Have you had your Censordyne today?

[Shorty]

According to a recent article the results from the Labor government's recent trial of ISP-level filtering software are in (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/312354/isps_give_clean_feed_filter_technical_green-light). The results were apparently relatively positive, with five of the ISPs reporting no slowdowns in Internet speeds or problems with the filtering software. However, there were problems with the trial including a lack of voluntary participation and problems with overblocking and moderation of the block list.

Personally, I don't think the study is really worth a damn considering how few people participated in it and whether any program that at most involved several thousand customers (and sometimes as few as 15) will scale up to dealing with millions of Australians accessing the Internet. I find it quite telling that the person being the most positive about the results of this trial just happens to be running an ISP that sells filtered Internet access. Senator Conroy's department has stated that the results of the trial will "inform the government's opinion" on mandatory ISP-level filtering but I remain unconvinced that Conroy will let this one go just yet.

So, have you had your Censordyne (http://www.censordyne.com.au/) today?

[AranchineD]

Managing director of Nelson Bay Online, Patrick Sayer, said only 1 per cent of his entire customer base decided to opt-into the system, resulting in just 15 users.

When asked if he believed the trials provided a fair representative study, Hutton’s answer was an unequivocal “no”.

“That’s why we’ve asked for an extension to continue the trial till the end of this month and I understand a number of other ISPs have done the same thing,” he said.

As weird as this may be to say, I'm hoping those ISPs do get a lot more time and volunteers for the service just to see how the service would be if there's more than a few thousand people on it at a time, so we don't end up in the situation of deciding if the filter will work fine from a test that isn't really good enough (because we know which way it would go if that happened).

Plus all the ISPs in the trial still haven't reported back yet, let's see what happens with that.

[Shorty]

Honestly, I don't think there's any problem that has emerged in this experiment that won't be greatly exacerbated by a larger sample size. The technology being proposed and tested with this experiment is not very scaleable and expanding your pool in this instance will really only increase the number of cock-ups that will result from it.

[igotnewsuper8systemWRONG!]

Is this the reason I can't get into redtube?

[Fenrir]

I haven't been bothered to follow this for a while. Was this just a blacklist test across the board (which I'm not really surprised to see succeed, but doubt the coverage* of), or a test of dynamic filtering (which I doubt would perform anywhere near "positive")?


*Surely there are magnitudes more RC-worthy content on the web than the golden "10000 links" figure we hear so much about.

[dimorphic]

This is the very reason why I am a swing voter. This one issue will turn me to vote for the Liberal Party should it be passed and they propose to abolish it.

[texta]

Unless there's an across the board move to voluntarily adopt it (perhaps in parallel to the NBN roll out) it's not going to pass without the Libs' support.

Also the Getup Censordyne ad is a truly terrible piece of propaganda.

[sausage]

Boo - expecting a thread on toothpaste. Will not read again.

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

I'd worry less about the Australian government and more about the fact it seems the Hyperactive Tag Police removed **** and ******.

You removed my already censored (DATS DA JOKE) words but left "child porn"

Good work.

[Azzaman]

Censorship on the hyper forums!

[StorminNorman]

Fun fact: There's no mention of their internet censorship plans in the Draft Platform for this week's ALP National Conference.

It's almost like they're trying to hide it.

(cue mindless Labor defenders trying to justify why it's not there...)

[texta]

I'd worry less about the Australian government and more about the fact it seems the Hyperactive Tag Police removed **** and ******.

You removed my already censored (DATS DA JOKE) words but left "child porn"

Good work.The more things change the more they stay the same.

[Shorty]

I'd worry less about the Australian government and more about the fact it seems the Hyperactive Tag Police removed **** and ******.

You removed my already censored (DATS DA JOKE) words but left "child porn"

Good work.

Actually, under Rule [REDACTED], Section [REDACTED], Article [REDACTED], you're not authorised to let anyone know we've deleted any of your tags. Failure is punishable by 1 hour in the Comfy Chair. :p

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

Controversy averted.

[Shorty]

NSW Director of Public Prosecutions slams Clean Feed. (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/dpp-blasts-net-censor-plan-20090805-e9mq.html)

[Fenrir]

Where we seem to be today. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/02/2673749.htm)

I figure this discussion is due for a revisit.
The government currently implements no system, and Minchin is pretty much everyone's favourite Lib by a long shot. Even the comments, of what I read, are well-reasoned - the mob is actually settled and civil in its cynicism of filter policy.

Conroy may have a leg to stand on in regards to performance issues - implemented properly, it is unlikely that a basic blacklist filter* covering ~10,000 links will severely impact internet speeds - but the reality of the sheer amount (and rate of increase) of RC-able content on the internet, alongside the deep web fog-of-war, not to mention the civilized world's expectation of privacy and dependence on cryptography, put an effective filter well outside the realms of possibility.


*Dynamic filters are a whole other can of worms, and could technically suggest a whole range of vastly different proposals with entirely different concerns.

[Shorty]

I agree with you, but I think the concerns around even a basic blacklist filter cover more than just performance. Mark Newton's been systematically demolishing the Government's arguments on the filter since it was first proposed and his letter to Hon. Kate Ellis sums them up in seven main points:

Dear Ms. Ellis,

I've sent you letters dated 20 October 2008, 17 November 2008, 18 December 2008, 10 February 2009 and 4 May 2009 detailing various parts of my opposition to the Rudd/Conroy censorship scheme.

I've received no replies, and have had no evidence that you've in any way addressed my concerns.

Meanwhile I've had replies from Sen. Sarah Hanson-Young, Sen. Nick Minchin, Sen. Cory Bernardi, Sen. Nick Minchin and Sen. Scott Ludlam about the same issue.

It seems everyone except you wants to talk about it.

Just in case you've forgotten, the thrust of my arguments are:

1. No compelling need for the system has been demonstrated,

2. Even if there was a need, there's been no serious public demand for the Government to solve it,

3. Even if there was a public demand, this particular proposed solution won't work,

4. Even if it worked it's too expensive,

5. Even if it was affordable it'll be poorly-implemented by ham-fisted public servants,

6. Even if it was implemented perfectly the blacklist will leak and be published, making the "problem" even worse; and

7. There is absolutely no possibility that the blacklist won't leak.

Since I started discussing this with you:

(1) has been backed up by ACMA research,

(2) has been backed by public campaigns against the Conroy/Rudd scheme, including representations from child welfare groups,

(3) has been shown by observing that even the Chinese and Iranians, the world leaders in censorship, can't censor their own citizens' Internet use,

(4) has been backed up with testimony from the IIA, and the fact that Sen. Conroy cited the unexpectedly high cost of the scheme as a reason for the delay of the current "live trials",

(5) has been shown by revelations of ACMA censoring Bill Henson photos, Queensland dentists, boarding kennels, inaccurately-classified anti-abortion sites, and Iranian protest videos, and "Russian Mob" allegations which have turned Minister Conroy into a laughing stock,

(6) has been proved conclusively by the actual leaking of the Australian blacklist, alongside similar lists from Denmark, Finland, Thailand, Norway and China; and

(7) is completely inarguable, after observing that the Australian list leaked twice more after the initial leak on 11 March 2009.

In every meaningful respect, events that have unfolded have confirmed the predictions I've made.

After being right for so long, why am I still being ignored?

Sincerely,

Mark Newton

[Fenrir]

Firstly,
Hon. Kate Ellis
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/09/16/kateellis_narrowweb__200x329.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Kate_ellis.jpg

This should be in the "Would you..." thread - I could see hittin' that. :cool:

Not entirely unrelated: why is Mark Newton harassing this poor lass? Does she answer to Conroy?

Anyway,
... replies from Sen. Sarah Hanson-Young, Sen. Nick Minchin, Sen. Cory Bernardi, Sen. Nick Minchin ...
Is Minchin, er, meant to be mentioned twice? Get someone to proofread your letters, Newton. >_>

3. Even if there was a public demand, this particular proposed solution won't work,
Common ground.
4. Even if it worked it's too expensive,
...
(4) has been backed up with testimony from the IIA, and the fact that Sen. Conroy cited the unexpectedly high cost of the scheme as a reason for the delay of the current "live trials",
Would like to see this evidence (not that I'm cynical of it); and it seems to contrast with ISPs stating filtering will only add another ~$5/month to the bill, if that.

5. Even if it was affordable it'll be poorly-implemented by ham-fisted public servants,
...
(5) has been shown by revelations of ACMA censoring Bill Henson photos, Queensland dentists, boarding kennels, inaccurately-classified anti-abortion sites, and Iranian protest videos, and "Russian Mob" allegations which have turned Minister Conroy into a laughing stock,
Probably fair comment, but I'm not even sure what the criteria for the prior blacklist was, who established it, etc. I heard that most of the list was based on phone-in complaints, and much of the content may've just been deemed unacceptable for viewing by minors - it did end up in the end-user filtering package the Libs put out, after all.

On this subject, I'd wait until they really get serious about the blacklist, define the criteria upon which it is to be based more clearly, categorize things properly, etc - and see what appears in the leaked list then. ;)
leak-related points
Definitely agreed; but I was never really convinced of the importance of keeping the blacklist secret, anyway.

Newton doesn't seem to be leaning on performance arguments here, either, so I'd say Conroy practically has his moot victory.
Overall the only point out of these that really concerns me is 3, and possibly 1, 2 and 4.

[Azzaman]

Fun Fact: a guy I work with used to go to uni with her and apparently she is the slackest person he's ever met. Also she used to (and probably still does) binge drink every weekend.

[Araenel]

Did she do better than him? I bet she did.

[Azzaman]

Did she do better than him? I bet she did.

Well, he's sitting near me in a pretty shite job, so yeah, I suppose she did do better ;)

[texta]

Not entirely unrelated: why is Mark Newton harassing this poor lass? Does she answer to Conroy?She's his local member.

Minchin is pretty much everyone's favourite Lib by a long shot.
I take back everything I said about young people getting the vote. If people are so stupid and naive to be sucked in by a gutless **** like Minchin they should not be allowed to vote or breed.

[sausage]

I see what you did there.

[Shorty]

Probably fair comment, but I'm not even sure what the criteria for the prior blacklist was, who established it, etc. I heard that most of the list was based on phone-in complaints, and much of the content may've just been deemed unacceptable for viewing by minors - it did end up in the end-user filtering package the Libs put out, after all.

On this subject, I'd wait until they really get serious about the blacklist, define the criteria upon which it is to be based more clearly, categorize things properly, etc - and see what appears in the leaked list then. ;)

If we can't get oversight without a (possibly illegal) leak of information on something as important as this, then something's wrong. This is Australia, for crying out loud. Not trusting our government is a national pasttime.

Definitely agreed; but I was never really convinced of the importance of keeping the blacklist secret, anyway.

But what use is a leaked blacklist, apart from embarassing the people who put it together and making the truly bad stuff (ie. things that are actually illegal to view), if there even is any on the list, quickly disappear?

[Stevorooni]

If their amazing filter is so great then the blacklist leaking shouldn't matter because we won't be able to access the sites anyway.

By not making it public they're just confirming that they don't believe the filter will be effective either.

[texta]

If we can't get oversight without a (possibly illegal) leak of information on something as important as this, then something's wrong. This is Australia, for crying out loud. Not trusting our government is a national pasttime.
I guess it's lucky that judicial review of executive action is guaranteed in the constitution. Crisis averted... 109 years ago!

[Azzaman]

I guess it's lucky that judicial review of executive action is guaranteed in the constitution. Crisis averted... 109 years ago!

How often does this happen and how long does it take each time?

[Fenrir]

I take back everything I said about young people getting the vote. If people are so stupid and naive to be sucked in by a gutless **** like Minchin they should not be allowed to vote or breed.
I didn't say anything about voting. I'm not too familiar with Minchin's political past - the two major black marks against his name appear to be strong support of Telstra privatization and doubting the human role in climate change 2 years ago - so I'm not about to blindly throw votes his way.
Still, my point stands, that Conroy has allowed Minchin to claw back a lot of credibility with this issue alone.

Anyway, who's your pick of the Libs? Surely the senate bunch are looking a whole lot better than the laughing stock that is Turnbull et al?

If we can't get oversight without a (possibly illegal) leak of information on something as important as this, then something's wrong. This is Australia, for crying out loud. Not trusting our government is a national pasttime.
Like I said (or at least in the same ballpark), there's no real point to oversight over a list that isn't really doing anything.

But what use is a leaked blacklist, apart from embarassing the people who put it together and making the truly bad stuff (ie. things that are actually illegal to view), if there even is any on the list, quickly disappear?
I don't think I'm getting your point, here.

[texta]

Anyway, who's your pick of the Libs? Surely the senate bunch are looking a whole lot better than the laughing stock that is Turnbull et al?Petro Georgiou in the reps and maybe Bill Heffernan in the Senate.

But in saying that I don't want to imply that either of them are actually good.

[Shorty]

Like I said (or at least in the same ballpark), there's no real point to oversight over a list that isn't really doing anything.

