Major Australian telcos block access to Liveleak, 4chan & others

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

So our net neutrality laws could come into effect? As in all traffic has to be treated equally?

Not sure, I'm a bit dubious that the ISPs are actually allowed to block those sites. If the administrative body that oversees this area doesn't have the legislative power to enforce it then it comes down to other laws but I can't find anything (quickly) that doesn't allow it.

 

The Australian constitution doesn't have the right to freedom of expression in it like our bill of rights does but you do have some case law about it but only around political communication. https://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression

 

Neither does Australia have net neutrality laws from what I can tell.

 

Either way it's not something that sits well with me, ISPs if at all allowed to block sites in this way need to have clear legislation around it, if deemed to be allowed now or in the future.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

You are confusing the ISP's with the government. They are not the same.   ISP's are no authority and are only blocking what they think will land them in trouble, the fact that some are and some aren't is irrelevant. 

 

In fact I am not even sure you understand what is happening here because the law is not actually enforcing anything at the moment, it is just voluntary actions by some ISP's.

I am not getting them confused.

The ISPs are the ones responsible for upholding this particular law by pressure from the government. If the ISPs don't do this action, then there is a risk that they will get into legal trouble. It is the ISPs doing an action directly, but only doing so because of indirect legal threats from the government. I understand what is going on completely.

The ISPs are the authority because they are the ones who has the responsibility of upholding the law set out by the government.

 

The law is proactively being enforced. The ISPs knows of the potential legal actions against them if they fail to comply with the law which requires them to block access to these websites.

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Helps to read the source to be better informed than to just use a thread topic title, small section quoted, and opinion points within the thread. The below information was readily available to read, it's not even that long of an article. 

I did read the article.

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

My original post over this stands as is so I won't repeat it, however I do not object to the ISPs temporarily blocking those sites deemed to not be taking adequate action in the eyes of the ISPs and the public.

I think you know as well as I do that "temporary" things tend to become permanent fairly often. If it's actually a temporary thing then publicly announce the time frame and set up a system which automatically removes the block at a certain date. That's an actual temporary thing. Things without time limits should not be classified as temporary.

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

That doesn't mean I'm not concerned but weighing up the factors I agree with blocking them, along with a parliamentary review of their actions and current legislation and also clarify if the ISPs are allowed to block websites like has happened, which should come first. The ISPs blocking the sites could actually be a breach of law. 

That's an interesting point too. Since the ISPs are saying that they did this on their own without a direct court order, does that mean ISPs are free to block whichever sites they want? If they are free to block let's say LiveLeaks for their own, non-legal reasons then are they allowed to block let's say Netflix for their own reasons too?

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The ISPs are the ones responsible for upholding this particular law by pressure from the government. If the ISPs don't do this action, then there is a risk that they will get into legal trouble. It is the ISPs doing an action directly, but only doing so because of indirect legal threats from the government. I understand what is going on completely.

The ISPs are the authority because they are the ones who has the responsibility of upholding the law set out by the government.

 

The law is proactively being enforced. The ISPs knows of the potential legal actions against them if they fail to comply with the law which requires them to block access to these websites.

The laws only cover content hosted on Australian servers though, these out of Australia hosted websites aren't subject to them and the ISPs aren't currently required to do anything about them. I think they mostly want to be seen doing something than nothing.

 

But if you really want to have your head spin here (Australia too I believe) you can be charged for posts on places like Facebook.

Quote

Police are also speaking with a Masterton woman who posted a message on Facebook about the Christchurch shootings.

It's believed she'll be charged with inciting racial disharmony. On Wednesday evening, a police spokesman said they were still speaking with the woman.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111442026/kiwis-face-charges-related-to-sharing-mosque-massacre-live-stream

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The laws only cover content hosted on Australian servers though, these out of Australia hosted websites aren't subject to them and the ISPs aren't currently required to do anything about them. I think they mostly want to be seen doing something than nothing. 

 

But if you really want to have your head spin here (Australia too I believe) you can be charged for posts on places like Facebook. 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111442026/kiwis-face-charges-related-to-sharing-mosque-massacre-live-stream

Wait, what?

So the ISPs don't actually have any legal obligation to block these websites since they do not break any laws? So if 4chan was hosted in Australia it would be illegal to have the video on there, but since it's hosted in the US it's perfectly fine by Australian law?

 

 

Seems like a really bad idea to give ISPs the power to block whichever websites they like, even if those websites aren't breaking any laws.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

So the ISPs don't actually have any legal obligation to block these websites since they do not break any laws? So if 4chan was hosted in Australia it would be illegal to have the video on there, but since it's hosted in the US it's perfectly fine by Australian law?

