Australians to block BitTorrent!?

[zmjjmz]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/22/146259

Uh, bad? Very bad?

[markp1989]

That sucks, im dont live in oz. but still, i love torrents , right now i can only download between 12am and 7am, and it anoys me, but to completly ban it is ridicilous.

[eragon100]

Well I am not in Down Under, but seriously, there isn't much free software / movies or whatever you can't get via direct download. Even if there is some, if the license allows redistribution, there is nothing preventing you from putting it on something like megaupload.

Bittorrent always gives me slow and unstable download speeds (and my ISP does *not* block it), it puts a tremendous load on the network for the ISP (and thus for other users), and you can only get a file if it's popular enough for there to be lots of seeds (and not to many peers).

Conclusion: for an end user, bittorrent often doesn't work (correctly.)
It never has, it doesn't, and it probably never will.

Small software projects who can't pay server can move to sourceforge, google code, berlios or whatever, all of which are free and function.

I really wouldn't care if bittorrent got banned here, legal stuff (and illegall stuff) can usually be downloaded directly anyway.

EDIT: According to the news article on news.com, they don't want to block P2P , they only want to filter out illegal content.

[Eisenwinter]

I'm completely against it, I think it hurts Internet users, and whoever proposed this law, is an idiot.

[SuperSonic4]

Yeah but direct downloads are far more unstable, a torrent will restart itself upon reconnection but a direct download will not and windows doesn't have wget -c by default

[eragon100]

Yeah but direct downloads are far more unstable, a torrent will restart itself upon reconnection but a direct download will not and windows doesn't have wget -c by default

That depends on your browser. It won't in IE, but it should restart in firefox and opera, right?

And it can definitely be restarted if you use a download manager.

And windows also doesn't have a torrent program by default.

[jken146]

There is *plenty* of legit stuff on the torrents. Bittorrent saves server bandwidth for many low-budget software projects and in many cases actually speeds up distribution.

[smartboyathome]

Small software projects who can't pay server can move to sourceforge, google code, berlios or whatever, all of which are free and function.

Not true. Many distros, all of which start out as seedlings, would not be able to fit on Google Code, Sourceforge, Berlios, etc. They would have to host it themselves or have a friend host it. If Bittorrent were to all of a sudden disappear, many distros would also, and many of the ones that didn't would be in financial trouble due to the shear amount of bandwidth used each month (and thus, the shear amount of money having to be spent).

[insane_alien]

i predict this will do almost nothing for preventing bittorrent traffic. there will always be a way around it.

the quote 'the internet detects censorship as damage and as such routes around it' (can't remember who said it, sorry) will apply here.

[Eisenwinter]

heh.. if I had the money, I'd totally set up a whole server, just for different Linux distros.

Like, each distro had it's own section, like a full website, just for it, and you could download it and find info on it and etc.

[eragon100]

Not true. Many distros, all of which start out as seedlings, would not be able to fit on Google Code, Sourceforge, Berlios, etc. They would have to host it themselves or have a friend host it. If Bittorrent were to all of a sudden disappear, many distros would also, and many of the ones that didn't would be in financial trouble due to the shear amount of bandwidth used each month (and thus, the shear amount of money having to be spent).

There are complete distros on sourceforge, such as vixta for example.
They fit there perfectly:

www.vixta.sourceforge.net

[Chame_Wizard]

They can't control the Internet(like china):lolflag:.

[handy]

Interestingly, New Zealand is a country where new technological advancements are often trialled first, before being introduced to the rest of the world. For example; fpos, mobile phone network (if I remember correctly), external card terminals for accessing our bank & credit card accounts, there are other things as well, perhaps KiwiNZ will add to this list if he sees this post? Here is a link to another first in N.Z:

http://www.cellular-news.com/story/16895.php .

Anyway, the reason I bring that up in this thread, is that I expect that what is going on in regards to the internet in Oz, is also a test/trial, that may very likely find its way into other countries as time goes by.

I certainly hope that I am wrong about that.

The population of Oz don't want this system, so why do we have to pay for it, & live with it?