So long as the filter is mandatory, the list will always be "doing something". Remove that provision and 99% of the argument against it will disappear.

I don't think I'm getting your point, here.

I'll put it another way. If Conroy is telling the truth (which is highly unlikely), and this list is indeed a "worst of the worst" list of the nasty shit on the Internet, then a leak means that the government will have inadvertently provided a handy list of nasty Internet pages for anyone that is interested. If Conroy isn't telling the truth, then having everyone find out that the list is actually mostly compromised of content that is legal to own and the occasional "accident" will just make him look even more incompetent than he already does.

Either way, he cannot win.

[Shorty]

And now Scientology is getting involved (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/07/0520225/Church-of-Scientology-Proposes-Net-Censorship-In-Australia?art_pos=1). No, seriously.

[Lazlow]

lol, Anonymous eventually got under their skin :p

[StorminNorman]

Anonymous declares war on internet censorship. (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/27576/53/)

FORT Australia: More Smoke, More Mirrors. (http://www.efa.org.au/2009/09/09/fort-australia-forum-more-smoke-more-mirrors/#more-636)

There's a hilarious anecdote on the Whingepool forums about how the AFA chick at that FORT meeting was blathering on about how censoring the internet will somehow protect our children from watching X-rated DVDs.

[Serenity]

Heard something about the PM's site being brought down last night, they apparently tried to get into Conroy's too.

http://livenews.com.au/news/pms-website-hacked/2009/9/9/218885

[Shorty]

As of this post, Mark Newton's most recent post over at Whirlpool details the shenanigans behind ACMA's handling of a complaint (http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1280335&r=20757180#r20757180) regarding iTunes's movie gifting system. Congratulations, ACMA, you're more restrictive than Thailand and Saudi Arabia when it comes to gifting movies to people. And in the week before Father's Day? Classy.

[StorminNorman]

The really bizarre part of that are those Robert Mapplethorpe photos that ACMA considers "PG" rated.

But yeah, ACMA being able to tell you how to run your business is a gross overstepping of their responsibilities.

[Shorty]

No doubt. There's also talk of the publishing of the filtering report's findings being pushed back to October 26 (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/27803/53/). I'm predicting it won't be good news for Conroy, if he eventually gets pulled out of his deep state of denial.

[Fenrir]

Pushed back? That's little more than a month away - were we meant to see the reports in the next few days?

Anyway, hypothetically, if upon receiving the reports he adopts the technical view that an effective filter isn't viable, will that change opinions of him?
As far as I can tell, Conroy's position has been ideological support of filtering, no technological stance apart from "we'll be guided by the trials"...and a whole lot of confusion about the coverage of the filters and a resulting media circus. To me, the second point is fine - he's admitting a lack of technical aptitude, and outsourced that concern to people who are hopefully unbiased experts in the field, who should offer a resounding "not plausible" after engaging in the prerequisite procedure - but he has fumbled the policy, and most of us disagree on the ideology.

I think for the most part, I can wait and see how the NBN and Telstra's separation unfold between now and the next election before I make my mind up. It's good to see both happening, but both could be botched in due course. If they go well, I can agree to disagree on filter ideology, and probably won't have the time or motivation to read up on his political infighting past.
He'll probably be re-elected, though - I will probably be voting below the line on the senate form, but will others bother?

[REQUIEM]

Is this the reason I can't get into redtube?

nope its fine on my ISP :P

It should be put to a vote, isnt that what a DEMOCRATIC society would do. Either way if it comes into play that Australia becomes the arse end of the modern world it will be cracked like everything else is.

[Araenel]

nope its fine on my ISP :P

It should be put to a vote, isnt that what a DEMOCRATIC society would do. Either way if it comes into play that Australia becomes the arse end of the modern world it will be cracked like everything else is.

Except the kind of "democracy" you're referring to doesn't really work in a country with a population over say...a few hundred.

I don't really see people flying off the handle demanding a vote be put to the people every time there's a new roadworks proposal.

[Shorty]

Perhaps, but I think there's still a case to be made for our representatives in our representative democracy to do a better job of representing us by listening to the outcry of public opinion against the proposal.

[texta]

To be honest I'd rather a Government (constrained by regular elections) that does what it thinks is in our best interests than one that just does what the majority of people want.

To use the filtering as an example. If the reports came back and said that the filters would cripple our Internet speed but polling suggested that the majority of Australians wanted it anyway would you be okay with the Government putting it in?

[REQUIEM]

Except the kind of "democracy" you're referring to doesn't really work in a country with a population over say...a few hundred.

I don't really see people flying off the handle demanding a vote be put to the people every time there's a new roadworks proposal.

Filtered Internet access is a bit more substancial than roadworks bud.

[Araenel]

But ~DEMOCRACY~ demands votes.

The people must decide!!

[REQUIEM]

But ~DEMOCRACY~ demands votes.

The people must decide!!

And it can be printed on the next election ballet...

Do you want filtered internet access tick YES or NO . It wouldnt be hard to gain Australia's opinion and save millions of dollars and prevent DO GOODERS trying to tell everybody else what we want.

[Daniel]

And it can be printed on the next election ballet...

Do you want filtered internet access tick YES or NO . It wouldnt be hard to gain Australia's opinion and save millions of dollars and prevent DO GOODERS trying to tell everybody else what we want.

Do you honestly believe that would be the question though? The vote would be, "Do you care about children?"

[Shorty]

To be honest I'd rather a Government (constrained by regular elections) that does what it thinks is in our best interests than one that just does what the majority of people want.

To use the filtering as an example. If the reports came back and said that the filters would cripple our Internet speed but polling suggested that the majority of Australians wanted it anyway would you be okay with the Government putting it in?

Of course not, just as I wouldn't want the government trying to push through something that the people don't want (as is the reality with filtering). Either situation represents an imbalance that needs to be rectified, whether it's the government needing to listen to the peple or people needing to listen to the government (as per your example).

[Fenrir]

Well, neglecting to sift through your rationale more thoroughly, how do you tell the difference between the two?

[Shorty]

That's a good question. I guess you'd examine the discussion to ascertain who is putting the greatest "push" behind the proposal in question. In the case of the Clean Feed, it's clear that there is no overwhelming public demand for it and that the Federal Government, specifically Minister Conroy and the DBCDE (along with certain special interest groups), is the main force behind the plan. Even the ISPs knew it wasn't viable, which is why so few volunteered for the live "testing" in the first place.

[REQUIEM]

Do you honestly believe that would be the question though? The vote would be, "Do you care about children?"

Do you think that the 5% (being liberal ) of sick Fks that look at kiddie porn and their related sights should slowdown the net for the rest of us? Personally my opinion is let the taxpaying adults decide and in regards to the children the parents can put blocks on their PC's its THEIR job to protect the kids not the governments. Just look at the lack of an R 18 for games in Australia to show the rest of world how us aussies cant think for ourselves. It starts with net restrictions then it moves to other areas. Are you stating Daniel that if you had a child you couldnt be trusted to protect it yourself. Im sure the answer is of course not so why do we need anyone telling us what we can look at on the net. I 100% agree that stopping kiddie porn is a must but by filtering the Australian internet wont stop it. The last time the government tried they spent millions of OUR taxpayer dollars and it was cracked in 45 mins by a 17 year old PC nerd (if my memory is correct) and there is already talk of proxy servers etc would make this filter vulnerable to breach. If the Government want to act then hunt down these Sick fks and arrest them by using the millions they will spend on this filter to hire more cyber police dont slow down what is already a slow network for a minority.


Edit: I mention Kiddie Porn as that to me is the only Act that should be wiped out. Anything else that can be viewed on the net by consenting adults is fine by me. I dont see the US or England etc doing it so what makes the Aussie adult so untrustworty.

[Azzaman]

Do you think that the 5% (being liberal ) of sick Fks that look at kiddie porn and their related sights should slowdown the net for the rest of us? Personally my opinion is let the taxpaying adults decide and in regards to the children the parents can put blocks on their PC's its THEIR job to protect the kids not the governments. Just look at the lack of an R 18 for games in Australia to show the rest of world how us aussies cant think for ourselves. It starts with net restrictions then it moves to other areas. Are you stating Daniel that if you had a child you couldnt be trusted to protect it yourself. Im sure the answer is of course not so why do we need anyone telling us what we can look at on the net. I 100% agree that stopping kiddie porn is a must but by filtering the Australian internet wont stop it. The last time the government tried they spent millions of OUR taxpayer dollars and it was cracked in 45 mins by a 17 year old PC nerd (if my memory is correct) and there is already talk of proxy servers etc would make this filter vulnerable to breach. If the Government want to act then hunt down these Sick fks and arrest them by using the millions they will spend on this filter to hire more cyber police dont slow down what is already a slow network for a minority.


Edit: I mention Kiddie Porn as that to me is the only Act that should be wiped out. Anything else that can be viewed on the net by consenting adults is fine by me. I dont see the US or England etc doing it so what makes the Aussie adult so untrustworty.

fyi you completely missed his point.

[REQUIEM]

fyi you completely missed his point.
No i didnt.. His question was what question would it be on the form. My answer was bringing it back to what it actually is and thats " DOES AUSTRALIA WANT A FILTERED INTERNET ". The do you care about the children question would be just biased and not what its all about. Its just ONE aspect. My explanation covered the meat of the topic not just a side dish. If it was just about protecting children viewing porn thats what NET NANNY and other relavant programs are for. Filtering sexual Fetishes effects adults also not just kids and that is where alot of people have a problem with this proposed filter. Thats just FYI

[Azzaman]

actually he said the government would twist the question so that it got the most amount of votes from an ignorant public.

He agrees with you...

[Fenrir]

Calm down, Daniel was just being facetious.

Anyway, for the hell of it:
Personally my opinion is let the taxpaying adults decide and in regards to the children the parents can put blocks on their PC's...

...The last time the government tried they spent millions of OUR taxpayer dollars and it was cracked in 45 mins by a 17 year old PC nerd (if my memory is correct)
The latter bit there might take the wind out of the whole PC filter strategy you mentioned in the former bit - the reason this ISP filter is being proposed in the first place is largely because the home PC filters have been deemed a failure.

There's probably a partial solution in optional ISP-level filtering - if it's optional, you can participate in the act of proxy-blocking (of both the website and tunnelling protocol varieties), which isn't an option for a mandatory filter. A PC-based filter which "phones home" to a provider (be it an ISP, the government, the software vendor, etc) every few minutes to say it's still operating, and contacts the parents if it goes down, might also work. A wealth of options open themselves up when you take the pretention of catching paedophiles and other crims out of the system scope and just focus on offering parental controls.

If the Government want to act then hunt down these Sick fks and arrest them by using the millions they will spend on this filter to hire more cyber police dont slow down what is already a slow network for a minority.
Hmm, there's one thing admirable about the government's misguided scheme: prevention over cure (or arrest, prosecution, jail time and career-ruining, rather). It would be better to prevent people from looking for this stuff and developing paedophilia in the first place, than to take 'em away in the back of a police truck when they become "monsters".

It probably doesn't work that way, though. Paedophilia is a complex mental illness, not likely to be addressed by merely preventing access to a few kiddy-porn pictures.

Edit: I mention Kiddie Porn as that to me is the only Act that should be wiped out. Anything else that can be viewed on the net by consenting adults is fine by me. I dont see the US or England etc doing it so what makes the Aussie adult so untrustworty.
There's an argument for restricting access to literature on committing violent crimes, such as murder and bomb-making/detonating; but I'd tend to think that this sort of approach makes the assumption that science and technology are exclusively the domain of the establishment, which is pretty pretentious and foolhardy.

That's a good question. I guess you'd examine the discussion to ascertain who is putting the greatest "push" behind the proposal in question. In the case of the Clean Feed, it's clear that there is no overwhelming public demand for it and that the Federal Government, specifically Minister Conroy and the DBCDE (along with certain special interest groups), is the main force behind the plan. Even the ISPs knew it wasn't viable, which is why so few volunteered for the live "testing" in the first place.
So, since the greatest "push" in the Dennis Ferguson situation is behind throwing him out of Ryde (or wherever he is and/or shows up next), theyre automatically right? There was huge protest in my community over putting a Muslim school in Camden, and not a lot in support - should the bogans get their way?

Favouring greatest advocacy is as bad as majority rules - maybe more so in some cases, when you're handing victory to the bigots.

[Araenel]

It probably doesn't work that way, though. Paedophilia is a complex mental illness, not likely to be addressed by merely preventing access to a few kiddy-porn pictures.

I'm glad you qualified that previous statement with this, because it was really bad.

[texta]

Filtered Internet access is a bit more substancial than roadworks bud.Are you serious?

Okay, we might not be able to view porn so easily and our Internet might be a bit slower, but all the actually important things the Internet is used for will still work. On the other hand, bad roads can literally result in people dying.

In all honesty we could live without the Internet, but I'm not exaggerating when I say that not having roads would be the death of Australia as a nation.

