Australian Domain Authority Circumvents Standard Process To Shut Down Site Critical Of Australian Internet Filters

from the due-process? dept

Mon, Dec 21st 2009 7:17am — Mike Masnick

With the news that Australia has decided to censor the internet, a group of protesters decided to set up a website complaining about this effort by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy (who laughably called internet filters "100% effective" based on absolutely no metrics). In setting up this protest site, they were able to register the domain stephenconroy.com.au. Not surprisingly, that got some press attention, and suddenly the Australian domain authority, AuDA, took notice. As Slashdot points out, AuDA completely circumvented its usual due process mechanism, and it gave the holders of the site a grand total of 3 hours to defend themselves. When they asked for more time, they were shut down. Now, there are legitimate questions about whether or not they deserve this domain name. But you would think that AuDA would be willing to at least give them the normal amount of time to craft a reply and defend why the site is legit. The speed of the takedown certainly suggests political motivations -- more than a typical review process -- and highlights the very problem the site was set up to illustrate: why it's bad when the government can suddenly snuff out websites with views it does not like.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: australia, censorship, domain names, filters, stephen conroy
Companies: auda

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 21 Dec 2009 @ 7:30am

Perhaps...
"The speed of the takedown certainly suggests political motivations -- more than a typical review process -- and highlights the very problem the site was set up to illustrate: why it's bad when the government can suddenly snuff out websites with views it does not like."
Perhaps the protesters succeeded in illustrating exactly what's wrong with the system in an even-more-ironic-than-planned way? ; P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2009 @ 8:05am

This has the Streisand Effect written all over it. I think it's already hit Slashdot as well.

So much for censoring, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:, 21 Dec 2009 @ 8:07am

Central
Power is never balanced with a big central authority trying to gain "favors" and "special" exceptions to rules.

I'm starting to think that is because of such things that the term "kangaroo court" was invented LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Anti-Mike, 21 Dec 2009 @ 8:08am

One look at the website and you can see why it was taken down.

Honestly, this is one of those cases where the take down didn't even need a 3 hour window, it is obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 21 Dec 2009 @ 8:17am
  
  Re:
  What, are you kidding?
  That comic on page one sure sells it. : )
  
  What exactly do you find there which makes the case of a site takedown in 3 hours "obvious"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2009 @ 9:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's obvious because it's a person's name, not a protest site (if it was facistpig.com.au or something, it would be debatable), and the harm done in leaving the site up is more than the harm of having the site down during any discussion period.
    
    It is a no brainer.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2009 @ 10:04am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Now slow down for me please and tell me how it's obvious because they used a persons name in conjunction with something that is most certainly not sanctioned by that person. Also it's not a unique name other people could have that name, sure it is unlikely but a normal investigation period would still be required.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2009 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can't explain it to you, because no matter what I say, you would find it wrong. The sky is blue. Now argue that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2009 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not here it isn't. Most of the time it is Grey or White or Black.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        harbingerofdoom (profile), 21 Dec 2009 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        what if........ now stay with me here....
        
        what if, he is asking for you to show him how its so very painfully obvious because.... and here is the twist for you.... its NOT.
        
        you are sitting there spewing out a bunch of noise, but if its so very obvious to you that the fact that they used a politicians name in combination with political protest is something that should be shut down immediately, then im afraid you are the one with a problem cause i dont see its obviousness either.
        
        and the sky is not blue you dolt.
        the color you are seeing is a reflection of light off water. if the sky were blue it would be blue always. the sky itself is actually devoid of color.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Blue sky, 21 Dec 2009 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL
        Lets not let facts get in the way of silly arguments
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Pitabred (profile), 21 Dec 2009 @ 11:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...light off of water? Really? It's due to the fact that the blue wavelength is the most transmissive through our atmosphere. The sky is blue even here in Colorado, the middle of the continent. Seriously, try some science sometime: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/501382
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2009 @ 5:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        lol, no high school physics for you i guess. The sea appears blue because it reflects the sky. The sky appears blue because of the way small particles refract light, the colour of the sea does not effect the sky.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        KevinJ (profile), 21 Dec 2009 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The sky is blue. Now argue that."
        
        Only during a clear day. During sunrise and sunset the sky is more toward the red spectrum, this is due to the diffusion of sunlight in Earth's atmosphere.
        
        And of course they would use Conroy's name when they are protesting his policies. Their site says they have a problem with what he is trying to do, and gives people links to express their displeasure.
        
        "I can't explain it to you, because no matter what I say, you would find it wrong."
        
        You haven't even tried to explain it. How about you give us a reasonable explanation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 21 Dec 2009 @ 3:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really? I thought the sky was black. Oh, it must be because it's nighttime.
        
