Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > aus.computers > #65118 > unrolled thread

"ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent"

Back to article view | Back to aus.computers

Contents

  "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2019-03-26 09:52 +0700
    Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-03-26 19:16 +1100
      Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2019-03-26 20:08 +1100
      Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Max <max@val.morgan> - 2019-03-26 21:16 +1100
        Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-03-27 00:01 +1100
          Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2019-03-26 21:59 +0800
        Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2019-03-27 04:04 +1100
          Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2019-03-27 18:49 +1100
            Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" "jonz@nowhere." <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2019-03-27 01:08 -0700
              Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2019-03-27 19:28 +1100
                Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" "jonz@nowhere." <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2019-03-28 01:54 -0700
                  Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2019-03-29 04:56 +1100
                    Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" "jonz@nowhere." <johnhhhinton7@gmail.com> - 2019-03-28 17:24 -0700
                      Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2019-03-30 04:12 +1100
            Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2019-03-27 19:27 +1100
              Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2019-03-27 20:50 +1100
                Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2019-03-28 04:47 +1100
      Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-03-26 22:21 +0000
        Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-03-26 22:29 +0000
          Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> - 2019-03-27 10:14 +1100
            Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2019-03-27 14:14 +1000
          Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2019-03-29 09:52 +1100
            Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2019-03-31 10:30 +1100
        Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2019-03-27 14:12 +1000
          Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-03-27 16:05 +1100
          Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-03-27 22:14 +0000
            Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2019-03-28 11:40 +1000
              Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-03-28 22:15 +0000
            Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2019-03-28 15:40 +1100
              Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-03-28 22:19 +0000
                Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2019-03-31 10:42 +1100
                  Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2019-03-31 17:54 +1100
          Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2019-03-28 08:43 +0800
            Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-03-28 22:27 +0000
              Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2019-03-29 08:33 +1000
                Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2019-03-29 01:32 +0000
                Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2019-03-31 10:52 +1100
              Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2019-03-31 07:48 +0800
                Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2019-03-31 04:57 +0000
                Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2019-03-31 11:55 +0700
                  Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2019-04-01 07:04 +1100
              Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2019-03-31 10:49 +1100
                Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-03-31 22:00 +0000
                  Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2019-04-01 13:43 +1100
                    Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-04-01 22:07 +0000
                      Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2019-04-02 10:35 +1100
                        Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2019-04-02 06:55 +0000
                          Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2019-04-03 15:02 +1100
      Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2019-03-28 11:43 +1000
        Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2019-03-28 13:10 +1100
          Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2019-03-28 14:49 +1100
      Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2019-03-31 11:59 +0700
    Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-08-25 23:38 +0000
      Re: "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent" Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2019-08-26 13:56 +1000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#65166

"Jeßus" <j@j.net> wrote in message 
news:hkh0aed0rhu498q5c4d5d7s4b4cdupu5et@j.net...
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 07:48:34 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
>
>>On 29/03/2019 6:27 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>
>>> Because 90% of the population (probably generous) won't know, or be
>>> bothered to find out, the simple methods to get around them. Plus
>>> they only want to give the appearance of doing something about the
>>> content.
>>>
>>on the former they are only blocking content to those who aren't seeking 
>>it out.
>
> Could you possibly expand on this point? Do you mean ISP's are
> surreptitiously blocking specific content so those *not* seeking it do
> not stumble across it?

No, that its easy to get the content if you want to see it. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65160

On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 22:27:41 +0000 (UTC), not@telling.you.invalid
(Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:

>Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:
>> On 27/03/2019 12:12 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>> If they're blocking the DNS request, simply use another DNS server.
>>> 
>>> Google 8.8.8.8 or 8.8.4.4
>>> IBM 9.9.9.9
>>> Cloudflare 1.1.1.1
>> 
>> 
>> These blocks are so easy to get around that I don't know why they bother.
>
>Because 90% of the population (probably generous) won't know, or be
>bothered to find out, the simple methods to get around them. Plus
>they only want to give the appearance of doing something about the
>content.
>
>Of course it wouldn't take much to make getting around the blocks
>a lot harder by also blocking proxy, VPN, DNS server, etc. IP
>addresses.