And it can be printed on the next election ballet...
I love a good election ballet, Juila twirling around in her tutu. K Rudd would make a great Prince Siegfried. It'd be excellent

[Shorty]

So, since the greatest "push" in the Dennis Ferguson situation is behind throwing him out of Ryde (or wherever he is and/or shows up next), theyre automatically right? There was huge protest in my community over putting a Muslim school in Camden, and not a lot in support - should the bogans get their way?

Favouring greatest advocacy is as bad as majority rules - maybe more so in some cases, when you're handing victory to the bigots.

No, but it's worth looking into the discussion to determine whether the majority are right in that particular case. I mentioned a balance earlier that I seemed to have forgotten in my elaboration, which in the above instances I wouldn't go with "the majority".

[texta]

So how do you decide where the balance point is?

Justice Kirby answered a similar question in discussion community expectations for judicial decisions and his contention was that the answer lay in following what a reasonable person might do in light of all the circumstances (of which we're very rarely told). A judge or a politician making a decision will hopefully know a lot more about the issue in question than a layperson reading the tabloids might.

[Shorty]

So how do you decide where the balance point is?

Maybe it comes down to a matter of opinion based on the situation?

Justice Kirby answered a similar question in discussion community expectations for judicial decisions and his contention was that the answer lay in following what a reasonable person might do in light of all the circumstances (of which we're very rarely told). A judge or a politician making a decision will hopefully know a lot more about the issue in question than a layperson reading the tabloids might.

I sincerely doubt that's been the case here from the beginning. :p

[Watchers]

UKG is back in fine form, I see.

[REQUIEM]

UKG is back in fine form, I see.

It makes interesting discussions guys. I have opinions just as you all do. Isnt that what forums are for? I accept both negative and positive feedback I dont hate for the sake of hating due to the poster like some.

[Daniel]

Do you think that the 5% (being liberal ) of sick Fks that look at kiddie porn and their related sights should slowdown the net for the rest of us? Personally my opinion is let the taxpaying adults decide and in regards to the children the parents can put blocks on their PC's its THEIR job to protect the kids not the governments. Just look at the lack of an R 18 for games in Australia to show the rest of world how us aussies cant think for ourselves. It starts with net restrictions then it moves to other areas. Are you stating Daniel that if you had a child you couldnt be trusted to protect it yourself. Im sure the answer is of course not so why do we need anyone telling us what we can look at on the net. I 100% agree that stopping kiddie porn is a must but by filtering the Australian internet wont stop it. The last time the government tried they spent millions of OUR taxpayer dollars and it was cracked in 45 mins by a 17 year old PC nerd (if my memory is correct) and there is already talk of proxy servers etc would make this filter vulnerable to breach. If the Government want to act then hunt down these Sick fks and arrest them by using the millions they will spend on this filter to hire more cyber police dont slow down what is already a slow network for a minority.


Edit: I mention Kiddie Porn as that to me is the only Act that should be wiped out. Anything else that can be viewed on the net by consenting adults is fine by me. I dont see the US or England etc doing it so what makes the Aussie adult so untrustworty.

No need to get ranty mate - I meant exactly what I said. If it did come down to a vote I would not trust ny government to table the quetion in any straightforward or forthright manner. Instead of having a referendum to see if the public was in favour of ISP level filtering that vcould potentially impact internet speeds and would feature a blacklist that would have next to no oversight, they'd phrase it long the lines of asking the public if they were in favour of instituting plans to protect children online.

/wall of text

*forgive the spelling and spacing. Typing on a EEEPC and tiny keyboards don't mesh well with my fingers.

[REQUIEM]

No need to get ranty mate - I meant exactly what I said. If it did come down to a vote I would not trust ny government to table the quetion in any straightforward or forthright manner. Instead of having a referendum to see if the public was in favour of ISP level filtering that vcould potentially impact internet speeds and would feature a blacklist that would have next to no oversight, they'd phrase it long the lines of asking the public if they were in favour of instituting plans to protect children online.

/wall of text

*forgive the spelling and spacing. Typing on a EEEPC and tiny keyboards don't mesh well with my fingers.

Not getting ranty by any means. Just stating a point of view. It wouldnt come to a vote as they know if they did it wouldnt pass and that means they would have wasted more money on useless technologies.

[Watchers]

There is no amount of facepalm...

[REQUIEM]

There is no amount of facepalm...

As a mod you are supposed to be unbiased yet it seems you miss NO oppertunity to try and raise a response from me by your lil girly digs. I think that your mod status should be looked at because if you dont stop with your petty remarks towards myself I will look into it further. Since my return I HAVENT flamed anyone or insulted them such as you seem to TRY and do with mine. Seriously bud if you have an issue with my posts ban me but since you cant as I havent done anything to warrant it I suggest shutting up and getting back to your task at hand.

Edit : seriously.. get over it.

[Saxby]

The way I see it is that considerable lobbying is being done right now against the censorship and even if it does go through, there will be a huge public outcry against the failure of it that will result in it's removal. At worst, it will set us back a few months...

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

As a mod you are supposed to be unbiased

I don't think that's a rule but he could probably use a little more tact.

That's why I quit being a mod.

[Watchers]

Pfft. Tact is overrated.

[Slippery]

If WE goes then you'll get me, and I'll just be apathetic as hell towards everything - nobody wants that.

Actually... that's exactly what they want - I think I have a decent campaign line "Slippery - He doesn't care"

[Watchers]

Actually... that's exactly what they want - I think I have decent a campaign line "Slippery - He deosn't care about speeling"

Fixed.

[Slippery]

It's true, I don't.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26150131-15306,00.html

My favourite part of the article has to be this:

"The trial shows that filtering does work and that the gear stops identified IP addresses without major degradation to network speed," sources close to the trial said.

"We can stop individual URLs, IP addresses, but we can't stop peer-to-peer nor virtual private network-type traffic."

Wasn't a big part of this filter to block out illegal P2P traffic? If it can't do that a website blacklist is useless.

[texta]

I think you've presented it wrong.

Filtering works, Enex trial shows

RESULTS of a federal government trial show that live ISP-level content filtering does not have a negative impact on network performance and can work in a real-time environment.


That said, I wouldn't read a whole lot into the results since it was a pretty small sample size but the Government now looks like having a pretty good mandate to push on with this.

Not being able to block peer-to-peer is something we already knew about and I don't think it was ever really part of the plan.

[Stevorooni]

No one will need to use the internet once all the porn is blocked anyway.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

XONPhoi_2Zg

[Shorty]

So this'll be another "it works, but someone will bypass it in about 15 minutes" things?

[Azzaman]

So this'll be another "it works, but someone will bypass it in about 15 minutes" things?

more like 15 seconds. Those results make me quite sad :(

[Fenrir]

That said, I wouldn't read a whole lot into the results since it was a pretty small sample size
Yeah, that's why these results are irrelevant. :rolleyes:

but the Government now looks like having a pretty good mandate to push on with this.
Hang on, what?

[Azzaman]

Hang on, what?

I assume he means a self given mandate.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

Or the fact that people are starting to claim that the filtering works (bar the P2P stuff, of course)

[StorminNorman]

I think you've presented it wrong.

...Except that the trial had no load-testing whatsoever, and is therefore entirely irrelevant to real-world networks.

[REQUIEM]

So this'll be another "it works, but someone will bypass it in about 15 minutes" things?

Yep and cost us taxpayers millions AGAIN.

[texta]

Yeah, that's why these results are irrelevant. :rolleyes:


Hang on, what?If the Australian can come out and publish a headline that says the filter works, Conroy isn't going to have much trouble sticking to his guns and saying that it works. The technological argument that it doesn't work or that the test wasn't good enough to find out if it does work is going to go well over the head of every day Australians.

...Except that the trial had no load-testing whatsoever, and is therefore entirely irrelevant to real-world networks.Irrelevant. It's not about how good the test is, it's about how convincing the result is to regular voters. The headline and opening sentence of that story are pretty crucial to how people perceive the effectiveness of the filter.

[REQUIEM]

If the Australian can come out and publish a headline that says the filter works, Conroy isn't going to have much trouble sticking to his guns and saying that it works. The technological argument that it doesn't work or that the test wasn't good enough to find out if it does work is going to go well over the head of every day Australians.

Irrelevant. It's not about how good the test is, it's about how convincing the result is to regular voters. The headline and opening sentence of that story are pretty crucial to how people perceive the effectiveness of the filter.

Yep and it will still be breached within 15 mins so your point?

[texta]

I think that's like suggesting there's no point having speed limits because people still speed.

If the purpose of the filter is to protect children from inappropriate content then if it protects most children from most content it's a success. If a few nerds can break it then good luck to them but it definitely doesn't mean that the whole thing is a waste of time.

[REQUIEM]

I think that's like suggesting there's no point having speed limits because people still speed.

If the purpose of the filter is to protect children from inappropriate content then if it protects most children from most content it's a success. If a few nerds can break it then good luck to them but it definitely doesn't mean that the whole thing is a waste of time.

But prove to me it works efficiently.... The last attempt failed so bad it was hushed up. The people that want to look at the crap will use the breach so WHO is it saving? The sick fks will still continue and the innocent will suffer from slowed down net access. As I stated before they should spend the money CATCHING and punishing the sick fks that go to these sights. That is the problem not the 16 year old boy who wants to look at boobs.

[texta]

I think you're confused as to what the filter will be doing.

And I don't need to prove anything because I'm not arguing whether it's a good idea or not, I'm just saying that from a political perspective these results are going to be very effective in getting the filter up and running.

[REQUIEM]

I think you're confused as to what the filter will be doing.

And I don't need to prove anything because I'm not arguing whether it's a good idea or not, I'm just saying that from a political perspective these results are going to be very effective in getting the filter up and running.

Yeah and what is the filter stopping then? Is it banning kiddie porn and sick stuff or just stuff that any other 18+ taxpayer is able to view from their local video store. Please clarify ?

( note sarcasm)

[texta]

From the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy website
While ISP filtering is not a 'silver bullet' that will forever fix the problem of illegal content on the internet, it can help to disrupt online distribution of such material, and prevent accidental exposure to it.

And as far as what it will be blocking, at the moment:
The Government's election commitment was that filtering would block content using a blacklist of prohibited sites maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in accordance with legislation. The ACMA blacklist is a list of internet web sites, predominantly comprising images of the sexual abuse of children, which are defined as 'prohibited' under Australian legislation which has been in place since 2000

[REQUIEM]

From the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy website

So what you are saying is that it will and has already cost millions to fix nothing only slow it down for a while? Hence my initial point.

Net Nanny and the various programs out there do that already.

[Watchers]

Texta vs. UKG should be an awesome match.

[Shorty]

To be honest, even with this newspaper article I find it hard to believe that Conroy and the DBCDE will still get any support for the Clean Feed when you consider how discredited this trial had been before the results were even announced. It's like declaring you're an awesome sprinter because you won a race against a man tied to a chair.

[AranchineD]

A congenital heart defect has apparently felled Texta moments before he could step into the ring.

[texta]

So what you are saying is that it will and has already cost millions to fix nothing only slow it down for a while? Hence my initial point.I've never said anything like that and it appears as though it won't slow the internet down.

To be honest, even with this newspaper article I find it hard to believe that Conroy and the DBCDE will still get any support for the Clean Feed when you consider how discredited this trial had been before the results were even announced. It's like declaring you're an awesome sprinter because you won a race against a man tied to a chair.It's not going to happen before the next election and Labor get a better looking senate unless it's introduce voluntarily by ISPs (which might happen for example if Labor tie access to the NBN to adoption of the filtering system).

[Shorty]

It's not going to happen before the next election and Labor get a better looking senate unless it's introduce voluntarily by ISPs (which might happen for example if Labor tie access to the NBN to adoption of the filtering system).

So what happens if the ISPs say no to that? The Government doesn't seem too keen to go and setup a brand new telecommunications network by itself.

[texta]

Then they wait until they've got a better chance in the senate or it doesn't happen.

[Fenrir]

If the Australian can come out and publish a headline that says the filter works, Conroy isn't going to have much trouble sticking to his guns and saying that it works. The technological argument that it doesn't work or that the test wasn't good enough to find out if it does work is going to go well over the head of every day Australians.
Not being a newspaper reader, I'm not sure how this headline is going to be presented, but the fact that the name "Enex" was dropped in the title will probably see it interpreted in a similar manner to how reports from all sorts of other research groups and think-tanks are interpreted - as an "opinion", and very possibly biased. If people see a headline saying "Rudd's stimulus package didn't work, according to <name>", do they take that as fact?
If they choose to further read the article, the specifics get blurrier, but they realize that the trial was commissioned by the guys who're pushing for a filter (thus further assume bias), and it goes on from there.

I think you'll find that this is still largely an obscure underground technical debate, though, and when it does get mainstream attention, the detractors are screaming far louder than those in support.

I think that's like suggesting there's no point having speed limits because people still speed.

