Due to the extreme nature of the footage featuring the recent Christchurch attack, we felt it was the appropriate response to place a temporary block on a limited number of websites that have hosted this footage. We are reviewing this in real-time, and note that some of the domains are taking their own steps to remove offensive content; we are continuously altering the list of sites which are blocked. We appreciate it may cause inconvenience for some legitimate users of these sites, and apologise for the inconvenience. Under these extreme circumstances, we feel this is the right thing to do. Thank you.
Have or are? I agree with others that blocking Facebook and Youtube should have been the first priority and then I would have known they were fair dinkum. Blocking these other sites just comes across as a publicity stunt.
I see Zerohedge has been unblocked, please tell me what link they removed to cause the unblocking?
Also please provide links that you object to from the other sites that are causing them to remain blocked?
and please point out where in my broadband contract the part that gives you the right to block legal websites , because I cant find it.
you aren't the Internet police, you have no right to block legal websites without due process. Stick to what you do best which is supplying a second rate Internet service, keep your grubby fingers off the censorship button. I believe you have broken our contract, so I will be going to TPG for my Internet from now on, if you attempt to chase for any costs I will be happy to be a test case and see you in court.
p.s. It's also interesting to see you have sent the same response word for word as Telstra has to its customers, makes me wonder who this "we" is..
Okay, so 4chan mighn't be the most popular website, sure, but you have absolutely no right no block it.
You say you're fufilling community expectations. Well, here's my expectation as a paying customer: you do NOT block sites because of what you think people want. As far as I'm aware, uploading footage from the shooting isn't illegal (not that I want to watch it), and you've even said that the blocks aren't the result of a court order, yet you've gone and IP banned an entire site. Funnily enough, when the courts actually ordered you to ban certain torrent trackers, you only DNS blocked them, making the blocks easy to bypass.
If you want to keep your 1984-tier censorship consistent, you should at least ban Facebook and Youtube too.
Anyway, if this isn't resolved soon, I'll be cancelling my contract and going elsewhere.
Its new territory. A lot of people have died in a gruesome and horrible way. Its been broadcast live and then replayed millions of times. Legality isn't really the question here. Decency is. You feel $50 entitles you the privilege of deciding not to watch something while thousands of other children with mobile phones decide to press play.
Yes Optus isn't really trying that hard to block some teenager downloading a copy of Lego Movie 2. But stopping that same teenager downloading the live vision of a four year old being shot in the head?
Ironically these bans are temporary and clumsy and futile but somehow needed to remind people that put things on the web that their actions actualy have consequences.
"Legality isn't really the question here. Decency is."
It's great that Optus feels that they are the decency police and are protecting me from viewing a site I've browsed for nearly 10 years, just in case I might see something bad.
But are they going to "protect" me forever? If they lift the bans, are they going to continue monitoring these sites? Will they ban them again if someone posts footage of the shooting? If not, then what was the point of the ban in the first place? To look like they're doing something until the whole thing dies down? Leave that to the politicians and police, thanks.
"remind people that put things on the web that their actions actualy have consequences."
Yup, actions have consequences. And Optus IP banning a site I use to discuss TV shows and anime will certainly have a consequence. I'll no longer be giving them $80 every month.
Well I understand your viewpoint. Its somewhat self interested but nothing wrong with just pointing out how you might be affected.
Looking wider, the difficult point of this specific issue (and no doubt many future similar online acts) is that it involved sites that are just part of peoples every day viewing. It wasn't some fringe site that deflights in violent and pornographic material that you had to go searching for. It also was a 'might see something bad' scenario as there was bad material on the sites and it wasn't being removed.
I've no doubt access to all these sites will be reinstated quite quickly (this time). Hopefully those sites directly affected and others have taken stock and perhaps implimented some better processes for dealing with material that most would find objectionable. The 'not our problem' approach to being part of the internet really doesn't cut it much longer IMO.
It seems to me that this is a breach of contract. I can find nothing in the terms and conditions for my account that allows Optus to block addresses on the Internet based solely on its own assessment of the merits of the content reached via those addresses. In the description of the service it says "The service provides broadband access to the internet...". Under "Changes we may make to the service" it mentions blocking ports, but says nothing about blocking IP addresses.
If Optus wants to do this kind of thing, it should change the terms and conditions to say so, and, more importantly, state up fron that the service it provides is one where Optus, in its sole discretion, will decide what can, or cannot, be accessed. Sensible consumers will then show what happens to companies that treat them like children.
On another note, Optus is being rather foolish - all the time that telcos spend trying to persuade governments that they are just common carriers, and not responsible for monitoring content, and then Optus goes and does this.
LiveLeak is based in the UK, which is hardly a bastion of unbridled depravity. Is Optus going to expect every web site in the world to comply with Optus' view on what should or should not be available on the Internet, even where those web sites are hosted in civilised countries, and are complying with the local law? How does Optus imagine this will play out?
By the way, did you check as regards the sharing of IP addresses, before you blocked them? If so, how?
IP addresses are NOT blocked, only thing thats blocked is the Optus supplied DNS has the records of those particular domains directed to nowhere.
If you use a different DNS server then you can access the sites.
Id say the combined legal teams of Optus, Telstra, Vodafonem TPG et all have all checked the legalities of this, hence its implimentation.
I dont appreciate them deciding whats good or bad, plenty of really bad stuff out there with ZERO action unlike this "oh let us protect you"