A government that truly represents its people surely is hard to find in this day & age. Pandering to corporations has become the pass time of national governments.

[Spike-X]

The Australian government's plan to filter the entire Internet is unworkable, undemocratic, and a complete joke that is doomed to fail.

[gletob]

What's up up with Australia and their internet nazi ways?

[Dr Small]

What's up up with Australia and their internet nazi ways?
greed and control

[Tamlynmac]

I believe the response provide by orielbean (936271) (http://slashdot.org/%7Eorielbean)


they have a censorship minister. enough said!


pretty much says it all.

[smartboyathome]

There are complete distros on sourceforge, such as vixta for example.
They fit there perfectly:

www.vixta.sourceforge.net

Weird, when I tried using it, it said my project was too big, and it was CD sized. :(

[handy]

What's up up with Australia and their internet nazi ways?

I would rephrase that to something along the lines of:

What's up with the Australian federal government?

Which corporate conglomerates are behind the obviously unreasonable infringement of the people of Australia's rights to freely choose how they want to use the internet?

[MikeTheC]

I would rephrase that to something along the lines of:

What's up with the Australian federal government?

Which corporate conglomerates are behind the obviously unreasonable infringement of the people of Australia's rights to freely choose how they want to use the internet?

If you're going to ask those questions, you first need to determine what rights Australians have to begin with, and then go from there. You can't infringe a right which does not exist.

[magmon]

Well I am not in Down Under, but seriously, there isn't much free software / movies or whatever you can't get via direct download. Even if there is some, if the license allows redistribution, there is nothing preventing you from putting it on something like megaupload.

Bittorrent always gives me slow and unstable download speeds (and my ISP does *not* block it), it puts a tremendous load on the network for the ISP (and thus for other users), and you can only get a file if it's popular enough for there to be lots of seeds (and not to many peers).

Conclusion: for an end user, bittorrent often doesn't work (correctly.)
It never has, it doesn't, and it probably never will.

Small software projects who can't pay server can move to sourceforge, google code, berlios or whatever, all of which are free and function.

I really wouldn't care if bittorrent got banned here, legal stuff (and illegall stuff) can usually be downloaded directly anyway.

EDIT: According to the news article on news.com, they don't want to block P2P , they only want to filter out illegal content.

+1, but hey.. What can be considered "illegal" now-days? I only ever download something "illegal" if I own the product, but the disk or files etc is/are damaged. Removing "illegal" things would screw me over if I break something lol.

[mentallaxative]

Which corporate conglomerates are behind the obviously unreasonable infringement of the people of Australia's rights to freely choose how they want to use the internet?

Some time ago there was a report on tv about this and a representative from an anti-child abuse group explained they were pushing for it to stop child pornography. So it's not just companies who have an interest in the filter.

From that same report they interviewed a lecturer in ethics who said that the filtering should go on because the internet is just another form of mass media like newspapers and magazines, which already have some restrictions on their content, eg. you won't find porn on page 3 of the Sunday Times.

[MikeTheC]

@ OP

Well, there go my post-apocalyptic retirement plans...

[handy]

Some time ago there was a report on tv about this and a representative from an anti-child abuse group explained they were pushing for it to stop child pornography. So it's not just companies who have an interest in the filter.

There has been strong opposition from organisations involved in child welfare. They say that this type of action will have no positive effect on the problem, it is an inefficient & ineffective method of protecting children.



From that same report they interviewed a lecturer in ethics who said that the filtering should go on because the internet is just another form of mass media like newspapers and magazines, which already have some restrictions on their content, eg. you won't find porn on page 3 of the Sunday Times.

Because one lecturer says it that does not say it is the correct thing or that the it is what the vast majority of the population desires.

This filtering will not stop anyone from accessing whatever they like. School children & paedophiles will know the way around the filter much faster than the average computer user will.

I expect that both the representative of the anti-child abuse organisation & the professor are either ignorant of technical realities or have ulterior motives.

There are always insecure people who feel most comfortable when their environment is controlled in a way that suits the way that they think.

These people are in all walks of life, professors & social workers are not immune to this condition.