If the purpose of the filter is to protect children from inappropriate content then if it protects most children from most content it's a success. If a few nerds can break it then good luck to them but it definitely doesn't mean that the whole thing is a waste of time.
The problem is, Labor has posited this filter as a broad-sweep solution to several very complicated problems. If the goal is to protect children from inappropriate material, then the very best thing the government can do with this filter is make it optional; if its intent is to prevent adults from accessing certain content, then it is largely hopeless, but would have to be mandatory. Attempting to cover the latter detracts severely from efforts to cover the former.

While ISP filtering is not a 'silver bullet' that will forever fix the problem of illegal content on the internet, it can help to disrupt online distribution of such material, and prevent accidental exposure to it.
Has this been substantiated by any formal research? Tens of millions of dollars and a threat to civil liberties are at stake, here.

This is the crux of my argument, here: that these measures will do effectively zilch in the way of stunting illicit behaviour and crime, and will essentially have no net benefit for Australia at all. It's the timeless adage that these measures fail to touch at the root of the problems they allude to addressing, and so the problems continue to manifest, that this government seems incapable of grasping.
Preventing people from accessing child porn doesn't prevent them from becoming paedophiles, as Rae said:
I'm glad you qualified that previous statement with this, because it was really bad.
And the academic grounding necessary to develop weapons, etc isn't the exclusive domain of law-abiding members of the establishment.

[REQUIEM]

If the goal is to protect children from inappropriate material, then the very best thing the government can do with this filter is make it optional; if its intent is to prevent adults from accessing certain content, then it is largely hopeless, but would have to be mandatory. Attempting to cover the latter detracts severely from efforts to cover the former.Has this been substantiated by any formal research? Tens of millions of dollars and a threat to civil liberties are at stake, here.

This is the crux of my argument, here: that these measures will do effectively zilch in the way of stunting illicit behaviour and crime, and will essentially have no net benefit for Australia at all. It's the timeless adage that these measures fail to touch at the root of the problems they allude to addressing, and so the problems continue to manifest, that this government seems incapable of grasping.

Agreed 100%

[Shorty]

Mark Newton tears into the recent ACS report on Internet filtering. (http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1289833&r=21119722#r21119722)

[Fenrir]

Hmm, there are a number of divergent news reports on the subject, too.

ACS: Encryption threat to content filtering - misaustralia.com (http://www.misaustralia.com/viewer.aspx?EDP://1255298687734&section=news&xmlSource=/news/feed.xml&title=ACS%3a+Encryption+threat+to+content+filterin g)

ACS gives conditional thumbs up to internet filtering - crn.com.au (http://www.crn.com.au/News/158006,acs-gives-conditional-thumbs-up-to-internet-filtering.aspx)

Filtering lacks clear policy objective: ACS - itwire.com (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/28430/53/1/1/)

ACS: ISP-filtering could affect Internet speeds and prices - computerworld.com.au (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/321746/acs_isp-filtering_could_affect_internet_speeds_prices)

They're all understating the encryption bit - forget "unlikely", there is no freaking way Australia's going to give up encryption for the sake of a filter. Several (probably all) government departments would turn on Conroy, let alone the private sector.

I'll read through Newton's post in a bit.

[Mykle]

I'm coming to this thread a little late, but it seems to me that critics of this filter (with whom I definitely agree) are going about fighting it in the wrong way. Point out it's stupidity and the poor logic behind it all you want - the government doesnt care. This is about the Herald Sun/Daily Telegraph headlines and winning votes - that's where the battle will be fought, and that's where the anti-filter sides need to get on the scoreboard.

[Fenrir]

It actually saddens me that western life expectancy is on the rise. Friggin' luddite boomers.

[texta]

The latest report is out today
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_programs/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot
Mirror here: http://www.zdnet.com.au/story_media/339300056/ISP_Filtering_Live_Pilot_Report_low_res.pdf


There's also this press release from Senator Conroy


Measures to improve safety of the internet for families

The Australian Government today announced further details of its approach to improve safety on the internet for Australian families.
The Government’s approach to cyber-safety has been informed by the Government’s trial of internet filtering and extensive industry feedback about the most appropriate way to improve safety online.

The cyber-safety measures announced today include:


Introduction of mandatory ISP-level filtering of Refused Classification (RC) –rated content.
A grants program to encourage the introduction of optional filtering by Internet Service Providers, to block additional content as requested by households.
An expansion of the cyber-safety outreach program run by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Cyber-Safety Online Helpline – to improve education and awareness of online safety.

The Government is also introducing new transparency measures to ensure the public can have absolute confidence in the process for material being placed on the RC Content list.

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, released publicly the Enex Test Laboratory report into the pilot trial of Internet Service Provider (ISP)-level filtering.

“We welcome the constructive input of Australia’s four largest ISPs – Telstra, Optus, iiNet and Primus. These companies came forward to help inform the Government’s approach. Between them these ISPs account for more than 80% of internet users in Australia,” Senator Conroy said.

“The Government has always maintained there is no silver bullet solution to cyber-safety. That is why we have established a comprehensive range of cyber-safety measures, including funding for 91 additional online Australian Federal Police officers and education.”

“Through a combination of additional resources for education and awareness, mandatory internet filtering of RC-rated content, and optional ISP-level filtering, we have a package that balances safety for families and the benefits of the digital revolution.”

ISP-level filtering

The Government will introduce legislative amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act to require all ISPs to block RC-rated material hosted on overseas servers.

RC-rated material includes child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use. Under the National Classification Scheme and related enforcement legislation it is already illegal to distribute, sell or make available for hire RC-rated films, computer games and publications.

This material is currently subject to take-down notices by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) if it is hosted online in Australia. However, ACMA is unable to directly regulate content hosted overseas. This action is an additional measure to the existing take-down regime for Australia-hosted content.

“ISP filtering reduces the risk of Australians being inadvertently exposed to RC-rated material when they are online,” Senator Conroy said.

“The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100% accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed,” Senator Conroy said.

The RC Content list will be compiled through a public complaints mechanism.

The Government will also add the specific internet addresses (URLs) of known child abuse material through sharing lists with highly regarded international agencies after an assessment of the rigour and accountability of classification processes used by these agencies.

The Minister for Home Affairs yesterday announced a public consultation process into whether there should be an R18+ classification category for computer games. Until this process is complete, online computer games will be excluded from mandatory filtering of RC content.

The Government expects to introduce legislation during the Autumn 2010 parliamentary sittings. There will be a twelve months process of implementation after the passage of the legislation.

Transparency measures

“The Government will immediately undertake public consultation with the release today of a discussion paper on additional measures to improve the accountability and transparency of processes that lead to RC-rated material being placed on the RC Content list,” Senator Conroy said.

Some of the options raised include the use of block pages and appeal mechanisms, notification to website owners of RC content and the review by an independent expert and report to the Parliament.

The Government will allocate funds to ACMA to enhance the security of the RC Content list and to automate its transmission to ISPs.

The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and ACMA will consult with ISPs on the detailed implementation of ISP-level filtering, including the updating of relevant industry Codes of Practice.

The Government will discuss with industry measures to help smaller ISPs to filter the RC Content list if they cannot access a filtered wholesale or resold service.

Additional ISP-level filtering options

ISPs will be encouraged to offer additional filtering services through the availability of Government assistance but this will not be mandatory.

For those families that wish to have a wider range of material filtered, including possibly X18+ and gambling sites, the Government will establish a grants program to encourage ISPs to offer these services on a commercial and optional basis.

“These additional filtering services will help parents to choose what they want filtered without having to download and install software to their home computers,” Senator Conroy said.

ISPs are encouraged to register online (www.dbcde.gov.au/cybersafetyplan (http://www.dbcde.gov.au/cybersafetyplan)) for participation in consultations on the technical aspects of filtering.

Education, awareness and counselling

“Funding will also be used to continue and expand education activities. These will assist parents and teachers to help children understand and deal with cyber-safety risks, including cyber-bullying,” Senator Conroy said.

“This funding will reduce waiting times for schools to participate in ACMA’s cyber-safety outreach program and increase the Cyber-Safety Online Helpline operating hours to ensure it is available when children are most at risk.”

“The Government’s comprehensive range of cyber-safety measures provides Australians with information and tools to enjoy the benefits of the internet while avoiding its pitfalls.”

The Government’s policy has been informed by the Enex Testlab live pilot report, consultation with industry and representative groups on both sides of the debate.

Online resources:


Enex Testlab report.
Frequently Asked Questions.
ISP registration.
Public consultation paper on measures to improve accountability and transparency of RC content listing processes.

www.dbcde.gov.au/cybersafetyplan (http://www.dbcde.gov.au/cybersafetyplan)
Date: 15 December 2009
Contact: Tim Marshall 0408 258 457

[Azzaman]

What so it's officially happening now? No more speculation and he said she said?

****** :(

[texta]

What so it's officially happening now? No more speculation and he said she said?

****** :( Well the legislation still has to pass through parliament.

The good news is that the content they're blocking is very limited "child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use" and all online video games are going to be excluded until the R18+ issue is resolved.

They're also making some pretty serious commitments to ensuring that the process is independent and transparent.

[Fenrir]

I'll make further comment when this has all sunk in.

Well the legislation still has to pass through parliament.
I doubt this will make it through the current senate.

EDIT: btw, link to the article texta posted (http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115).

[Stevorooni]

The good news is that the content they're blocking is very limited "child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence including rape, and the detailed instruction of crime or drug use"


I am quite capable of not viewing that stuff already, I do not need a mandatory filter.

[texta]

I'll make further comment when this has all sunk in.


I doubt this will make it through the current senate.True, there's probably going to an election next year though.

I wouldn't be surprised if they find a way to tie all of this to the introduction of an R18+ rating. It would be a lot of fun watching nerds try to grapple with that.

[Lazlow]

Conroy is so full of shit:

"The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100 percent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed," he said.

However, the pilot test:

A range of ISPs were selected to participate in the ISP filtering pilot—including Highway 1, Nelson Bay Online, Netforce, OMNIconnect, Optus, Primus, TECH2U, Unwired, and Webshield.

No Telstra, no iiNet. That basically means that this comment:

“We welcome the constructive input of Australia’s four largest ISPs – Telstra, Optus, iiNet and Primus. These companies came forward to help inform the Government’s approach. Between them these ISPs account for more than 80% of internet users in Australia,”

is somewhat worthless as Telstra and iiNet's input would have essentially been "No thanks".

And I'll repeat his earlier statement again:

100 percent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed

No sale.

[texta]

Optus also came on board the testing.

[Lazlow]

They were mentioned my above quote re: the pilot test. Of "The Big 4" only Primus and Optus were involved.

[texta]

Oh yeah. :o

[StorminNorman]

Primus aren't a "big 4" ISP though.

This is basically the worst news, and confirmation of everybody's fears that Conroy was always going to push this through regardless of the outcome of any trials or other tests.

The fact they dropped this in the week where the media is distracted by Copenhagen is really, really telling.

Censorship needs to **** off and die.

[texta]

This is basically the worst news, and confirmation of everybody's fears that Conroy was always going to push this through regardless of the outcome of any trials or other tests.What in the testing should have lead them to the conclusion that it wasn't a good idea?

I think you could mount an argument that more testing is needed, but to suggest that the tests suggest that the filtering won't work is bizarre.

The fact they dropped this in the week where the media is distracted by Copenhagen is really, really telling.I can tell you with 100% certainty that that wasn't a factor at all in this. The fact that they're having a long consultative period and have released this almost a year before it will go before parliament makes it pretty clear that they're happy for people to know exactly what's going on.

[Fenrir]

Hmm, a few things.

Firstly, I'm not surprised by the performance conclusions, I even dropped the performance argument a while ago. There are several possible optimizations for filtering against a static IP blacklist: pruning by individual octets, sorting the blacklist and performing a binary search, etc. Pure linear search would be remarkably stupid.

Do expect infrastructural issues, though.

Secondly, we have canvassed several arguments against this filter which haven't been touched. This is still an abhorrent waste of resources.

Thirdly, I stumbled upon...
Key findings

Filtering Refused Classification (RC) content

The pilot demonstrated that ISPs can effectively filter a list of URLs such as the ACMA blacklist with a very high degree of accuracy and a negligible impact on internet speed.

Filtering additional categories of content

The accuracy results of filtering additional categories of content at the ISP-level, for parents wishing to have further content filtered, showed an improvement on previous testing of ISP-level filtering technologies undertaken by the ACMA, suggesting that commercially available filtering products are becoming increasingly effective.

The pilot demonstrated that implementation of filtering additional categories of content can also block some common circumvention techniques.
I know this shows up in the optional filtering section, but the last thing anyone wants to see is hints at proxy-blocking. Labor would be turfed out of parliament and never re-elected again if they tried to upend encryption - it is that significant.

Otherwise, this is actually better than the on-by-default optional filtering they were going to force ISPs to implement. A token static filter with no slowdown is a whole lot more palatable.

True, there's probably going to an election next year though.

I wouldn't be surprised if they find a way to tie all of this to the introduction of an R18+ rating. It would be a lot of fun watching nerds try to grapple with that.
Heh, it is all conveniently aligned - and subverting Atkinson would go a long way towards instilling confidence in all of the currently displaced nerds.