Correct.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I am not getting them confused.

The ISPs are the ones responsible for upholding this particular law by pressure from the government. If the ISPs don't do this action, then there is a risk that they will get into legal trouble. It is the ISPs doing an action directly, but only doing so because of indirect legal threats from the government. I understand what is going on completely.

The ISPs are the authority because they are the ones who has the responsibility of upholding the law set out by the government.

 

The law is proactively being enforced. The ISPs knows of the potential legal actions against them if they fail to comply with the law which requires them to block access to these websites.

 

 

I did read the article.

 

 

I think you know as well as I do that "temporary" things tend to become permanent fairly often. If it's actually a temporary thing then publicly announce the time frame and set up a system which automatically removes the block at a certain date. That's an actual temporary thing. Things without time limits should not be classified as temporary.

 

 

That's an interesting point too. Since the ISPs are saying that they did this on their own without a direct court order, does that mean ISPs are free to block whichever sites they want? If they are free to block let's say LiveLeaks for their own, non-legal reasons then are they allowed to block let's say Netflix for their own reasons too?

you are you said right here:

 

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But that is not what is happening here.

What is happening here is that the people responsible for enforcing the law are turning a blindeye to some websites, and only enforcing the law on other sites they probably didn't already like to begin with.

 The people responsible for enforcing the law are the police and they are not "only enforcing it on other sites they probably didn't like to begin with"

 1. it's absolutely wrong, the police are not enforcing any laws right now,  and

2. half of that is your made up opinion on motivation for something that didn't happen.

 

Quote

If you want a speeding analogy, this is as if the police (ISPs and Australian government) only stopped black people (4chan, Voat, liveleaks, etc) for speeding, but let white people (Reddit, Facebook, etc) speed however much they liked.

Again, this has nothing to do with the government and the ISP's are not the police.

 

You indeed have it wrong.

 

[Trik'Stari]

22 hours ago, leadeater said:

He wouldn't know, he's barred from any and all news information and is in isolation. For all he knows there is a zombie apocalypse. 

They're doing what he stated they wanted him to do, in his manifesto.

 

That's concerning.

[Enstage]

15 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

They're doing what he stated they wanted him to do, in his manifesto.

 

That's concerning.

If he said he wanted everyone to have a great day does that mean we all have to be miserable just because we don't want to do what he says... 

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

Seems like a really bad idea to give ISPs the power to block whichever websites they like, even if those websites aren't breaking any laws.

The problem here is the same problem with many other laws that were written long before the internet became a thing,  On one hand the ACMA law says the ISP should take responsibility for the content it allows access to,  while on the other hand their are no laws that specifically call on ISP's to censor anything.

 

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/InternetFiltering

 

So what do ISP's do?  There is no instruction from the government to censor anything while there are laws that make not censoring a potential legal threat.

 

 

[Guest]

On 3/20/2019 at 2:52 AM, Unclescar said:

"we are punishing masses because of the misdeeds of a few"

It’s a bit extreme to say stuff like this. Keep in mind piracy sites are also blocked in Australia. Censorship in this way isn’t really new.

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, Enstage said:

If he said he wanted everyone to have a great day does that mean we all have to be miserable just because we don't want to do what he says... 

Fair point. Until you consider the consequences of the media and governments doing these things, further division between society, media, and government.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Fair point. Until you consider the consequences of the media and governments doing these things, further division between society, media, and government.

I don't think it is beneficial in any way to do the opposite of what such a person requests based on principal.    The consequences of how the media react or the government react is going to be,  whether this person thinks they have dictated the response is moot.  

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

further division between society

Country by country issue though, our media isn't causing social division now or before. Even within political divides our major parties are extremely similar, most people outside of our country would consider them both left leaning, here one is right leaning and one is left leaning. Perspective makes a difference, local vs global view.

 

Even in Australia the "Fraser Anning's" are minority voice, personally know zero Australians that support his view.

[S w a t s o n]

Here's what I want to know, what the fuck did Zero Hedge of all places do to get blocked in this????

[Trik'Stari]

10 minutes ago, S w a t s o n said:

Here's what I want to know, what the fuck did Zero Hedge of all places do to get blocked in this????

Defy government censorship essentially.

 

44 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Country by country issue though, our media isn't causing social division now or before. Even within political divides our major parties are extremely similar, most people outside of our country would consider them both left leaning, here one is right leaning and one is left leaning. Perspective makes a difference, local vs global view.

 

Even in Australia the "Fraser Anning's" are minority voice, personally know zero Australians that support his view.