The VPN just gets new IP's, 
OK takes a short time longer to get them to propagate their IP's

-- 
Petzl
Who doesn't come up with similar such cunning plans every Friday night
at after-work drinks?
 
Who doesn't come up with similar such cunning plans every Friday night
at after-work drinks?
 
The point is that ON doesn't appear to have received any money from
the NRA, in fact I'm not clear if they ever spoke to the NRA, all that
seems to have happened is some journo posing as the NRA recorded some
drunken conversations he had with them.
 
Seems like a big pile of non-news.
 
Almost certainly, an investigative report into those who planned the
Al-Jazeera operation would be much more fascinating.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65167

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 22:27:41 +0000 (UTC), not@telling.you.invalid
> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>
>>Of course it wouldn't take much to make getting around the blocks
>>a lot harder by also blocking proxy, VPN, DNS server, etc. IP
>>addresses.
> 
> The VPN just gets new IP's, 
> OK takes a short time longer to get them to propagate their IP's

Except as soon as you find out about the new IPs, the ISP has the
oportunity to find out as well and block them right away, so it
becomes an endless battle between you and your ISP. Of course it's
certinly possible for you to win, but I think the requirement of
time and money would drive off the vast majority of users who
might have just about bothered to change their DNS settings or
find a free web proxy.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65168

On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 22:00:40 +0000 (UTC), not@telling.you.invalid
(Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:

>Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 22:27:41 +0000 (UTC), not@telling.you.invalid
>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>>
>>>Of course it wouldn't take much to make getting around the blocks
>>>a lot harder by also blocking proxy, VPN, DNS server, etc. IP
>>>addresses.
>> 
>> The VPN just gets new IP's, 
>> OK takes a short time longer to get them to propagate their IP's
>
>Except as soon as you find out about the new IPs, the ISP has the
>oportunity to find out as well and block them right away, so it
>becomes an endless battle between you and your ISP. Of course it's
>certinly possible for you to win, but I think the requirement of
>time and money would drive off the vast majority of users who
>might have just about bothered to change their DNS settings or
>find a free web proxy.


Doubt if an ISP can find a VPN IP except by paying 
Netflix tried it to stop overseas looking a their US "flicks"
-- 
Petzl 
Good lawyers know the law 
Great lawyers know the judge 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65169

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 22:00:40 +0000 (UTC), not@telling.you.invalid
> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 22:27:41 +0000 (UTC), not@telling.you.invalid
>>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Of course it wouldn't take much to make getting around the blocks
>>>>a lot harder by also blocking proxy, VPN, DNS server, etc. IP
>>>>addresses.
>>> 
>>> The VPN just gets new IP's, 
>>> OK takes a short time longer to get them to propagate their IP's
>>
>>Except as soon as you find out about the new IPs, the ISP has the
>>oportunity to find out as well and block them right away, so it
>>becomes an endless battle between you and your ISP. Of course it's
>>certinly possible for you to win, but I think the requirement of
>>time and money would drive off the vast majority of users who
>>might have just about bothered to change their DNS settings or
>>find a free web proxy.
> 
> 
> Doubt if an ISP can find a VPN IP except by paying 
> Netflix tried it to stop overseas looking a their US "flicks"

If there are lots of people using the same VPN with the same IP
address, then it wouldn't be hard.

There are ways around that, and ways around the ways around that,
and it's basically the usual arms race scenario.