[Fenrir]

The fact they dropped this in the week where the media is distracted by Copenhagen is really, really telling.
I didn't pick this, but good point.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that that wasn't a factor at all in this. The fact that they're having a long consultative period and have released this almost a year before it will go before parliament makes it pretty clear that they're happy for people to know exactly what's going on.
Autumn is ~3 months away, and the first few days after the announcement are always crucial.

[sausage]

No, it's not a good point; who really gives a shit about Copenhagen? Next week it'll be something else, the next, something else.

Stop using the media as a excuse for whining and do something positive about this atrocious abuse of your rights.

"Oh but it's for child animal porn only"...

BULLSHIT. Thin end of the wedge people... thin end of the wedge. Parliamentary legislation is rife with loopholes and this will be tested in the future and every now and then a little bit more will be added to the child animal sex list; you mark my words.


Let's count on one hand how many countries have a internet filter?

China, (soon to be) Australia...... ummmm...

[Pauly]

It's okay mate, you can still access your animal porn in NZ.

[sausage]

Damn right you commies stay over there.

[Readman]

It won't pass the Senate.

[texta]

Autumn is ~3 months away, and the first few days after the announcement are always crucial.Sorry, I meant "through parliament".

[texta]

Let's count on one hand how many countries have a internet filter?

China, (soon to be) Australia...... ummmm...
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, (soon to be) France, Ireland, India, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America.

As well as the usual suspects: China, Iran, Burma, Cuba, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, North Korea, South Korea, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Vietnam, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.

[Lex]

Rephrase. How many countries have a filter that's anything like the one we'll be getting? I think you'll see that list drop down a fair bit :)

[StorminNorman]

What in the testing should have lead them to the conclusion that it wasn't a good idea?

The fact that it's censorship at all?

Keep in mind that I'm pretty much anti-censorship (apart from a few extreme points), and believe that anything that furthers the utterly ridiculous amounts of censorship we have in this country is a really horrid idea.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that that wasn't a factor at all in this.

Surely you can see why someone might draw that conclusion, though? Media coverage on the issue has been spotty at best. The Government is surely aware that most mainstream media is on their side in regards to this.

[Readman]

Surely you can see why someone might draw that conclusion, though? Media coverage on the issue has been spotty at best. The Government is surely aware that most mainstream media is on their side in regards to this.

Maybe it's just the newspapers I read, but there is pretty strong opposition to Conroy on this issue. I don't think I've ever read an article in favour of it, to be honest.

My opinion on this is the same as it has been for over a year: Conroy will bring it before the Senate, it'll be voted down and then forgotten. Labor will probably use it to attack the Liberals during the campaign but I can't see any future Senate approving it. It is very difficult to gain control of the Senate on your own, and the Opposition and minor parties aren't going to sign up to this insanity. You basically need two landslides and a lot of luck (given the vagaries of preference flows) in a row.

[NonSequitur]

Maybe it's just the newspapers I read, but there is pretty strong opposition to Conroy on this issue. I don't think I've ever read an article in favour of it, to be honest.

My opinion on this is the same as it has been for over a year: Conroy will bring it before the Senate, it'll be voted down and then forgotten. Labor will probably use it to attack the Liberals during the campaign but I can't see any future Senate approving it. It is very difficult to gain control of the Senate on your own, and the Opposition and minor parties aren't going to sign up to this insanity. You basically need two landslides and a lot of luck (given the vagaries of preference flows) in a row.

There have been plenty of opinion pieces here and there with strong support for the filtering plan. That said, there have been an equal amount of opposing articles.

I think it's dangerous to be complacent and think that the senate will vote it down. Sure, the Greens will oppose it, but there are quite a few known supporters of filtering in the Liberal ranks, and with Tony Abbot at the helm, there's no knowing what will happen. Also consider that the Liberals were the first to try to implement mandatory filtering years and years ago.

[Fenrir]

Hmm, did I just see a similar post from you over at Whirlpool?

Anyway, link-dropping, don't mind me.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/blogs/fullduplex/soa/Welcome-to-National-Censorship-Day/0,139033349,339300065,00.htm
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6656&display=1
http://whirlpool.net.au/news/?id=1852&show=replies
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/162958,government-ignores-enex-warning-on-over-blocking.aspx

[NonSequitur]

Hmm, did I just see a similar post from you over at Whirlpool?


Yep, that'd be me. I'm making a lot of noise today. :D

I've been a reader of Hyper since issue #1 and this is what gets me to join the forums. Go figure.

[Readman]

I think it's dangerous to be complacent and think that the senate will vote it down. Sure, the Greens will oppose it, but there are quite a few known supporters of filtering in the Liberal ranks, and with Tony Abbot at the helm, there's no knowing what will happen. Also consider that the Liberals were the first to try to implement mandatory filtering years and years ago.

The Liberals have been pretty gung-ho against it, and that was when Nick 'global warming is a left-wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the west' Minchin was in charge of the portfolio.

[NonSequitur]

The Liberals have been pretty gung-ho against it, and that was when Nick 'global warming is a left-wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the west' Minchin was in charge of the portfolio.

Actually, they haven't been gung-ho - more so just apprehensive. Minchin said over and over that they were going to give the government the benefit of the doubt and await the results of the trial before considering the options. Well, now that we have the positive trial report, and good little Catholic boy Abbot as leader, things are looking pretty grim to say the least.

[Readman]

That's pretty much code for 'we're going to give the government enough rope to hang themselves'. They want to oppose it, but do so on a technicality rather than on principle (which will piss people off).

[texta]

Rephrase. How many countries have a filter that's anything like the one we'll be getting? I think you'll see that list drop down a fair bit :)
Actually in the first list lot of those countries have filter systems that are pretty much the same (eg just block out child porn, sexual violence etc). Some of them go much further and block out political content that doesn't support them and a few just blanket ban social networking/blogging sites. In the second list, they all go much much further than what Australia is doing.

[Fenrir]

You do understand that mandatory internet filtering is unconstitutional in the US, right?

[Passepartout]

You do understand that mandatory internet filtering is unconstitutional in the US, right?

Not that it applies here, but since when has the Constitution stopped the American Government from doing what it wants?

[Shorty]

Not that it applies here, but since when has the Constitution stopped the American Government from doing what it wants?

Only until the courts declare it invalid on constitutional grounds. That's why every attempt by various states to legally regulate game sales based on ESRB ratings has failed (and why the ESRB isn't government run).

[NonSequitur]

That's pretty much code for 'we're going to give the government enough rope to hang themselves'. They want to oppose it, but do so on a technicality rather than on principle (which will piss people off).

Well, I'll believe it when I see it. All it will take is a few Libs to cross the floor and it's a done deal.

Actually in the first list lot of those countries have filter systems that are pretty much the same (eg just block out child porn, sexual violence etc). Some of them go much further and block out political content that doesn't support them and a few just blanket ban social networking/blogging sites. In the second list, they all go much much further than what Australia is doing.

We meet again. :D

I think it's been established that Australia is not exclusively blocking child porn and sexual violence.

[AranchineD]

Actually in the first list lot of those countries have filter systems that are pretty much the same (eg just block out child porn, sexual violence etc). Some of them go much further and block out political content that doesn't support them and a few just blanket ban social networking/blogging sites. In the second list, they all go much much further than what Australia is doing.

How many in the first list are mandatory?

[texta]

How many in the first list are mandatory? Almost all of them. Some of the Scandinavian countries have told ISPs that if they don't implement "voluntary" filtering the government will force it on them. Do you call that mandatory or voluntary? I dunno, but everyone in the country is subject to it.

[Readman]

Scandinavia is pretty awesome for a shitload of reasons.

[AranchineD]

Almost all of them. Some of the Scandinavian countries have told ISPs that if they don't implement "voluntary" filtering the government will force it on them. Do you call that mandatory or voluntary? I dunno, but everyone in the country is subject to it.

Sorry, but are you saying 'mandatory to offer a filter' or 'mandatory for all internet access to go through a filter'?

[Fenrir]

Not that it applies here, but since when has the Constitution stopped the American Government from doing what it wants?
What Shorty said, pretty much - the Americans are pretty insistent on that first amendment of theirs.

We meet again. :D
Oh, did we get you from PCPP or something?

Scandinavia is pretty awesome for a shitload of reasons.
^This.

Anyway, more link-dropping:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772467.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772781.htm
http://twitter.com/Lateline/status/6690746467

That last one might be notable, hope for a good anchor.

[NonSequitur]

Oh, did we get you from PCPP or something?


Well, yeah, I guess you could say that but I'm far from being a regular over there either. ;)

[Readman]

We're better than PCPP anyway.

[texta]

Sorry, but are you saying 'mandatory to offer a filter' or 'mandatory for all internet access to go through a filter'?Mandatory for all internet access to go though a filter.

I think the comment their equivalent of Conroy said was that filtering was voluntary as long as everyone did it.

What Shorty said, pretty much - the Americans are pretty insistent on that first amendment of theirs.The Supreme court has made exceptions to that though. See for example Dennis v. United States 341 U.S. 494 (1951).

In the context of the War on terror and the US's ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan a "clear and present danger" can be construed pretty broadly.

[AranchineD]

Mandatory for all internet access to go though a filter.

And these filters, they are only like the blacklist that we currently have right now in this country, correct?

[Fenrir]

The Lateline coverage turned out pathetic; I apologise for any inconvenience. The Climate debate was pretty catty, though.

[texta]

And these filters, they are only like the blacklist that we currently have right now in this country, correct?For the Scandinavian countries, they are a lot like what Stephen Conroy described in his media release. I don't know if they work technically similar to what's proposed for Australia, but I if the results are the same I don't think that matters.

[AranchineD]

For the Scandinavian countries, they are a lot like what Stephen Conroy described in his media release. I don't know if they work technically similar to what's proposed for Australia, but I if the results are the same I don't think that matters.

I meant for all those countries in the list, I though most of them only had filters similiar to the blacklist we have now, and weren't at all similiar to the proposed filter here?

[TAT]

But those countries have far superior internet speeds than us -- the filters surely don't impede on their service as much as it will ours (20%, I heard).

[sausage]

Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, (soon to be) France, Ireland, India, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America.

As well as the usual suspects: China, Iran, Burma, Cuba, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, North Korea, South Korea, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Vietnam, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.



Yeah well, if these countries jumped off a cliff would you follow them? Wait....




Oh, did we get you from PCPP or something?


Well, yeah, I guess you could say that but I'm far from being a regular over there either. ;)


Tell those hypocritical assholes they can eat my shit will you? Thanks in advance.



We're better than PCPP anyway.


This, my god a thousand times this.

[Lex]

Tell those hypocritical assholes they can eat my shit will you? Thanks in advance.


actually, tell them to unban him, we're sick of this yokel.

[sausage]

Ol' Santa hat cock has spoken and he's so VIGOUROUS.

[StorminNorman]

There's going to be a discussion of the filter on ABC Local Radio shortly. If you tune in now you should catch it.

[Stevorooni]

So sausage, can we all stay at your farm when we come to escape the filter? I'll bring a tent!

[sausage]

Most certainly; come and stay at Freedom Farm.

[texta]

But those countries have far superior internet speeds than us -- the filters surely don't impede on their service as much as it will ours (20%, I heard).If you read the report then the testing for the basic filter (which is what Conroy said would be implemented) had no impact on speed.

Furthermore the Government has committed Australia to spending $40 billion dollars to upgrade our broadband networks in the biggest infrastructure project ever undertaken by an Australian Government and will boost our speeds up to 100Mb/s (with further upgrades easily achieved in the future).

Jesus. I feel like that was a Dorothy Dixer.

I meant for all those countries in the list, I though most of them only had filters similiar to the blacklist we have now, and weren't at all similiar to the proposed filter here?Those two things are the same.

[StorminNorman]

Oh gods they've got that McMenamin idiot on the radio. Christ this woman is stupid.

[AranchineD]

Those two things are the same.

You're...ironically being dumb here. Surely. Because if not I think it'd be fair grounds to disregard anything you've ever said in this thread. Conroy's filter is not at all similiar to the current blacklist, they block some of the same things but almost every single other thing is different.

[texta]

You're...ironically being dumb here. Surely. Because if not I think it'd be fair grounds to disregard anything you've ever said in this thread. Conroy's filter is not at all similiar to the current blacklist, they block some of the same things but almost every single other thing is different.I suggest you read the press release I posted earlier.

[AranchineD]

They're still different.

[Mykle]

Alright I'm coming to this issue kind of new, so help me out here:
1) Why do we need the government to filter out internet? Like what's the pressing issue they're trying to resolve? Is this, as the critics say, a 'solution in search of a problem'?
2) Wont paedophiles and the like still be able to access their shit? I mean presumably they have sophisticated ways of getting access to it, they dont just use google.

[Stevorooni]

They need to trick stupid people into thinking they're protecting children so that they will vote for them at the next election.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

I haven't read the article yet, but where's the bit where they block the stuff on their blacklist in P2P file sharing applications?

