they were too extreme even for him.
where funding for groups such as Antifa is tolerated
Please don't spread conspiracy theories about people funding Antifa. Post some evidence if you have it.
It's been my observation that people generally oppose those who act like fascists, no matter what the latter deceptively labels themselves.
They generally aren't that sophisticated. They see you at the
Re: (Score:2)
The Proud Boys are far right extremists. [...] Their Wikipedia article has plenty of citations for that, take your pick.
Ok. Whoever the extremely biased editors for the wiki page were, they must have overlooked this one: Head of Oregon’s FBI: Bureau doesn’t designate Proud Boys as extremist group [oregonlive.com]
Just who labels them as neo fascitsts? Why, the SPLC, who won't even label Antifa a hate group even as they call for the death of Americans. Basically anyone who stands up the Antifa's violent tactics, and defends people from Antifa's mob violence, will be smeared and villified because SPLC is a partisan activist organiza
Re: (Score:2)
From your own link:
Cannon said in relation to the Proud Boys, the FBI âoetried to characterize the potential threat from individuals within that group.â(TM)â(TM) The bureau doesnâ(TM)t designate groups but does investigate violent conspiracies, he said.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement... They don't designate groups, they just look at the threat presented by individual members and that threat lead the County Sheriff to believe that the FBI considered them be violent extremists.
Just who labels them as neo fascitsts?
I do. They go on marches with fascists, they promote white supremacy and extreme nationalism. They were there are Charlottesville, along side the literal Nazis. No need to over-think this.
won't even label Antifa a hate group
Because even those idiots calling for "death to the KKK" are not doing so ou
Re: (Score:2)
Just who labels them as neo fascitsts?
I do. They go on marches with fascists, they promote white supremacy and extreme nationalism. They were there are Charlottesville, along side the literal Nazis. No need to over-think this.
Typical. One doesn't need to think for themselves. Be quick to jump to conclusions. Believe what you're told about those who'd stand up against Antifa's tactics. Everyone who doesn't submit must be themselves fascist, or fascist sympathizers at the least. You wouldn't want to be a fascist, would you?
Meanwhile, outside of the far-leftist echo chambers and propaganda circles: Proud Boys disavowed Unite the Right rally. [officialproudboys.com]
The truth is, we don’t need white supremacists in Proud Boys. We are western chauvinists, not racists, and welcome anyone who agrees with that. We don’t give a shit what the color of your skin is, but nearly all of the speakers at this event can’t seem to do anything but talk about skin color. I understand that antifa and the rest of the radical left will continue to call Proud Boys racist. That doesn’t mean we should become racists, or share a stage with racists.
I also understand that the left doesn’t disavow their extremists in antifa and Black Lives Matter, but we’re better than the left. We are able and willing to take the trash out and distance ourselves from our extremists.
So here’s the deal Proud Boys, if you want to go to the rally, I can’t stop you. But just don’t fucking wear your Fred Perry, or decide to belt: “Proud of Your Boy.” Remember, we don’t allow racists in Proud Boys, if you decide to rub elbows with those people in colors, you very well could find yourself being disavowed.
This, after you've disregarded all of Antifa's political violence in countries across the
Re: (Score:2)
Did you watch that video? Note how the standard tactic is to praise the Nazis and act like an excited school girl around them, and then right at the end say "oh, yeah, uh, disavow, disavow!"
Kinda dumb of them to post footage of themselves doing that, wasn't it?
Are you really falling for that BS? I mean if I turned up to a rally and saw swastikas everywhere I'd leave right away, because I'm not a fucking Nazi.
Also, yeah, if I saw a guy with a big swastika tattoo, with a swastika flag, chanting "blood and soi
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoy it when you prove me correct.
Re: (Score:1)
When I was but a wee lad my Dad used to tell me "Whatever it is they say you cannot see or cannot be watching is the very thing you have a duty to see and to watch so you can make up your own mind". He was Australian.
I guess the yung'uns these days never had such sound advice (or perhaps they are too weak minded to do the whole "make up your own mind" part).