It has been going on for a while now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VPN_blocking

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65170

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 22:07:14 +0000 (UTC), not@telling.you.invalid
(Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:

>Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 22:00:40 +0000 (UTC), not@telling.you.invalid
>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>>Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 22:27:41 +0000 (UTC), not@telling.you.invalid
>>>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it wouldn't take much to make getting around the blocks
>>>>>a lot harder by also blocking proxy, VPN, DNS server, etc. IP
>>>>>addresses.
>>>> 
>>>> The VPN just gets new IP's, 
>>>> OK takes a short time longer to get them to propagate their IP's
>>>
>>>Except as soon as you find out about the new IPs, the ISP has the
>>>oportunity to find out as well and block them right away, so it
>>>becomes an endless battle between you and your ISP. Of course it's
>>>certinly possible for you to win, but I think the requirement of
>>>time and money would drive off the vast majority of users who
>>>might have just about bothered to change their DNS settings or
>>>find a free web proxy.
>> 
>> 
>> Doubt if an ISP can find a VPN IP except by paying 
>> Netflix tried it to stop overseas looking a their US "flicks"
>
>If there are lots of people using the same VPN with the same IP
>address, then it wouldn't be hard.
>
>There are ways around that, and ways around the ways around that,
>and it's basically the usual arms race scenario.
>
>It has been going on for a while now:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VPN_blocking

Private Internet Access has just for Australia around 200 ever
changing/swapping IP's
One selects what country the wish to claim they are from.
I select Australia as many have geoblocking in forces.
-- 
Petzl
'we are a Christian nation' with 'Christian values' to which newcomers 
should conform, while enjoying freedom for their own beliefs. 
Pauline Hanson.


If you look at Australia it is largely a Christian country with 
Christian norms. The things we do, the way our political parties 
behave, have, if not an activist Christianity about it, Christian 
ideals. 
Paul Keating

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65171

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 22:07:14 +0000 (UTC), not@telling.you.invalid
> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>
>>If there are lots of people using the same VPN with the same IP
>>address, then it wouldn't be hard.
>>
>>There are ways around that, and ways around the ways around that,
>>and it's basically the usual arms race scenario.
>>
>>It has been going on for a while now:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VPN_blocking
> 
> Private Internet Access has just for Australia around 200 ever
> changing/swapping IP's
> One selects what country the wish to claim they are from.
> I select Australia as many have geoblocking in forces.

If they only have 200 users, then that might be adequate. Even then,
the above link described China identifying VPN IPs by looking at the
actual network data.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65172

On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 06:55:45 +0000 (UTC), Computer Nerd Kev
<not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:

>Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 22:07:14 +0000 (UTC), not@telling.you.invalid
>> (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
>>>
>>>If there are lots of people using the same VPN with the same IP
>>>address, then it wouldn't be hard.
>>>
>>>There are ways around that, and ways around the ways around that,
>>>and it's basically the usual arms race scenario.
>>>
>>>It has been going on for a while now:
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VPN_blocking
>> 
>> Private Internet Access has just for Australia around 200 ever
>> changing/swapping IP's
>> One selects what country the wish to claim they are from.
>> I select Australia as many have geoblocking in forces.
>
>If they only have 200 users, then that might be adequate. Even then,
>the above link described China identifying VPN IPs by looking at the
>actual network data.

Not seen china capable of operating a internet
Major maority of spam goes through chinese botnets because they won't
block port 25m which stops most botnet spam? 
Seems delberate to me?
-- 
Petzl 
Good lawyers know the law 
Great lawyers know the judge 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65143