[StorminNorman]

Tony Smith issues a response. (http://www.liberal.org.au/news.php?Id=4361)

(Incidentally, he's my local member. Hmm.)

[texta]

Telstra have come out in support of it by the way.

[amcam]

So much for freedom of Spe-

[AranchineD]

Telstra have come out in support of it by the way.

Where?

[Stevorooni]

Telstra have come out in support of it by the way.

Just another reason to hate Telstra really

[Lazlow]

“ISP filtering reduces the risk of Australians being inadvertently exposed to RC-rated material when they are online

Yes because I'm just stumbling onto child porn and bomb making instructions as I'm checking my email and using Facebook.

ISP level filtering is a useful measure as part of an overall cyber-safety plan. The government should do all that it can to protect Australians from exposure to RC-rated content

One time my hand brushed up against my mate's buttocks and it made me gay.

Where?

Here (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/isp-filtering-plan-to-go-ahead/story-e6frgakx-1225810665832) 8th paragraph

[Fenrir]

With the international scene, I don't know whether or not most of the countries texta namedropped have mandatory static blacklists. I know the US and UK don't, though.

But those countries have far superior internet speeds than us -- the filters surely don't impede on their service as much as it will ours (20%, I heard).
As I have pointed out, the static blacklist (ie the mandatory aspect) will not slow down internet speeds. The dynamic shit will, but that's the optional bit (both for ISPs and for customers), and in all likelihood there isn't a filter grant in the world that could get some ISPs to even consider implementing that one.

Alright I'm coming to this issue kind of new, so help me out here:
1) Why do we need the government to filter out internet? Like what's the pressing issue they're trying to resolve? Is this, as the critics say, a 'solution in search of a problem'?
The issue as it is presented is more reasonably described as several different (and in ways, conflicting) issues clumped together ad hoc. The goals seem to include:
#1: Preventing intentional access to child porn, other obviously illegal content, and the nebulous swathe of content that manages to land in the RC category (mandatory);
#2: Preventing accidental access to all of the above (mandatory), as well as other content that may prove undesirable (optional);
#3: Preventing underage access to content deemed inappropriate for their age group (optional).

The cyber-safety plan (http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_programs/cybersafety_plan) has several other goals, but disagreement (and outrage, protest, disillusionment and general discontent) is mainly directed at the filter.

The mandatory aspects are the goals of Conroy's filter legislation, which mandates filtering by a static blacklist (that is, a prescribed list, as opposed to a system which attempts to judge content automatically during download) on all web access in Australia. The optional aspects are to be covered by government grants for implementing dynamic filters (this is the bit where the computer tries to determine what is and isn't appropriate content) and whatever else can be used to adequately screen the bulk of web content as it is downloaded, on top of the mandatory static filter.

I think a strong case for a need to address #3 can be made (Vin's arguments notwithstanding), and I'm reasonably convinced that optional ISP filtering can help without disadvantaging the rest of us. Webshield (http://www.webshield.net.au/) already provide such a service, and if others can integrate similar services into their networks provided the grants now being offered, without detriment to network topology, then great. Realistically, an optional filter can block a whole range of things which a mandatory filter won't be allowed to touch, and provided in tandem with client-side software (ie software on your computer at home), and education for parents, can help protect children from inappropriate content.
The mandatory aspect is completely useless here, mind.

A decent case can also be made for a demonstrated need for #1, feasibility aside.
#2, however, is completely without merit - there is no demonstrated need for it, and the amount of inadvertent exposure to illicit content online is extremely negligible, and likely harmless anyway.

2) Wont paedophiles and the like still be able to access their shit? I mean presumably they have sophisticated ways of getting access to it, they dont just use google.
Absolutely, #1 is doomed from the outset.

An encrypted connection to a proxy off-shore, generally realized as a Virtual Private Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_network) (VPN) which makes your computer treat that off-shore proxy as a local gateway not dissimilar to your ADSL router, is entirely impervious to any attempts at filtering, at all. Actually, an unencrypted web proxy might even be enough to trick the filter.

This also neglects to think of the range of other protocols and services floating over the intertubes, such as the range of filesharing networks, which are completely unaffected by a web filter; and also the deeper, darker depths of the web itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web), where Google's spiders do not tread. Honestly, this filter is barely a slight inconvenience to anyone who actually intends on obtaining illegal content.

[Lazlow]

Google's view (http://google-au.blogspot.com/2009/12/our-views-on-mandatory-isp-filtering.html)


The recent report by Professors Catharine Lumby, Lelia Green, and John Hartley, Untangling The Net: The Scope of Content Caught By Mandatory Internet Filtering (http://www.scribd.com/doc/24138351/Untangling-the-Net-The-Scope-of-Content-Caught-by-Mandatory-Internet-Filtering), has found that a wide scope of content could be prohibited under the proposed filtering regime. Refused Classification (or RC) is a broad category of content that includes not just child sexual abuse material but also socially and politically controversial material -- for example, educational content on safer drug use -- as well as the grey realms of material instructing in any crime, including politically controversial crimes such as euthanasia. This type of content may be unpleasant and unpalatable but we believe that government should not have the right to block information which can inform debate of controversial issues.

........

Exposing politically controversial topics for public debate is vital for democracy. Homosexuality was a crime in Australia until 1976 in ACT, NSW in 1984 and 1997 in Tasmania. Political and social norms change over time and benefit from intense public scrutiny and debate. The openness of the Internet makes this all the more possible and should be protected

[Readman]

Whether or not you can give instructions on how to commit an illegal act, you can still debate whether or not something should be legal

[AranchineD]

Well, abortion isn't as harmful as you might think, for example when a woman goes in for the process of THIS PAGE HAS BEEN BLOCKED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2B OF THE INTERNET FILTER

[Readman]

Abortion is legal in at least some circumstances everywhere in Australia.

Having said that, I wonder how 'detailed instructions on committing a crime' works if something is a crime somewhere in Australia but not a crime elsewhere.

[Lazlow]

Like how to cultivate healthy marijuana plants? Or rolling the perfect blunt? :p

[Readman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that marijuana is still technically criminalised everywhere in Australia, it's just that civil rather than criminal penalties apply in some states.

[Shorty]

Like how to cultivate healthy marijuana plants? Or rolling the perfect blunt? :p

In other news: Snoop Dogg's entire back catalogue was recently classified RC. :p

[Lazlow]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that marijuana is still technically criminalised everywhere in Australia, it's just that civil rather than criminal penalties apply in some states.

I was under the impression that the ACT had an allowable limit with regards to personal cultivation and use.

[Readman]

I just quickly looked it up, and I'm pretty sure that it's like I said - it's illegal, but criminal charges don't apply.

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Dixer

I had to look that up so here's the link for anyone else wondering.

[texta]

The fact they dropped this in the week where the media is distracted by Copenhagen is really, really telling.


Just to jump back to this. The Government is obviously trying to get a whole lot of stuff under the radar.

Today the Government also released a white paper proposing that airline security be relaxed so that people can take nail files and knitting needles on board. It's amazing what they think they can get away with while everyone is distracted by Copenhagen!

It's either that or parliament has just finished sitting for the year and all the ministers are able to really move on the stuff they've been working on and as a result there's a big glut of stuff coming out around this time of year. Like every ****ing year.

[StorminNorman]

...Except that, you know, Conjob's been sitting on this report since September.

Also, the release was made on a day known to most Americans as the anniversary of their Bill of Rights (although it's arguable as to whether Conjob was aware of this when he released the report.)

Mark Newton: Conroy's Clean Feed Won't Block Child P*rn. (http://newmatilda.com/2009/12/16/conroys-clean-feed-wont-block)

[Shorty]

Also, from Mark Newton:

1. There's no serious, realistic problem to solve.
2. Even if there was, there's no demand to solve it.
3. Even if there was, the proposed solution is poorly targeted at the stated problem and won't work.
4. Even if it worked, it'd be too expensive, too unreliable, and too performance-impairing.
5. Even if it was affordable, it'd be administered incompetently.
6. Even if they were competent, the blacklist would leak.
7. There is absolutely zero possibility that the blacklist will remain unpublished.

The only points the trial addresses are maybe 3 and 4, and even then there's too much data missing from the report to be conclusive.

Today the Government also released a white paper proposing that airline security be relaxed so that people can take nail files and knitting needles on board. It's amazing what they think they can get away with while everyone is distracted by Copenhagen!

TzJ371vrIsE

[texta]

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/5613/fdotm.jpg

[Lazlow]

Jesus f***ing christ when will comic "artists" learn that it is a visual medium, and not doodles accompanied by reams of text.

[texta]

...Except that, you know, Conjob's been sitting on this report since September.The report is dated October 2009.

So if Conroy received the report October 1st, 2009 then he still needs his department to go through it, analyse what it says and formulate the Government's response.

Let's say that takes a month. Then Parliament is sitting with a big schedule of bills to get through before Christmas. Stuff like the CPRS and the Youth Allowance changes. Then the Liberal party implodes.

So it's possible politics played a part in the release of this, but I think more than anything the politics was keeping the spotlight on the Libs collapse and the CPRS as long as possible rather than anything else. As I say the Government has released a raft of policy documents in the last few days. There's also some pretty epic proposals to merge Medicare and Centrelink.

Jesus f***ing christ when will comic "artists" learn that it is a visual medium, and not doodles accompanied by reams of text.First Dog on the Moon, is the Crikey comic. So it's obviously aimed at a different audience compared to Penny Arcade or whatever.

[Readman]

Jesus f***ing christ when will comic "artists" learn that it is a visual medium, and not doodles accompanied by reams of text.

Yeah, it needs to be more like Garfield or something.

[Lazlow]

But Garfield sucks.

[Fenrir]

Mark Newton: Conroy's Clean Feed Won't Block Child P*rn. (http://newmatilda.com/2009/12/16/conroys-clean-feed-wont-block)
My god that man is classic.

Hmm, I'm not happy with his coverage of performance, though - Conroy's release seems to have decoupled mandatory static blacklist filtering and optional dynamic filtering quite effectively, but I don't see the same separation in Newton's article. Makes his assertions on performance pretty shaky, though maybe a thorough read of the report to find out where he's coming from will help - which a lot of people aren't going to do, so he should provide more context in the article.

I appreciate the persuasiveness of having a whole seven bullet-points in this debate, but a lot of faces are going to be red and a lot of ground lost when static filters are shown running at no perceptible performance cost.

[AranchineD]

Yeah, it needs to be more like Garfield or something.

Or Fred Basset.

[Shorty]

I appreciate the persuasiveness of having a whole seven bullet-points in this debate, but a lot of faces are going to be red and a lot of ground lost when static filters are shown running at no perceptible performance cost.

Not necessarily. Conroy's report only deals with the performance aspects of filtering. It does nothing to address the other bullet points, particularly those relating to ACMA's management of the current blacklist, let alone the concerns about the existence of the "problem" to start with.

[texta]

My god that man is classic.

Hmm, I'm not happy with his coverage of performance, though - Conroy's release seems to have decoupled mandatory static blacklist filtering and optional dynamic filtering quite effectively, but I don't see the same separation in Newton's article. Makes his assertions on performance pretty shaky, though maybe a thorough read of the report to find out where he's coming from will help - which a lot of people aren't going to do, so he should provide more context in the article.

I appreciate the persuasiveness of having a whole seven bullet-points in this debate, but a lot of faces are going to be red and a lot of ground lost when static filters are shown running at no perceptible performance cost.Exactly.

I think if people actually want to stop the filter they need to let go of the outrage and think very rationally about it.

I think there are plenty of good arguments still about why the filter shouldn't be put in, but I think if you chuck those in side by side with total mistruths and paranoid conspiracy theories then your message really gets lost.

The fact that the filter is potentially going to include information on drug use is one area that certainly worries me. I'm a big fan of harm minimisation and I think in this regard if they restrict information about for example how to take drugs safely (or at least safer) then that's a bad thing.

People need to focus more on that kind of stuff and less on "OMG It's come out on the same day the US Bill of Rights was signed!!!1!"

[StorminNorman]

To be fair, most people (including me) are using that for amusing illustrative purposes, rather than because it means anything. I'm sure in your perfect world of political processes it's just a meaningless coincidence, but for those of us with a bit of imagination it's terribly funny.

Stilgherrian: Conroy's Internet Filter: So What? (http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16/internet-filters-can-block-acma%E2%80%99s-blacklist-so-what/)

[Fenrir]

^Yes, I like that article.

[Readman]

Looking at Mark Newton's analysis, he seems to make a good case that the results don't really mirror what is likely to happen under real-world conditions:

- The number of actual participants in the ISP trials is unknown. At least one ISP (Nelson Bay Online) has reported that only 15 customers chose to join the trial.
- The tests were conducted at a relatively low speed – 8 megabits per second. The government's proposed National Broadband Network is apparently going to clock in at 100 megabits per second, but there has been no test up to this speed. So it could turn out that it starts to impact performance at faster speeds.
- The negligible/zero performance impact was on the lowest level of protection. When you start adding in stuff like anti-circumvention measures, you see a higher level of performance degradation.

