Best Australian VPN Providers 2017

Traffic P2P Countries # IPs Logs Clients Trial Protocols Offers
unlimited filesharing allowed 94 15000+ No Logs Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS 30 Days Money Back Guarantee OpenVPN, L2TP/IPsec, SSTP, PPTP View Offers
unlimited filesharing allowed 60+ 40000 No Logs Mac, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android 7 Days Money Back Guarantee PPTP, L2TP, Open VPN View Offers
unlimitiert filesharing allowed 190 120.000 Yes Mac, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android 30 Days Free Trial OpenVPN, L2PT, PPTP View Offers
unlimited filesharing allowed 32 unspecified No Logs Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android No L2TP/IP, PPTP, SSTP, OpenVPN View Offers
unlimited (Premium) partially 12 unspecified No Logs Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS Free Version IKEv2, IKEv1, OpenVPN, PPTP, L2TP/IPsec View Offers
unlimitiert partially 141 80000 No Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android 7 Days Money Back Guarantee PPTP, OpenVPN, IKEv2, L2TP/IPSec, SSTP View Offers
unlimited partially 33 2000 Yes Mac, Windows, Linux, iOS, Android 15 Days Money Back Guarantee PPTP, L2TP, OpenVPN, SSTP View Offers
unlimited not allowed 10 unspecified unclear Windows, Mac, Android, iOS No OpenVPN, PPTP View Offers

Watch TV and live streams from Australian with an IP adress from Australian

Best Australian VPN Providers

Internet censorship in Australia now contains a regulatory regime under which the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has the capacity to apply content limitations on Internet content hosted within Australia, and keep a “blacklist” of foreign sites which can be subsequently provided for use in filtering software. The constraints focus mainly on sexual violence, child pornography, as well as other illegal actions, compiled as an effect of a consumer complaints procedure. The OpenNet Initiative found no evidence of Internet filtering but due to legal constraints ONI doesn’t analyze for filtering [1][2]

In October 2008, a policy expanding Internet censorship to a method of compulsory filtering of foreign sites which are, or possibly would be, “refused classification” (RC) in Australia was proposed. Australia is classified as “under surveillance” by Reporters Without Borders as a result of suggested legislation.[3] If enacted, the legislation would require Internet companies to block access to such content for many users. The suggestion has created considerable resistance, using several concerns being raised by adversaries and just several groups firmly in support.[4][5][6][7] On 5 August 2010, the Coalition parties declared that they might not vote for the policy, which makes it nearly impossible for the filtering scheme to pass.[8] In November 2010, the section of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) released a record suggesting the first date any new laws could reach parliament was mid-2013.[9]

Two Australian ISPs, Optus and Telstra, affirmed they’d voluntarily block use of an inventory of child abuse sites supplied by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and much more sites on a list compiled by international organisations that are unnamed from mid year.[10]

In November 2012, the previous Labor Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, withdrew his party’s required Internet filter.[11] On the exact same day, the then Communications Minister said that as an outcome of notices to the Australian biggest ISPs, over 90% of Australians using Internet Services will truly have a web filter. Australian Federal Police will pursue smaller ISPs and work together to fulfilling their “duty under Australian law”.[12] iiNet and Internode quietly affirmed the request to block content from Australian Federal Police went from voluntary to compulsory under s313 in a current law. Legal advice had been sought by iiNet and accepted the s313 required notice but wouldn’t disclose the legal advice freely

Voluntary filtering by ISPs

Two Australian ISPs, Optus and Telstra, affirmed they’d voluntarily block use of an inventory of child abuse sites supplied by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and much more sites on a list compiled by international organisations that are unnamed from mid year.[10]
Internet Industry Association blocker code

Internet Industry Association (IIA) had released a filter code on child abuse for the business. IIA have said that no new legislation changes were required because ISPs were installing filters to block access to ease carrying out legal requests under s313 of the Telecommunications Act.[129][130] However no known code continues to be publicly released yet.

TPG, internode and Exetel have been against the scheme, unless they are compelled by the law. IiNet is one notable exception because they are going to work with no place on the scheme, together with the law. Vodafone is supporting the IIA blocker code, but it’s not clear whether it will be implemented by them.[131]
Legality of compulsory filtering for users

You can find concerns that blocking access on the basis of the Interpol blacklist can establish a criminal action of “incapacity of an electronic communication”, based on Peter Black. The most punishment ten years in prison.[132][133] There was concerns that since Telstra’s filter is currently live, the telco hasn’t altered the end use understanding about limiting accessibility or notified their customers. Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman stopped short of saying Telstra and Optus violated existing contracts, saying the question was “hypothetical one”.[134]
Suggestion for an unbiased Media Council

To be able to hold the press accountable to journalistic standards of truth, equity, impartiality, ethics, and freedom the 28 February 2012 “Report of the Independent Inquiry into Media and Media Regulation” proposes the development of an independent News Media Council covering all platforms (print, online, radio and television) using the capacity to order changes to printed content, publication of a right of reply by anyone or any organisation which makes a charge, as well as the publication of an apology. Refusal to comply could cause media organisation, the writer, or blogger being accused of contempt, a trial with a court, as well as the chance for the fines and/or prison sentences [135]

The suggestion could get the result of converting the code of ethics (MEAA) into laws enforceable. A danger is that bloggers and small publishers may feel coerced into apologies or printing corrections when they lack energy, the time, or resources to defend themselves in court [128]
Anti-censorship efforts

Demonstrations involving hundreds of individuals were held on 1 November 2008, with individuals in most capital cities national marching on state Parliaments,[136] and on 13 December 2008, in all capital cities.[137] The Digital Liberty Coalition organised these demonstrations, declaring an intention to rally constantly until censorship in general is taken off the table.[138][139]

The Internet-based political activism organisation, GetUp!, which has formerly run mainstream efforts activity to free David Hicks and against WorkChoices, is backing the DLC to oppose the internet censorship plan’s offline action. Called during December 2008 for contributions to increase consciousness of Internet censorship. The group raised an unprecedented $30,000 before the close of the first day of the appeal.[136]

GetUp! teamed up with award winning,[140] digital creative service and non traditional Fnuky Advertising to start a campaign to raise consciousness of the defective strategies of the Australian Government to introduce web censorship. The effort impersonated the Australian Federal Government by presenting internet censorship as a mock consumer product branded as Censordyne, a parody of the toothpaste brand Sensodyne.[141] Fnuky Advertising’s Creative Director, David Campbell picked toothpaste as the program for the campaign after Stephen Conroy said the reason for internet censorship in Australia was to “Fight Moral Decay”. One Twitter post by imitation Stephen Conroy, a favorite impersonator Stephen Conroy found during July 2009 the Censordyne effort. The campaign featured an on-line video,[142] a Censordyne merchandise web site[143] and a Censordyne search engine.[144] Within 24 hours of launching, the words GetUp and Censordyne were the number 2 and 3 most mentioned brands on Twitter world-wide. The campaign got widespread coverage and news websites. Censordyne become a subject of discussion on Nova 96.9 radio in Sydney and was featured on the Australian ABC television program Insiders.

GetUp! raised over $45,000 during July 2009 in contributions from the general public to see the Censordyne advertisement on Qantas flights and on TV during the month where all Australian politicians would be travelling to Canberra. Following the Censordyne campaign start, Qantas decided to censor the anti-censorship effort from their flights.

Imprint | Best VPN Providers 2016