On 3/26/2019 6:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 26/03/2019 1:52 pm, Je�us wrote:
>>
>> The nanny state is insatiable in it's desire for censorship:
>>
>> "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal
>> precedent
>>
>>
>> Several websites including Voat, ZeroHedge, Archive.is, LiveLeak, and
>> others have been blocked in Australia and New Zealand in direct
>> contravention to civil liberties that citizens are supposed to have.
>> The biggest of these internet providers, Telstra, has published a blog
>> post defending their censorship action – even acknowledging that free
>> speech has been sacrificed by company decision:
>>
>>      “We appreciate that it is necessary to ensure free speech is
>> carefully balanced against protecting the community – but with these
>> sites continuing to host disturbing content we feel it is the right
>> thing to do to block them.”
>>
>> In fact, some of the blocked sites have been unfairly lambasted in
>> mainstream media as “refusing” to take down offending material. Let’s
>> be clear, each and every one of the blocked websites operates lawfully
>> – that includes removing illegal material when requested. These
>> internet service providers (ISPs) in Australia and New Zealand have
>> taken it upon themselves to play judge, jury, and executioner in their
>> condemnation of these websites and their visitors just for exercising
>> free speech.
>> In New Zealand, mobile internet service providers take it upon
>> themselves to enact censorship
>>
>> Starting over the weekend, Spark NZ, Vodafone NZ, and Vocus NZ were
>> the three New Zealand ISPs that have taken it upon themselves to block
>> these sites. On their part, the ISPs and smartphone network providers
>> are claiming that these are only temporary blocks. Temporary blocks
>> that have lasted multiple days – more than long enough to change
>> people’s’ browsing habits. Even the perpetrators of this censorship
>> are aware how unprecedented it is. Geoff Thorn, a chief executive at
>> New Zealand Telecommunications Forum (TCF), commented to CIO:
>>
>>      “This is an unprecedented move by the telecommunications industry,
>> but one that they all agree is necessary.”
>>
>> CIO additionally confirmed that the ISPs are working together to ban
>> the same sites.
>> In Australia, censorship also happens at the whim of the internet
>> providers
>>
>> Unsurprisingly, the over-reactive censorship has even started
>> spreading around the world. Starting Monday the 18th, Telstra and
>> Vodafone in Australia have also implemented these blocks network wide
>> – that means even the many Australians using Vodafone reseller
>> networks are affected by Vodafone’s censorship decisions. Of course,
>> Facebook is not one of the sites that has been blocked.
>>
>>      Are these blocks due to legal request, or is Telstra now censoring
>> entire sites due to internal policies? Setting a very dangerous
>> precedent
>>
>>      — James Franklin (@James23235689) March 18, 2019
>>
>>
>> Vodafone has even confirmed that they were told to place the blocks,
>> and they will remove the blocks when they are “advised” that the
>> illegal content has been removed.
>> Censoring free speech is never “the right thing to do”
>>
>> The internet providers in Australia and New Zealand are sliding down
>> an incredibly slippery slope against free speech. Previously, in
>> Australia and other parts of the world like Russia and Philippines,
>> ISPs would not censor access to websites unless clearly told to by the
>> government. The precedent that internet providers can decide when to
>> start blocking sites seemingly arbitrarily has now both been set and
>> abused… All in the name of “doing the right thing.”"
>>
>> https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2019/03/isps-in-au-and-nz-start-censoring-the-internet-without-legal-precedent/ 
>>
>>
> 
> Optus are blocking Live Leaks, at the IP address level.
> 
> I can't find anything in the terms and conditions that let's them do 
> that. Looks to me as if they're in breach of contract.
> 
> Sylvia.

Is there anything in the terms and conditions that says that they 
guarantee you access to every website in the internet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65144