But just thinking through this, if we assume that Conroy's right and there is no or negligible impact on speeds, what are the remaining issues:

1) Potential for abuse or mishandling of the blacklist. There were a couple of websites on the blacklist that shouldn't have been on there. Apparently there are going to be review mechanisms in the Bill, but not sure what those are going to be at the moment.
2) The internet is a distinct and special medium and shouldn't be subject to a normal classification regime. I don't really agree with this one philosophically, to be honest.
3) Google's page index is well over a trillion pages, versus at most a couple thousand on the ACMA blacklist. There is absolutely no way that ACMA will be able to cover even the tiniest amount of RC content. The difference in size is almost an exact analogy to a drop in the ocean.
4) Potential for creep. Including X material, etc.
5) Provides a false sense of security to parents.
6) So easily circumventable there is almost no point in trying.

It doesn't really seem to cost that much, although as the scheme is likely to fail completely, it's a waste of money no matter how much it costs.

[Stevorooni]

Just on that review mechanisms thing for the blacklist, if some business ends up on that list by accident by the time the whole thing has been appealed and undone they could have potentially lost a lot of money in sales and then would be going after the government for compensation. Even more wasted money.

This whole thing is just a cluster**** of embarrassment

[StorminNorman]

A Mum's take on the clean feed. (http://notanothermummyblog.com.au/2009/12/15/a-mums-take-on-the-clean-feed/)

[Shorty]

It doesn't really seem to cost that much, although as the scheme is likely to fail completely, it's a waste of money no matter how much it costs.

I'm pretty sure the fine people at the Australian Federal Police's High Tech Crimes Operations unit (ie. the people who have actually been making a dent in the online child pornography trade) would put that Clean Feed money to better use.

[texta]

I'm pretty sure the fine people at the Australian Federal Police's High Tech Crimes Operations unit (ie. the people who have actually been making a dent in the online child pornography trade) would put that Clean Feed money to better use.And I'm sure they're very grateful for the increase in funding that the Rudd Labor Government has given them.

[Shorty]

And I'm sure they're very grateful for the increase in funding that the Rudd Labor Government has given them.

That's the step forward. The Clean Feed is the two steps back.

[StorminNorman]

Stilgherrian: Evidence-based Policy? Not on this Filter! (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2773952.htm)

Also, there's going to be more discussion of it on ABC Local Radio today.

[Readman]

Reminder that people should be writing to the Liberal Shadow Minister on this issue.

This is an issue that they haven't made up their minds on yet, but have been leaning strongly towards opposing. Or (IMHO, this is more likely) they have decided to oppose it and are looking for a reason. So the best time to actually influence them is now. Based on following their media releases for the past couple of years, they have been very strongly critical of the whole process and the scheme's workability.

I'm pretty sure the fine people at the Australian Federal Police's High Tech Crimes Operations unit (ie. the people who have actually been making a dent in the online child pornography trade) would put that Clean Feed money to better use.

We've been over this before, and I'm not going to be baited on this again.

[StorminNorman]

Mark Newton: Why we don't need a filter. (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/163063,commentary-why-we-dont-need-a-filter.aspx)

He makes a valid point about how Conjob has been consistently blurring the lines between "Refused Classification" and "illegal material such as child porn".

[Shorty]

We've been over this before, and I'm not going to be baited on this again.

I'm not "baiting" anyone. I genuinely believe that it would be a significantly better use of that money. We can agree to disagree on that point but either way, any mandatory filtering scheme is probably the least efficient method to fight online child porn.

[Almighty Beanchild]

I found this interesting (apologies if its a repost)

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16/dont-waste-your-time-waste-theirs-a-guide-to-writing-to-ministers/

[texta]

I found this interesting (apologies if its a repost)

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16/dont-waste-your-time-waste-theirs-a-guide-to-writing-to-ministers/Yeah it's accurate advice, but I don't know if I really support wasting government time like that.

Really if you want to stop this thing you should be writing to the Libs because it's only going to happen if they let it through the Senate.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

Yeah it's accurate advice, but I don't know if I really support wasting government time like that.

As opposed to wasting govenment time and resources by implementing a filter that is only going to be a minor inconvience to the people that are actually going to seek out the stuff it's trying to block?

[NonSequitur]

I think there are plenty of good arguments still about why the filter shouldn't be put in, but I think if you chuck those in side by side with total mistruths and paranoid conspiracy theories then your message really gets lost.


Could you point me to any arguments FOR the filter that aren't riddled with total mistruths and paranoid kneejerk nanny-state reactionary logic?

[texta]

Could you point me to any arguments FOR the filter that aren't riddled with total mistruths and paranoid kneejerk nanny-state reactionary logic?
Look it comes down to a question of philosophy. And ultimately some people don't think aspects of a "nanny-state" is a bad thing. If you can't understand that perspective then you're not going to like any of the arguments for the filter.

Here's the point though: the government is going ahead with this and you want to stop them. The only way you're going to do that is to convince people that it's a really bad idea. And the best way to convince people is with a strong rational argument built on facts.

[REQUIEM]

As opposed to wasting govenment time and resources by implementing a filter that is only going to be a minor inconvience to the people that are actually going to seek out the stuff it's trying to block?

end thread.....

RATIONAL ARGUMENT WON

[NonSequitur]

Look it comes down to a question of philosophy. And ultimately some people don't think aspects of a "nanny-state" is a bad thing. If you can't understand that perspective then you're not going to like any of the arguments for the filter.

Here's the point though: the government is going ahead with this and you want to stop them. The only way you're going to do that is to convince people that it's a really bad idea. And the best way to convince people is with a strong rational argument built on facts.

Oh, I understand the wowser perspective. And no, I don't like any argument that supports taking away choice from adults.

1. It won't protect children from internet nasties and will instill a sense of false security.
2. It won't stop the dissemination of child pornography or other illegal material, and will force offenders further underground therefore making them harder for authorities to catch.
3. It will slow internet access regardless of what the rigged, already out of date report says.
4. It is a threat to freedom of choice and is open to abuse by current and future governments.
5. The blacklist will leak again, and again, and again.
6. The money could be far better spent on actual police action.
7. Providing free home-based filters for parents is a far more responsible solution than what is currently proposed.

I could go on.

[REQUIEM]

Oh, I understand the wowser perspective. And no, I don't like any argument that supports taking away choice from adults.

1. It won't protect children from internet nasties and will instill a sense of false security.
2. It won't stop the dissemination of child pornography or other illegal material.
3. It will slow internet access regardless of what the rigged, already out of date report says.
4. It is a threat to freedom of choice and is open to abuse by current and future governments.
5. The blacklist will leak again, and again, and again.
6. The money could be far better spent on actual police action.

I could go on.

Man where were you at the beginning of this thread... now we can close this thread as it has been answered with logical thoughtful answers.

[Halt, Hammerzeit]

end thread.....

RATIONAL ARGUMENT WON

Please don't try to help.

[AranchineD]

Sorry if it's been asked before, but: aren't the live trials completely invalid when we'll be getting the broadband network soon, and those new speeds will mean new tests should be performed?

[Fenrir]

Look it comes down to a question of philosophy. And ultimately some people don't think aspects of a "nanny-state" is a bad thing. If you can't understand that perspective then you're not going to like any of the arguments for the filter.
How does this "come down to" a question of philosophy? If Stephen Conroy were merely hypothesizing, maybe releasing a discussion paper on the filter as a whole, it would be a philosophical question - but that's not what has happened. Conroy has taken it upon himself to draw a pro-filter conclusion and go about legislating for it, so the question of technical feasibility is vital. Thus, since the mandatory filter meets exactly none of the goals it has been proposed for in the first place, there are no sound arguments for implementing it.

This is why I don't accept Clive Hamilton's assertion that the philosophical argument should be had before the technical argument pops up, too.

end thread.....

RATIONAL ARGUMENT WON
An inquiry into whether this guy is a troll or just a lunatic would be time and money better spent.

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

EDIT:
3. It will slow internet access regardless of what the rigged, already out of date report says.
Alright, you've tabled the performance argument - back it up.

Sorry if it's been asked before, but: aren't the live trials completely invalid when we'll be getting the broadband network soon, and those new speeds will mean new tests should be performed?
This is a more reasonable argument in terms of performance, but one argument that allays it is that infrastructure is about to change rapidly, which presents ample opportunity to integrate filtering technology more effectively. Regardless, the overhead for filtering traffic remains proportionate to the amount of traffic passing through the network, which for a static ~10000-strong blacklist is still relatively minuscule next to the other processing each packet requires (BGP lookup, checksum recalculation et al).

[Shorty]

Sorry if it's been asked before, but: aren't the live trials completely invalid when we'll be getting the broadband network soon, and those new speeds will mean new tests should be performed?

That's another thing the "trial" hasn't considered. The highest speed tested was 8 Mbit. That's not even the fastest connection you can get now, let alone what the NBN is promising. I seriously doubt the ability of this plan to scale up to a nationwide filtering scheme from where it is now.

[Fenrir]

You don't make routers scale like that by merely cutting out ~2% of the overhead - there is going to have to be an overhaul of ISP infrastructure. Why don't you think a filter will scale?

[Shorty]

You don't make routers scale like that by merely cutting out ~2% of the overhead - there is going to have to be an overhaul of ISP infrastructure. Why don't you think a filter will scale?

Because none of the testing conditions have much real world relevance.

The sample size was tiny, with user numbers ranging from just fifteen to only several thousand. The filtering schemes were only applied at speeds of up to 8Mbit/sec. At least two million Australians already have Internet access faster than this through ADSL2+, let alone the promised 100Mbit of the NBN fibre. And the testing methodology was to basically download/upload/ping something every 15 minutes for a week or two, which doesn't reflect actual usage patterns. So we don't know what kind of performance effect may be incurred when, say, Kanye West says something stupid and everyone rushes to Facebook/Twitter/whatever to talk about it. There's also the potential for large performance degradation spikes if something on a high-traffic site like YouTube gets blocked.

Basically, none of the systems were placed under any significant load and the upper limits of these schemes haven't been adequately tested, so I have grave concerns about their ability to handle millions of users at 100Mbit per second in everyday use without incurring significant performance degradation.

[Fenrir]

Alright, these are empirical concerns - you're right, more thorough testing would be desirable, and, in the magical hypothetical scenario where this is thrown to a referendom and filters are impervious and comprehensive and everyone unanimously agrees that mandatory censorship is in the nation's best interests, I'd probably still vote against on the lack of proven infrastructure, too.

But theoretically, as I have stressed above, filtering based on a static list of URIs has no significant overhead - and that's relative to any amount of traffic. And, given a solid and careful implementation, this academic conclusion should carry over to the real world.

I take your point about blocking of popular resources, though. This is something we would have to be much more careful about than the UK (never block Wikipedia, stupid gits). Whatever subsystem packets are referred to once they're plucked on the IP address pass is going to have to address this case, and I admit that's something I haven't contemplated so much - but properly analysing URNs is a tad more complicated (hence slower) than string comparison. For a URN:

/pictures/kiddyporn.jpg

The following will also work:

/pictures/kiddyporn.jpg?
/pictures/kiddyporn.jpg?bypassfilter=yes
/pictures/kiddyporn.jpg?Conroy_is_a_twit

Comparing the first n characters of the URN won't work, either, the following links to this thread:

http://www.hyper.com.au/forums/showthread.php?suck_me_conroy&t=19020

Very, very few websites are going to care about such extraneous parameters, so you can pretty much do that everywhere. Gets worse when you consider sites with encoded parameters, less decipherable parameter schemes (none of this URN stuff is really standardized, parameters can function however the scripter wants them to), etc. URN analysis is a sticky, pretty much undecidable job that can probably be overloaded if interest in a banned resource is high enough.

That just leaves response body analysis, really, and that's definitely going to require something beasty if enough people want the resource. A peddler of illicit content could also rig their content to change slightly (say, flipping a few pixels in an image, adding the current date to a webpage), which is more difficult to compare again.

[StorminNorman]

Kate Lundy's thoughts on the filter. (http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/12/17/my-thoughts-on-the-filter/)

The article itself is just ALP propaganda, but the comments are definitely worth reading.

[Lazlow]

They be gettin' all up in Pia's ass!

[Fenrir]

Hmm, I've been thinking about how the west tends to tackle other foreign shenanigans with which it takes issue - and what I don't understand is, instead of building a wall, why isn't some sort of cyber-military being assembled to eradicate illicit material hosted internationally?

A static blacklist implies we know where the nasties are; child porn is surely a very obvious violation of international law for which cyber-military action would be understandable; and the fact that this content is still online suggests that appeals to web hosts, owners of adjacent networks, and law enforcement in the host country have failed (which rules out respectable IT organizations and developed nations).
The military can probably assemble huge botnets (hell, that's a botnet I wouldn't mind being a part of), and recruit very capable hackers, between which a site could be either gunned down or torn apart form the inside. This is obviously a lot more plausible and effective than a mere filter, and also a suitable response to an age where cyber-crime/warfare is a very real concern*.