        Well, that still means you're wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- KevinJ (profile), 21 Dec 2009 @ 9:03am
  
  Re:
  I find it interesting that on two stories since Friday you started going on about how "if you don't follow the rules you have to pay the price" (my summary of your comments). Then on this story you say basically the opposite, that Auda can bypass its own rules on disputed domains and it's just fine and dandy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Dingo ate your baby, 21 Dec 2009 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  Yes, that is all that is required by law ... and you obviously have citations that back you up on your statement. Of course you can not see how this expedited take down policy might be abused, because - youknow ... it's obvious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 21 Dec 2009 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  Exactly, as long as the government is really super sure that they're right, there is no need for due process. We should extend that to the court system. If it's obvious the guy is guilty, don't even bother with a trial. Just lock him up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 21 Dec 2009 @ 8:10am

streisand effect
here it comes again, for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:, 21 Dec 2009 @ 8:30am

[conspiracy]
Anti-Mike is a paid worker(probably a teenager maybe a secretary) who is paid by the lawyer who made a site to discredit this one.
[/conspiracy]

LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Anti-Mike, 21 Dec 2009 @ 10:04am
  
  Re:
  I also eat small children and don't even spit out the bones. I leap tall buildings in a single bound.
  
  yeah, right. take another swig of the techduh koolaid and try again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - harbingerofdoom (profile), 21 Dec 2009 @ 11:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    i believe the part about eating small children and not spitting out the bones...
    
    but really.... tall buildings... in a single bound?
    
    now you are just making things up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - another data point, 21 Dec 2009 @ 11:40am
    
    Re: Re: I suspect that ...
    "take another swig of the techduh koolaid "
    
    Hello Angry Dude
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
robin, 21 Dec 2009 @ 9:02am

this sux
solution:

www.stephen_conroy_sucks.com

i enjoyed the view on their front page noting how a gov't minister for digital matters has never registered his own name as a domain. just clueless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 21 Dec 2009 @ 2:56pm
  
  Re: this sux
  Why is it when I feed that into my browser, Virgin Media gives me (on not finding it of course):
  
  Searches related to: www.stephen_conroy_sucks.com.au
  Sex Sex Toy Adult Movie
  Adult Dating Swingers Adult DVD
  Adult Chat Sex Dating Adult Sex Toy
  Sex Chat
  
  :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facilitator Peter W, 21 Dec 2009 @ 10:30am

Controlling Internet Comment
Justice is the foundation of Gods Teachings, in that, Gods Teachings are not restricted, true, Man must work to learn all that God has provided and enabled. But it is not withheld or made secret.

Restricting Political comment, is a sign of an weak and immoral structure. It is this very structure, that has created this worldwide recession, that is not going to go away.

We either evolve = accepting responsibility, or our future will be dark.

The old structure is finished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facilitator Peter W, 21 Dec 2009 @ 10:36am

Controlling Internet Comment
Justice is the foundation of Gods Teachings, in that, Gods Teachings are not restricted, true, Man must work to learn all that God has provided and enabled. But it is not withheld or made secret.

Restricting Political comment, is a sign of an weak and immoral structure. It is this very structure, that has created this worldwide recession, that is not going to go away.

We either evolve = accepting responsibility, or our future will be dark.

The old structure is finished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 21 Dec 2009 @ 1:00pm

Thats how totalitarian countries operate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mechwarrior, 21 Dec 2009 @ 4:04pm

They should just put up the portraits of Chairman Mao. We know who they aspire to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daemin, 21 Dec 2009 @ 7:21pm

Should not have registered a .au address
I think they deliberately registered a .com.au address to create some uproar over it being taken down. The rules for registering .com.au addresses (here: http://www.auda.org.au/domains/au-domains/) state that you need to be a registered business to do it. How they got one registered without an ACN or ABN is a mystery to me, but no doubt they managed somehow. As far as I am concerned the Australian domain name administrator did what it was meant to do.

So really this whole thing has been overblown, they have not been censored really, just taken down for not following the Australian domain name rules.

And I say this despite how much I hate Stephen Conroy and the Internet censorship policy he's putting forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bvpb, 21 Dec 2009 @ 8:57pm
  
  Re: Should not have registered a .au address
  They are a registered business. I believe the company name is SAPIA. In their correspondence to auDA they claim that they meet all of the criteria for owning a .com.au domain. That's how they registered it in the first place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2009 @ 7:21pm

Welcome to my wonderful country, Australia. The place where we have no right to free speech whatsoever so the government can snuff out whatever the hell they want.

If you love feeling powerless, then feel free to move here. The weather is nice too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]