On 28/03/2019 12:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 3/26/2019 6:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 26/03/2019 1:52 pm, Je�us wrote:
>>>
>>> The nanny state is insatiable in it's desire for censorship:
>>>
>>> "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal
>>> precedent
>>>
>>>
>>> Several websites including Voat, ZeroHedge, Archive.is, LiveLeak, and
>>> others have been blocked in Australia and New Zealand in direct
>>> contravention to civil liberties that citizens are supposed to have.
>>> The biggest of these internet providers, Telstra, has published a blog
>>> post defending their censorship action – even acknowledging that free
>>> speech has been sacrificed by company decision:
>>>
>>>      “We appreciate that it is necessary to ensure free speech is
>>> carefully balanced against protecting the community – but with these
>>> sites continuing to host disturbing content we feel it is the right
>>> thing to do to block them.”
>>>
>>> In fact, some of the blocked sites have been unfairly lambasted in
>>> mainstream media as “refusing” to take down offending material. Let’s
>>> be clear, each and every one of the blocked websites operates lawfully
>>> – that includes removing illegal material when requested. These
>>> internet service providers (ISPs) in Australia and New Zealand have
>>> taken it upon themselves to play judge, jury, and executioner in their
>>> condemnation of these websites and their visitors just for exercising
>>> free speech.
>>> In New Zealand, mobile internet service providers take it upon
>>> themselves to enact censorship
>>>
>>> Starting over the weekend, Spark NZ, Vodafone NZ, and Vocus NZ were
>>> the three New Zealand ISPs that have taken it upon themselves to block
>>> these sites. On their part, the ISPs and smartphone network providers
>>> are claiming that these are only temporary blocks. Temporary blocks
>>> that have lasted multiple days – more than long enough to change
>>> people’s’ browsing habits. Even the perpetrators of this censorship
>>> are aware how unprecedented it is. Geoff Thorn, a chief executive at
>>> New Zealand Telecommunications Forum (TCF), commented to CIO:
>>>
>>>      “This is an unprecedented move by the telecommunications industry,
>>> but one that they all agree is necessary.”
>>>
>>> CIO additionally confirmed that the ISPs are working together to ban
>>> the same sites.
>>> In Australia, censorship also happens at the whim of the internet
>>> providers
>>>
>>> Unsurprisingly, the over-reactive censorship has even started
>>> spreading around the world. Starting Monday the 18th, Telstra and
>>> Vodafone in Australia have also implemented these blocks network wide
>>> – that means even the many Australians using Vodafone reseller
>>> networks are affected by Vodafone’s censorship decisions. Of course,
>>> Facebook is not one of the sites that has been blocked.
>>>
>>>      Are these blocks due to legal request, or is Telstra now censoring
>>> entire sites due to internal policies? Setting a very dangerous
>>> precedent
>>>
>>>      — James Franklin (@James23235689) March 18, 2019
>>>
>>>
>>> Vodafone has even confirmed that they were told to place the blocks,
>>> and they will remove the blocks when they are “advised” that the
>>> illegal content has been removed.
>>> Censoring free speech is never “the right thing to do”
>>>
>>> The internet providers in Australia and New Zealand are sliding down
>>> an incredibly slippery slope against free speech. Previously, in
>>> Australia and other parts of the world like Russia and Philippines,
>>> ISPs would not censor access to websites unless clearly told to by the
>>> government. The precedent that internet providers can decide when to
>>> start blocking sites seemingly arbitrarily has now both been set and
>>> abused… All in the name of “doing the right thing.”"
>>>
>>> https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2019/03/isps-in-au-and-nz-start-censoring-the-internet-without-legal-precedent/ 
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Optus are blocking Live Leaks, at the IP address level.
>>
>> I can't find anything in the terms and conditions that let's them do 
>> that. Looks to me as if they're in breach of contract.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Is there anything in the terms and conditions that says that they 
> guarantee you access to every website in the internet?

They don't say that they guarantee it - clearly they have no control 
over what happens upstream. But they don't say that they will take 
active steps to limit access. In their terms and conditions, they 
describe the service:

"(b)	The service provides broadband access to the internet and related 
services, such as email, via an access method."

Absent some express qualification, the expression "the internet" cannot 
be deemed by Optus to mean something less than the entire internet.

Now, bear in mind that where one party to a contract sets the terms, 
they are construed in favour of the other party. So, Optus cannot turn 
around after the event and say "Oh, but what we meant was..."