Re: (Score:2)
Very, very true. My guess would be the young ones are too far removed personally and are incapable of deducing from history how how extremely serious this problem actually is.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
At what point are they trying to "control" what people think? You think allowing the rape of women to be displayed is a good thing? Or are you upset that by having rape videos taken down that's telling people rape isn't something we want to happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Dissenting views the government labels as "evil" and "terrorist" are also taken down. For example, Jewish leaders and rabbis who say Israel is violating human rights of Palestinians are labelled as "friends of terrorists", "disloyal to Judaism", etc.
Re: (Score:2)
How is not showing rape a "dissenting" view?
Your example isn't relative to the issue at hand. That is clearly a dissenting view being restricted by the government. Not showing a woman being raped is not suppressing a "dissenting" view. Nor is taking down a white guy going on a shooting spree suppressing a "dissenting" view.
Re: (Score:1)
My example is extremely relevant to issue at hand, the government is going to block "extremist views"
What are they planning to do exactly? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The next crisis will be permanent.
Re: (Score:2)
They just will make the "crisis" permanent and do away with pesky things like civil rights as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Before the crisis situation everyone who "enjoys" the links/media/comments/add their words of support/uploads/downloads is tracked.
Re: (Score:1)
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Or as the french say, one man's fish is another man's poisson.
Why? (Score:3)
Democracies of various sorts of the past failed when they give the leader "emergency" powers that are never given up. Censorship is one of those.
Thus does freedom fall, not with a whimper, but with thunderous applause -- a girl in a show
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. This is a sign of a rot that has set in deep. There is probably not much time left to prevent a police-state and full-blown fascism after that in Australia.
Re: (Score:1)
This is why God (and the Chinese) invented black powder (Gun Powder, for those who do not know what black powder is). And kinetic weapons.
Re: (Score:1)
Why should any gov not detect such sinful use of the internet.
Then curate the internet?
Its not like the freedom of speech in the US private sector.
Where every social media brand allows anything to be said and uploaded.
A government can go full censorship.
Just like social media can curate and set its own limits on what is sinful....
Thoughtcrime (Score:1)
How can any Aussie trust any politician that says anything like this?
The same kind of thinking came up with the great Internet wall of Australia where the government got caught lying (big surprise?) and was using it to censure criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in general people are stupid and understand nothing. It is just more obvious when they are collectively _this_ stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
Considering the US laws on the full protection of freedom of speech... in some other nation.
only during crisis situations??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
People labelled as "terrorist" by government could be patriots fighting oppressive regime. There are several of those in the world, and the USA even goes so far as to give money and arms to the oppressors.
Censorship is evil.
The road to hell and good intentions (Score:2)
Officials said the government intends to cut off all access to any internet domain that fails to block terrorist material during a crisis event, and legislation requiring online platforms to upgrade their safety measures is also being considered.
Ok good intentions acknowledged. One little detail. Define "terrorist material" and "crisis event". What EXACTLY does that mean? Sure sometimes it's obvious (9/11 etc) but just imagine for half a moment how easy that would be to abuse by the government and police. It grants the power for them to potentially label anything they dislike as "terrorist material" unless the definition of such things are made very very clear. The odds of this devolving into speech suppression seems to be asymptotic to 100%
This is rich (Score:2)
Went to post from another PC, and Anonymous posting is now disabled. Looking at the news, I see that I missed the announcement, but hey I'm not on /. every day.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't announce it - we've been left to figure it out. For a few days, anonymous posting was disabled completely. Now logged-in users can post anonymously, but you can't post if not logged in.
Crisis (Score:2)
To a politician, the greatest 'crisis' is anything that could lose them votes. For example, voters being informed.
Good luck with that. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Be fine?"
That user of the ISP account and IP is now on a gov list.
Who ever owned/pays for that ISP account now has some CC/biometrics on a gov list as a person interested in/who is supportive of banned groups.
Want a passport? Need a security clearance? The background investigation needed to work in/with the community?
Keep the ability to be a business? Keep qualifications after graduation? Stay in a prof
The Conway Australian Censorship Wars (Score:2)
There was a huge fight a few years ago when Labor's Conway (a strict catholic) tried to introduce general internet censorship. The outcry was so huge that ultimately the move was blocked (unlike in the UK) despite strong support from both parties.
(Conway, with his strong moral convictions, ended up working as a lobbyest for the gambling industry!)
This is a back door. I hope it produces as similar response. But I have not seen any coverage by Australian media at all.