Some people have this type of thought motivated &/or strengthened by their religious beliefs as well, & I'm sure that the majority of the tiny minority of Australians that are pro-censorship are also motivated by their particular take on religion, which by the way most of them inherited from their parents.

[handy]

If you're going to ask those questions, you first need to determine what rights Australians have to begin with, and then go from there. You can't infringe a right which does not exist.

No I don't because I'm not standing in a court of law, or writing a thesis on a subject.

If you don't like my use of the word rights, change it to one that suits your obviously pedantic mind.

So long as you don't change the meaning of my questions I don't care what words you use. :-)

[MikeTheC]

No I don't because I'm not standing in a court of law, or writing a thesis on a subject.

If you don't like my use of the word rights, change it to one that suits your obviously pedantic mind.

So long as you don't change the meaning of my questions I don't care what words you use. :-)

Calm down, calm down. I wasn't attacking you.

I'm not saying I like the notion of a government restricting it's citizens exercise of individual liberty. What I am saying is that, for any such discussion to be meaningful, you have to know if such rights even exist.

Give you a for-instance. It could otherwise be construed as political, but I'm simply citing it as a for-instance.

Australians had their ability to have and to carry firearms removed a few years ago by their Government. From my perspective as an American, that would seem to be unacceptable. (Remember, your mileage may vary.) Anyhow, the thing is they have no constitutional right (or some other equally unassailable equivalent) which protects gun ownership, so saying "Australians' gun ownership rights were violated" would be pretty meaningless.

So, moving this right back to the technological conversation from which it originated, what rights, specifically, have been diminished, eroded or removed in this particular case? Is it "freedom of speech"? Is it the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? (Now, I'm not trying to argue whether "free speech" attaches in this case, but it's a frequently bandied-about talking-point here in the 'States.) Do either of these concepts exist in Australian law?

See, the reason you want to know these things is twofold. First, it helps to have something really good and juicy to talk about. Second, if it turns out this happens to be actionable, then maybe (well outside of UbuntuForums, of course) a conversation amongst Australians needs to take place about this and what could be done.

Just sayin'...

[eragon100]

Weird, when I tried using it, it said my project was too big, and it was CD sized. :(

That's strange, I have dowhnloaded a 2.4 GB file from there once (but I don't know which one it was anymore)

[handy]

Calm down, calm down. I wasn't attacking you.

It's ok, I wasn't getting excited. :-) It is very easy to take a meaning that varies from the one intended in forums I know.



I'm not saying I like the notion of a government restricting it's citizens exercise of individual liberty. What I am saying is that, for any such discussion to be meaningful, you have to know if such rights even exist.

Give you a for-instance. It could otherwise be construed as political, but I'm simply citing it as a for-instance.

Australians had their ability to have and to carry firearms removed a few years ago by their Government. From my perspective as an American, that would seem to be unacceptable. (Remember, your mileage may vary.) Anyhow, the thing is they have no constitutional right (or some other equally unassailable equivalent) which protects gun ownership, so saying "Australians' gun ownership rights were violated" would be pretty meaningless.

Good example, it illustrates your point perfectly.



So, moving this right back to the technological conversation from which it originated, what rights, specifically, have been diminished, eroded or removed in this particular case? Is it "freedom of speech"? Is it the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? (Now, I'm not trying to argue whether "free speech" attaches in this case, but it's a frequently bandied-about talking-point here in the 'States.) Do either of these concepts exist in Australian law?

See, the reason you want to know these things is twofold. First, it helps to have something really good and juicy to talk about. Second, if it turns out this happens to be actionable, then maybe (well outside of UbuntuForums, of course) a conversation amongst Australians needs to take place about this and what could be done.

Just sayin'...

I agree with what you are saying. I am quite sure that the legal issues have been looked at by the various organisations that are opposed to the government imposing its control on the internet.

I personally don't have the detailed knowledge on the subject unfortunately so I can't contribute to really juicy discussion on the subject. Much as I would like to. ;-)

It may very well be true, that legally, we in the land of Oz don't have any legal rights with regard to our freedom to choose the internet content that we would like to access, or for that matter how we would like to access it, when P2P gets bought into the discussion.