Optus do say that they may block ports - but not that they may block 
addresses.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65145

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote in message 
news:gg2oo2FfncaU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 28/03/2019 12:43 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 3/26/2019 6:16 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 26/03/2019 1:52 pm, Je�us wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The nanny state is insatiable in it's desire for censorship:
>>>>
>>>> "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal
>>>> precedent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Several websites including Voat, ZeroHedge, Archive.is, LiveLeak, and
>>>> others have been blocked in Australia and New Zealand in direct
>>>> contravention to civil liberties that citizens are supposed to have.
>>>> The biggest of these internet providers, Telstra, has published a blog
>>>> post defending their censorship action – even acknowledging that free
>>>> speech has been sacrificed by company decision:
>>>>
>>>>      “We appreciate that it is necessary to ensure free speech is
>>>> carefully balanced against protecting the community – but with these
>>>> sites continuing to host disturbing content we feel it is the right
>>>> thing to do to block them.”
>>>>
>>>> In fact, some of the blocked sites have been unfairly lambasted in
>>>> mainstream media as “refusing” to take down offending material. Let’s
>>>> be clear, each and every one of the blocked websites operates lawfully
>>>> – that includes removing illegal material when requested. These
>>>> internet service providers (ISPs) in Australia and New Zealand have
>>>> taken it upon themselves to play judge, jury, and executioner in their
>>>> condemnation of these websites and their visitors just for exercising
>>>> free speech.
>>>> In New Zealand, mobile internet service providers take it upon
>>>> themselves to enact censorship
>>>>
>>>> Starting over the weekend, Spark NZ, Vodafone NZ, and Vocus NZ were
>>>> the three New Zealand ISPs that have taken it upon themselves to block
>>>> these sites. On their part, the ISPs and smartphone network providers
>>>> are claiming that these are only temporary blocks. Temporary blocks
>>>> that have lasted multiple days – more than long enough to change
>>>> people’s’ browsing habits. Even the perpetrators of this censorship
>>>> are aware how unprecedented it is. Geoff Thorn, a chief executive at
>>>> New Zealand Telecommunications Forum (TCF), commented to CIO:
>>>>
>>>>      “This is an unprecedented move by the telecommunications industry,
>>>> but one that they all agree is necessary.”
>>>>
>>>> CIO additionally confirmed that the ISPs are working together to ban
>>>> the same sites.
>>>> In Australia, censorship also happens at the whim of the internet
>>>> providers
>>>>
>>>> Unsurprisingly, the over-reactive censorship has even started
>>>> spreading around the world. Starting Monday the 18th, Telstra and
>>>> Vodafone in Australia have also implemented these blocks network wide
>>>> – that means even the many Australians using Vodafone reseller
>>>> networks are affected by Vodafone’s censorship decisions. Of course,
>>>> Facebook is not one of the sites that has been blocked.
>>>>
>>>>      Are these blocks due to legal request, or is Telstra now censoring
>>>> entire sites due to internal policies? Setting a very dangerous
>>>> precedent
>>>>
>>>>      — James Franklin (@James23235689) March 18, 2019
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Vodafone has even confirmed that they were told to place the blocks,
>>>> and they will remove the blocks when they are “advised” that the
>>>> illegal content has been removed.
>>>> Censoring free speech is never “the right thing to do”
>>>>
>>>> The internet providers in Australia and New Zealand are sliding down
>>>> an incredibly slippery slope against free speech. Previously, in
>>>> Australia and other parts of the world like Russia and Philippines,
>>>> ISPs would not censor access to websites unless clearly told to by the
>>>> government. The precedent that internet providers can decide when to
>>>> start blocking sites seemingly arbitrarily has now both been set and
>>>> abused… All in the name of “doing the right thing.”"
>>>>
>>>> https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2019/03/isps-in-au-and-nz-start-censoring-the-internet-without-legal-precedent/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Optus are blocking Live Leaks, at the IP address level.
>>>
>>> I can't find anything in the terms and conditions that let's them do 
>>> that. Looks to me as if they're in breach of contract.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Is there anything in the terms and conditions that says that they 
>> guarantee you access to every website in the internet?
>
> They don't say that they guarantee it - clearly they have no control over 
> what happens upstream. But they don't say that they will take active steps 
> to limit access. In their terms and conditions, they describe the service:
>
> "(b) The service provides broadband access to the internet and related 
> services, such as email, via an access method."
>
> Absent some express qualification, the expression "the internet" cannot be 
> deemed by Optus to mean something less than the entire internet.
>
> Now, bear in mind that where one party to a contract sets the terms, they 
> are construed in favour of the other party. So, Optus cannot turn around 
> after the event and say "Oh, but what we meant was..."
>
> Optus do say that they may block ports - but not that they may block 
> addresses.