I'm not arguing for his viewpoint. I'm merely pointing out that they are basically carrying out his work by responding in the way they are.

 

50 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't think it is beneficial in any way to do the opposite of what such a person requests based on principal.    The consequences of how the media react or the government react is going to be,  whether this person thinks they have dictated the response is moot.  

I don't see how it's beneficial to anyone to willfully deny information to the public, as well as increase the divide between the media and the public, when that relationship is already heavily strained by corporation corruption and intellectual dishonesty in the wider media as a whole.

 

This kind of censorship only increase the distrust between the wider public and goverment/media as a whole. I don't view that as beneficial. I don't view any form of censorship as beneficial.

[S w a t s o n]

3 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Defy government censorship essentially.

As in what exactly, did zero hedge have the video posted? This really seems like something they wouldnt comment on

[leadeater]

43 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I'm not arguing for his viewpoint. I'm merely pointing out that they are basically carrying out his work by responding in the way they are.

Yea I get what you meant but not every country is reacting the same way. Neither have I read or care to read his garbage. Not saying I'm not aware of some of the things in it but a lot of his trolling has nothing to do with NZ so I'll take interest in what does rather than what does not.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, S w a t s o n said:

As in what exactly, did zero hedge have the video posted? This really seems like something they wouldnt comment on

I would assume they either had that, or the manifesto he wrote, posted.

[S w a t s o n]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

I would assume they either had that, or the manifesto he wrote posted.

Huh, just took a look at their home page and they are decidedly less investing focused than I assumed. Welp, the world goes on i guess

[mr moose]

36 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I don't see how it's beneficial to anyone to willfully deny information to the public, as well as increase the divide between the media and the public, when that relationship is already heavily strained by corporation corruption and intellectual dishonesty in the wider media as a whole.

 

This kind of censorship only increase the distrust between the wider public and goverment/media as a whole. I don't view that as beneficial. I don't view any form of censorship as beneficial.

Information is not being denied, there are plenty of sources for the information, the only think being blocked are websites that stream the video.  You can still get all the information from any source willing to provide it.

[Unclescar]

12 hours ago, floofer said:

Keep in mind piracy sites are also blocked in Australia

something universally illegal (stealing) is banned?

Let me get my "surprised" colored crayon and scribble all over my face.

Conversing with people and sharing opinions is not and should not be illegal, and peaceful civil methods of sharing those opinions should not be banned, even if some opinions are absolutely disgusting. The actual actions of specific evil individuals should not incur punishment to the non-evil everyone else.

[leadeater]

25 minutes ago, Unclescar said:

Conversing with people and sharing opinions is not and should not be illegal, and peaceful civil methods of sharing those opinions should not be banned, even if some opinions are absolutely disgusting. The actual actions of specific evil individuals should not incur punishment to the non-evil everyone else.

So the posting of the video with no commentary on it therefore no sharing of opinion is happening is fine? There is plenty to discuss without access to the entire video footage, what do you gain by watching it and what exactly about doing so is peaceful.

 

By that measure people plotting attacks should not be arrested before they carry it out either, it's just free speech until they do it so you must wait until they have before taking any action. If you want this everything is allowed mentality then you must also allow that, you must do nothing while knowing what they are going to do and only act afterwards.

 

While you're at it remove all border and airport security, "The actual actions of specific evil individuals should not incur punishment to the non-evil everyone else"

[Drak3]

It's like a modern day Third Reich.

[Zeeus]

On 3/19/2019 at 6:53 PM, Serin said:

Imagine thinking that trying to stamp out content from a terrorist who murdered 50 innocent  people and injured 50 more as 'virtue signalling'.
Jesus F**king christ.
Maybe we should be worried about these people. They seem to be utterly incapable of putting something bigger than their need to furiously masturbate to murder first.

There are places for people like that which also start with A, but not here.

YEP this was my thought exactly, these people get angry over censorship of clearly dispicable sites and theyre upset about "MUH FREEDUMS" stfu. Think bigger than your own selves for a second. Those sites are a legitimate cesspool of inbred morons who talk and do disgusting shit, including child pornography. So yeah REDDIT isnt banned FB isnt banned because theyre not even on the same level. Theres different levels to all things and different places have a certain threshold is what people dont seem to realize

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Unclescar said:

something universally illegal (stealing) is banned?

Let me get my "surprised" colored crayon and scribble all over my face.

Conversing with people and sharing opinions is not and should not be illegal, and peaceful civil methods of sharing those opinions should not be banned, even if some opinions are absolutely disgusting. The actual actions of specific evil individuals should not incur punishment to the non-evil everyone else.

The way you get your toys is if you behave. You misbehave, toys get taken away.