Which is not a comforting thought.

[Spike-X]

What's up up with Australia and their internet nazi ways?
The current Federal government feels that they have to kowtow to a certain group of Bible-thumpers who currently hold a disproportionate amount of power in the Australian Senate.

[billgoldberg]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/22/146259

Uh, bad? Very bad?

From what I have read, they are going to filter http, https and p2p network traffic to search for kiddie porn and terrorist threads (we can all see where this will lead to).

I would flip out if that happened in my country.

[itsStephen]

I am really getting sick of Kevin Dudd. I wonder if he's ever felt the pain of Tasmania's Internet speeds already and now he's making it even slower.

And blocking torrents? That's ridiculous!

Last year he seemed like he'd make a really good pm, it was even the first time my parents voted labor. Now I think I'd rather the monkey back.

[thestig_992]

This is a site i found in protest

http://www.banthisurl.com/

and this one is a petition against it, linked from the first site

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442


While im at it, i may as well point out that blocking sites is pointless, anyone who wants to can easily get around the filters, people can still dl illegal things from direct download, all while innocent people are stuck with slower internet, and potentially millions of legitimate sites blocked.

[handy]

From what I have read, they are going to filter http, https and p2p network traffic to search for kiddie porn and terrorist threads (we can all see where this will lead to).

I would flip out if that happened in my country.

Terrorist threads!

Whenever you see the word terrorist being used by a government you know you are being lied to.

The threat of terrorism has been created to mould & manipulate populations by using fear. All in the interest of corporate greed.

As people are using the TV & printed media less & less, due to the information freely available on the internet, the power-mongers are loosing control of the information that the populations are reading.

Therefore they see that they must control the information available to us via the internet.

The battle is on.

[red_Marvin]

Some time ago there was a report on tv about this and a representative from an anti-child abuse group explained they were pushing for it to stop child pornography. So it's not just companies who have an interest in the filter.

The problem is that such filtering (if they ever got it to work effectively at all) would only have an impact on the distribution of child pornography, not hinder the creation of the content as such, which is where the child is abused in the first place.
An analogy that I hope is not too far away, is limiting the availability of cars, to hinder bank robbery, because cars are the most common and convenient getaway vehicle.

[handy]

Child pornographers would only have to use some form of proxy service to avoid detection.

[samjh]

So, moving this right back to the technological conversation from which it originated, what rights, specifically, have been diminished, eroded or removed in this particular case? Is it "freedom of speech"? Is it the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? (Now, I'm not trying to argue whether "free speech" attaches in this case, but it's a frequently bandied-about talking-point here in the 'States.) Do either of these concepts exist in Australian law?

Constitutionally, there are no such rights. At least there are no explicit provisions in the Australian Constitution for such rights.

In fact, the Australian Constitution mentions very few rights (acquisition of property, trial by jury, etc.). There is much debate about the need for a Bill of Rights in Australia because of the lack of legal protections for broad human rights of Australians.

According to common law - as dished out by the High Court of Australia - the judiciary does recognise "freedom of speech" as an implied right in the context of political communication and matters of public interest (ie. election campaigns, corruption, etc.). But notice the very narrow application of the right to political and public interest matters. There is no general right of "freedom of speech".

"Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is a very American "right". No such right exists in Australia - either explicit or implied.



<- Law student, currently studying Constitutional Law.

[MikeTheC]

I would really love the opportunity sometime to learn all about the history, culture, politics and societal goings-on of Australia.

[wolfen69]

Bittorrent always gives me slow and unstable download speeds

Conclusion: for an end user, bittorrent often doesn't work (correctly.)
It never has, it doesn't, and it probably never will.




you are doing something wrong then. torrents have always been reliable and very fast for me and my friends. in your conclusion, who are you speaking for? i have news for you, bittorrent is an extremely popular way to download and share files. it's not going anywhere.

i've been using bittorrent now for about 9 years and have never had a problem using it. and in case you didn't know, it is the most reliable way of getting a file that will match the original as far as integrity. the way bittorrent works is that it's always checking the integrity of the bits coming in. far more reliable than a straight download that has no way of preventing bad data from being downloaded.