They don’t need to when the law requires them to do that. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65164

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 19:16:38 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid>
wrote:

>On 26/03/2019 1:52 pm, Je?us wrote:
>> 
>> The nanny state is insatiable in it's desire for censorship:
>> 
>> "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal
>> precedent
>> 
>> 
>> Several websites including Voat, ZeroHedge, Archive.is, LiveLeak, and
>> others have been blocked in Australia and New Zealand in direct
>> contravention to civil liberties that citizens are supposed to have.
>> The biggest of these internet providers, Telstra, has published a blog
>> post defending their censorship action – even acknowledging that free
>> speech has been sacrificed by company decision:
>> 
>>      “We appreciate that it is necessary to ensure free speech is
>> carefully balanced against protecting the community – but with these
>> sites continuing to host disturbing content we feel it is the right
>> thing to do to block them.”
>> 
>> In fact, some of the blocked sites have been unfairly lambasted in
>> mainstream media as “refusing” to take down offending material. Let’s
>> be clear, each and every one of the blocked websites operates lawfully
>> – that includes removing illegal material when requested. These
>> internet service providers (ISPs) in Australia and New Zealand have
>> taken it upon themselves to play judge, jury, and executioner in their
>> condemnation of these websites and their visitors just for exercising
>> free speech.
>> In New Zealand, mobile internet service providers take it upon
>> themselves to enact censorship
>> 
>> Starting over the weekend, Spark NZ, Vodafone NZ, and Vocus NZ were
>> the three New Zealand ISPs that have taken it upon themselves to block
>> these sites. On their part, the ISPs and smartphone network providers
>> are claiming that these are only temporary blocks. Temporary blocks
>> that have lasted multiple days – more than long enough to change
>> people’s’ browsing habits. Even the perpetrators of this censorship
>> are aware how unprecedented it is. Geoff Thorn, a chief executive at
>> New Zealand Telecommunications Forum (TCF), commented to CIO:
>> 
>>      “This is an unprecedented move by the telecommunications industry,
>> but one that they all agree is necessary.”
>> 
>> CIO additionally confirmed that the ISPs are working together to ban
>> the same sites.
>> In Australia, censorship also happens at the whim of the internet
>> providers
>> 
>> Unsurprisingly, the over-reactive censorship has even started
>> spreading around the world. Starting Monday the 18th, Telstra and
>> Vodafone in Australia have also implemented these blocks network wide
>> – that means even the many Australians using Vodafone reseller
>> networks are affected by Vodafone’s censorship decisions. Of course,
>> Facebook is not one of the sites that has been blocked.
>> 
>>      Are these blocks due to legal request, or is Telstra now censoring
>> entire sites due to internal policies? Setting a very dangerous
>> precedent
>> 
>>      — James Franklin (@James23235689) March 18, 2019
>> 
>> 
>> Vodafone has even confirmed that they were told to place the blocks,
>> and they will remove the blocks when they are “advised” that the
>> illegal content has been removed.
>> Censoring free speech is never “the right thing to do”
>> 
>> The internet providers in Australia and New Zealand are sliding down
>> an incredibly slippery slope against free speech. Previously, in
>> Australia and other parts of the world like Russia and Philippines,
>> ISPs would not censor access to websites unless clearly told to by the
>> government. The precedent that internet providers can decide when to
>> start blocking sites seemingly arbitrarily has now both been set and
>> abused… All in the name of “doing the right thing.”"
>> 
>> https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2019/03/isps-in-au-and-nz-start-censoring-the-internet-without-legal-precedent/
>> 
>
>Optus are blocking Live Leaks, at the IP address level.
>
>I can't find anything in the terms and conditions that let's them do 
>that.

To my knowledge, there isn't anything in the T&C that covers this
scenario.

> Looks to me as if they're in breach of contract.

Possibly, I'm not qualified or knowledgeable enough on the topic to
say one way or the other.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65481

In aus.computers Je?us <j@j.net> wrote:
> 
> "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal
> precedent
> 
> Several websites including Voat, ZeroHedge, Archive.is, LiveLeak, and
> others have been blocked in Australia and New Zealand in direct
> contravention to civil liberties that citizens are supposed to have.
> https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2019/03/isps-in-au-and-nz-start-censoring-the-internet-without-legal-precedent/

Damned if I can find confirmation online, spent far too long
searching for it now, but I get a clear impression from a report on
SBS news last night that this proposed legislation:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/02/terrorism-crackdown-laws-could-give-greater-power-to-block-australians-from-websites
Has been passed.

The part about Morrison nagging other, more powerful, leaders about
it is true at least. That definately implies that the Australian laws
have been passed, but I suppose you can't rule out hypocricy.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/25/g7-scott-morrison-to-push-for-action-against-online-terrorist-content

Assuming that it has passed, this sets up a terrible precedent for
government-controlled internet censorship. After all one man's
"freedom fighter" is another man's terrorist, and who knows how
blurry those lines might become in future conflicts which Australia
may be involved in?

Besides that, the post-Christchurch censorship shows how large sites
can be blocked due to only a single item of content. Archive.is, a
site that I've used a number of times before for decidedly
non-terrory purposes, is _still_ blocked on Telstra, for example. How
easy would it be for pollys to have sites that they don't like
examined closely to pick out one item that can be considered covered
by the new law, and thereby provide and excuse for blocking all of
it?

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#65483

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 23:38:42 +0000 (UTC), not@telling.you.invalid
(Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:

>In aus.computers Je?us <j@j.net> wrote:
>> 
>> "ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal
>> precedent
>> 
>> Several websites including Voat, ZeroHedge, Archive.is, LiveLeak, and
>> others have been blocked in Australia and New Zealand in direct
>> contravention to civil liberties that citizens are supposed to have.
>> https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2019/03/isps-in-au-and-nz-start-censoring-the-internet-without-legal-precedent/
>
>Damned if I can find confirmation online, spent far too long
>searching for it now, but I get a clear impression from a report on
>SBS news last night that this proposed legislation:
>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/02/terrorism-crackdown-laws-could-give-greater-power-to-block-australians-from-websites
>Has been passed.
>
>The part about Morrison nagging other, more powerful, leaders about
>it is true at least. That definately implies that the Australian laws
>have been passed, but I suppose you can't rule out hypocricy.
>https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/25/g7-scott-morrison-to-push-for-action-against-online-terrorist-content
>
>Assuming that it has passed, this sets up a terrible precedent for
>government-controlled internet censorship. After all one man's
>"freedom fighter" is another man's terrorist, and who knows how
>blurry those lines might become in future conflicts which Australia
>may be involved in?
>
>Besides that, the post-Christchurch censorship shows how large sites
>can be blocked due to only a single item of content. Archive.is, a
>site that I've used a number of times before for decidedly
>non-terrory purposes, is _still_ blocked on Telstra, for example. How
>easy would it be for pollys to have sites that they don't like
>examined closely to pick out one item that can be considered covered
>by the new law, and thereby provide and excuse for blocking all of
>it?

Nero doesn't want "us" reading the writing on the wall
https://twitter.com/alx/status/1156248668468666368?fbclid=IwAR2V5_pkf2gOc32nLsY6NtHdOfWJ3Unm19Gcu16i_hmNV4lTIH8tUGZF5XQ
  https://is.gd/XbMSmA  
Why is Instagram removing posts that don’t break rules?

CENSORSHIP IS REAL!
-- 
Petzl 
Good lawyers know the law 
Great lawyers know the judge 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | aus.computers

csiph-web