[handy]

I agree, torrents are brilliant, for many a distro torrents are the prime form of distribution.

[magmon]

you are doing something wrong then. torrents have always been reliable and very fast for me and my friends. in your conclusion, who are you speaking for? i have news for you, bittorrent is an extremely popular way to download and share files. it's not going anywhere.

i've been using bittorrent now for about 9 years and have never had a problem using it. and in case you didn't know, it is the most reliable way of getting a file that will match the original as far as integrity. the way bittorrent works is that it's always checking the integrity of the bits coming in. far more reliable than a straight download that has no way of preventing bad data from being downloaded.

Bittorrent is horridly slow for me if Im downloading a popular file because the seeds are so widely spread, I end up downloading from like 1 peer x.x

Direct download is preffered for me, but sometimes I cant find what I want.

[eragon100]

you are doing something wrong then. torrents have always been reliable and very fast for me and my friends. in your conclusion, who are you speaking for? i have news for you, bittorrent is an extremely popular way to download and share files. it's not going anywhere.

i've been using bittorrent now for about 9 years and have never had a problem using it. and in case you didn't know, it is the most reliable way of getting a file that will match the original as far as integrity. the way bittorrent works is that it's always checking the integrity of the bits coming in. far more reliable than a straight download that has no way of preventing bad data from being downloaded.

They are only popular because a lot of things can only be obtained in that way. They put a tremendous load on the network because there are 100's of connections instead of 1, and I think most people would use direct download if it would be possible. It's more reliable for the end user. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I tough 'normal' internet protocols also checked for data los?

[markp1989]

Bittorrent is horridly slow for me if Im downloading a popular file because the seeds are so widely spread, I end up downloading from like 1 peer x.x

Direct download is preffered for me, but sometimes I cant find what I want.

you prob having the same problem as me, my ISP throttle torrent traffic . so i can only download during the night.

ps my isp is AOL UK , well now the car phone warehouse

[zmjjmz]

My ISP (Comcast) used to block torrents, so I had to avoid them, but now that the FCC got on their *** about it I can torrent at full speed.
Torrents are really fast. I got a steady 781KB/s download rate using apt-p2p when upgrading my Breeze 3110 to Intrepid. Since I switched it to apt-p2p, installation of software and updates have been really insanely fast.

[handy]

Have you people with torrent trouble tried using encrypted torrents?

Apparently the encryption was added to make it more difficult for ISP's that limit torrent traffic to detect torrents.

There is software available to ISP's that will allow them to detect encrypted torrents, though it is not in wide use, from what I have read.

[samjh]

Have you people with torrent trouble tried using encrypted torrents?

Apparently the encryption was added to make it more difficult for ISP's that limit torrent traffic to detect torrents.

There is software available to ISP's that will allow them to detect encrypted torrents, though it is not in wide use, from what I have read.

I always use encrypted torrents, but they're still awfully slow. When I tried to download Ibex using torrents, it was doing about 10kB/s, on a connection that usually does 150kB/s using direct download links.

[handy]

I always use encrypted torrents, but they're still awfully slow. When I tried to download Ibex using torrents, it was doing about 10kB/s, on a connection that usually does 150kB/s using direct download links.

Bummer.

[eragon100]

I always use encrypted torrents, but they're still awfully slow. When I tried to download Ibex using torrents, it was doing about 10kB/s, on a connection that usually does 150kB/s using direct download links.

Same for me.

[etnlIcarus]

They put a tremendous load on the network because there are 100's of connections instead of 1, and I think most people would use direct download if it would be possible. The 'connections' are completely insignificant compared to the sheer amount of data being transferred. It seems you've been the victim of FUD or general misinformation. If p2p didn't exist, big media and ISPs who are too cheap to update their infrastructure would be complaining about the evils of http/ftp downloads on their networks.


As for this subject, the plans to inspect p2p packets is moronic on a number of levels but that's nothing new to Labor's filtering plans. Hopefully the ineptitude with which this whole project is being handled and it's utter futility will prevent it from passing in either house of parliament.

[handy]

Hear hear.