So why isn't this approach adopted?

*Huge volumes of DDOS traffic, supposedly not-uncommon hacking, two noted attacks on the root nameservers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_denial_of_service_attacks_on_root_name servers), etc.

[Azzaman]

So why isn't this approach adopted?

One would assume because the technicalities go way over the general voters heads and thus are useless as propaganda.

Also it won't get them the Family First Senator's votes.

[StorminNorman]

Given that this whole thing's apparently about a preferences deal with Family First, expect a lot more FF senators in the next parliament. :(

[texta]

How does this "come down to" a question of philosophy?Whatever order you have the debates, we should only have the filter if it can be technically achieved and if we support the philosophy of having it in place. So whether you have the technical debate first or the philosophical one, they're both necessary before a filter comes in.

So my response was in relation to the philosophical question put to me and my point was that because the filter is undeniably restricting the general public, if you ask for a good non "nanny state" argument for it, there really isn't one. Yes, it's a "nanny state" rule, but my point is that not everyone sees that as a bad thing.

As far as the technical side of it. The report presented this week suggests that it's technically plausible. Sure, it's a long way from being proof that a national filter is technically viable but it certainly supports the proposition.

Given that this whole thing's apparently about a preferences deal with Family First, expect a lot more FF senators in the next parliament. :(That's total speculation. But I don't really understand the deal. Labor will put through supposedly Family First policy and preference Family First at the next election and what does Labor get in return? Support for their Youth Allowance reforms? The CPRS? That seems like a great and successful deal.

Give me the odds and I'll put money on their being no Family First Senators after the next election.

[Readman]

When the censorship regime comes in, I'm gonna report Hyper and get it banned.

[Azzaman]

That's total speculation. But I don't really understand the deal. Labor will put through supposedly Family First policy and preference Family First at the next election and what does Labor get in return? Support for their Youth Allowance reforms? The CPRS? That seems like a great and successful deal.

Give me the odds and I'll put money on their being no Family First Senators after the next election.

Wouldn't it put them one vote closer to having a majority in the senate?

[texta]

Wouldn't it put them one vote closer to having a majority in the senate?We'll be one vote closer to having a majority in the senate when fielding loses his seat to Labor.

Yes, if we did a deal with Fielding so that he'd vote for our legislation we'd be one vote closer to having a majority. But given Fielding has opposed most of Labor's agenda it seems pretty unlikely that such a deal exists.

[Azzaman]

We'll be one vote closer to having a majority in the senate when fielding loses his seat to Labor.

Yes, if we did a deal with Fielding so that he'd vote for our legislation we'd be one vote closer to having a majority. But given Fielding has opposed most of Labor's agenda it seems pretty unlikely that such a deal exists.

unlikely, but not impossible?

EDIT: I also hope the religious nut loses his seat in the next election and I'm a christian btw...

[Lazlow]

I for one will be voting for the Australian Sex Party.

[Fenrir]

One would assume because the technicalities go way over the general voters heads and thus are useless as propaganda.

Also it won't get them the Family First Senator's votes.
How do you figure? Likening it to real warfare (which isn't really a bad analogy) would definitely help the general population get the picture.

So my response was in relation to the philosophical question put to me and my point was that because the filter is undeniably restricting the general public, if you ask for a good non "nanny state" argument for it, there really isn't one. Yes, it's a "nanny state" rule, but my point is that not everyone sees that as a bad thing.
Okay, I'm willing to accept that.

As far as the technical side of it. The report presented this week suggests that it's technically plausible. Sure, it's a long way from being proof that a national filter is technically viable but it certainly supports the proposition.
Forget the report - it tells us nothing new. What I have been saying, is that filtering based on a static blacklist is completely technically plausible, but that circumventing such a filter is exceedingly easy to the point where such a filter is pointless. Even the damned report agrees on both points. Therefore, the only valid technical conclusion is that no mandatory filter will meet the goal of stopping intentional access to banned content.

How else could any of this possibly be interpreted?

[StorminNorman]

Give me the odds and I'll put money on their being no Family First Senators after the next election.

It's a nice dream and all, but you're forgetting that it was Labor preferences that got Fielding elected in the first place.

[Azzaman]

How do you figure? Likening it to real warfare (which isn't really a bad analogy) would definitely help the general population get the picture.

Well at the moment they are just basically saying, we'll protect the children from the nasties. It's a whole lot more snappy and the more gullible parts of society are gobbling it up.

I agree with you and think a more in depth answer is needed from them (and funding to the AFP would be a much better idea), but the problem is the general population doesn't care/doesn't understand the situation.

[Shorty]

How do you figure? Likening it to real warfare (which isn't really a bad analogy) would definitely help the general population get the picture.

I don't know. The Americans already tried that with the War on Drugs and look how that turned out.

[Fenrir]

But that went awry because the war on drugs (at least domestically) isn't comparable to warfare at all. Cyber-warfare on foreign targets is a lot more comparable.

@Azzaman: I'm not sure that actually committing DDOS attacks and hacking enemy systems is within the scope of the AFP's operational guidelines, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

[Azzaman]

But that went awry because the war on drugs (at least domestically) isn't comparable to warfare at all. Cyber-warfare on foreign targets is a lot more comparable.

@Azzaman: I'm not sure that actually committing DDOS attacks and hacking enemy systems is within the scope of the AFP's operational guidelines, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Well maybe it should be!

[Fenrir]

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/163072,brave-labor-mp-rejects-conroys-filter-plan.aspx

ffs, we want federal Labor destabilized over the filter, not further instability for NSW Labor.


Also read a summary (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/330217/lundy_throws_her_support_behind_internet_filter/) of Kate Lundy's blog, and it was purely infuriating.

The industry's original claims that the filters were not feasible are as solid as ever, the IT industry as a whole doesn't tend to undermine its credibility by ****ing up like that. The anti-filter campaigners may've lost one of their precious bullet-points, but performance/accuracy concerns from the industry itself were levelled at the dynamic filter (and the blurred distinction in previous press releases from the minister), and the damned thing is still completely infeasible in that it doesn't actually prevent people from accessing anything. Filter-bypassing technology is not the seedy domain of some esoteric criminal underground, there are friggin' Firefox extensions for it ffs.

Also having read the start of her blog itself, the bit where Hamilton "declared" anything in the technical debate is bullshit, the guy doesn't even want to have the technical debate even when Conroy has completely shunted aside the "should we have a filter" debate.


In other news, RMIT are looking for government grants (http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/330062/rmit_internet_filtering_alone_enough).
The proposed filter has been criticised for not being failproof, but RMIT network engineer program director, Dr Mark Gregory, said it satisfied the Government’s primary objective to reduce the incidents and possibility of users inadvertently encountering illegal material such as child pornography.
Newton has shot this argument down already - none of us ever inadvertently stumble upon child porn on the internet, and in the hypothetical situation where anyone does, you're not going to die or catch paedophilia because of it. There is no need for protection from inadvertent exposure.

There may be a case for protection from inadvertent exposure to legal, classified content - millions of sites that couldn't possibly fit on any blacklist - but this is what optional filtering is for. ffs.

This bit is interesting, however:
The global digital network was never designed for how people are using it today and what really needs to be done is an overhaul of the existing Internet network structure.
It delves into international cooperation and the like from there.

So he wants a different internet. Yeah, that's really feasible. >_>
I don't know, I'd have to see what sort of network they're talking about to really comment; but I know that international cooperation could fix this problem without requiring any major technical overhauls. If enough nations put in place a requirement that content on any network, and any network connected to said network and so-on, meet a certain base list of standards (no kiddy porn, etc), then network admins could be forced to cut off entire networks from the internet if they allowed such base objectionable material online. This is a lot better than futile mandatory filters.


Anyway, the ACL of course are asking for scope creep (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/162962,christian-lobby-wants-filter-net-cast-wider.aspx), and at least ostensibly Conroy doesn't look as bad here.

And finally, I'm about to read this article (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/turning-the-muck-filter-on/story-e6frg71x-1225811211787), which I have an extremely bad feeling about. Good thing I have alcohol on hand.

[Shorty]

And finally, I'm about to read this article (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/turning-the-muck-filter-on/story-e6frg71x-1225811211787), which I have an extremely bad feeling about. Good thing I have alcohol on hand.

It doesn't hold anything surprising. It swallows the government's "protecting children" story hook, line and sinker and then argues against any criticism of the filter on those grounds while dismissing any potential misuses of the filter as unfounded. It rather reminds me of this old Slashdot quote from a few years back:

"Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible."

A particularly relevent point when you see that the ACL is already seeking to expand the filter before it's even in place.

[Fenrir]

It doesn't hold anything surprising. It swallows the government's "protecting children" story hook, line and sinker and then argues against any criticism of the filter on those grounds while dismissing any potential misuses of the filter as unfounded.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I expected. I think I'll skip it, then, alcohol's probably not going to dull the frustration here.

Anyway, churning through more news, filter is being torn asunder by former High Court judge Michael Kirby (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-filters-thin-end-of-the-wedge-kirby-20091217-kym9.html) (very good article btw), USyd's Bjorn Landfeldt (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html), and a few childrens' rights groups (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/330087/child_groups_slam_conroy_isp_filtering_plans/). Spencely remarks gravely on the implications for industry (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/329893/isp-level_filter_bad_industry/), as well as showing concerns over implementation costs; Budde adds himself to the list of commentators concerned of possible scope creep (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/329889/budde_worries_remain_over_isp-level_content_filter/); and SAGE-AU is criticising the trials (http://www.itwire.com/content/view/30126/53/), predictably.

Conroy is making international headlines (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/163020,australias-net-filter-makes-world-headlines.aspx) - for his overall audacity, generally. I can definitely understand the intrigue.

The Greens are planning to amend the shit out of the bill (http://www.itnews.com.au/News/162971,greens-threaten-rocky-path-ahead-for-filter-laws.aspx) when it starts making rounds in parliament next year. In fact, go straight to the source (http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/net-filter-report-signals-trouble-ahead) - Ludlam deserves more traffic.
I assume one of those amendments will involve scrapping the mandatory filter in its entirety.

And finally, intending on reading this article (http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/330342/intenet_filter_human_services_probably_telstra/) in a sec. The language looks colourful.

[Lazlow]

if officials start censoring political expression, public opinion will soon stop them.

Well public opinion is against the filter to begin with...

[StorminNorman]

I'd believe the Greens more with regards to the filter if they hadn't recruited Clive The Intellectual (who is the originator of Labor's filtering policy) earlier in the year.

In unrelated news, an open letter from Reporters Without Borders to the Prime Minister. (http://www.rsf.org/Open-letter-to-Australia-s-Prime.html)

Also, Michael Kirby is a national treasure.

[texta]

I'd believe the Greens more with regards to the filter if they hadn't recruited Clive The Intellectual (who is the originator of Labor's filtering policy) earlier in the year.
Lol. That's pretty outrageous. Clive Hamilton had nothing to do with the formation of this policy.

Anyway, this article sums up my thoughts pretty perfectly:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/vacuous-critics-give-censorship-a-good-name/

[AranchineD]

-> Last generation person sees kids using that new fangled technology to express their opinions
-> Thinks it's bad because they think kids shouldn't be using new fangled technology to express their opinions
-> Writes a column about it

[StorminNorman]

Lol. That's pretty outrageous. Clive Hamilton had nothing to do with the formation of this policy.

First, a bit of history: Whilst the call for a mandatory filter had originally come from some Christian and parent groups, the idea attracted cross factional attention in the ALP when Clive Hamilton from the Australia Insititute brought a broad left view into the debate calling for a mandatory filter, not to mention declaring that it was indeed feasible prior to the 2004 election campaign. This had an impact within the party.

(Emphasis mine.)

[texta]

Yeah but he has no connection to the Labor party.

[Fenrir]

I'd believe the Greens more with regards to the filter if they hadn't recruited Clive The Intellectual (who is the originator of Labor's filtering policy) earlier in the year.
The Greens have been the mos outspoken voice of dissent for the filter in the Senate, I don't think Clive Hamilton is going to change that.

Also, now that you've highlighted it, calling yourself a "public intellectual" has to be one of the most latte-sipping pseudo-intellectual things you could possibly do.

Anyway, this article sums up my thoughts pretty perfectly:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/vacuous-critics-give-censorship-a-good-name/
About to read.

Also, about the whole stephenconroy.com.au incident: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/30169/53/


EDIT: finished reading texta's link.

It starts off well, I guess, but it was really disappointing and hyperbolic by the end. For all the not quite apt comparisons drawn between Australia and <insert list of bad countries here> made by said Twitter crowd, drawing a link between them and Kirby has to be one of the more completely inept things I've read on this whole issue. This is a very poor strategy via which to debunk a highly respected former judge.

It also didn't mention the technical side, which is the glaring bit the lobby is erring in. All this morality, censorship and human rights shit is much more subjective.

I'll dissect it if I have to, but seriously, it is not a good article, and if it sums up your thoughts perfectly, then you seriously need to reassess your thoughts on the matter.

[Fenrir]

Double-posting, for good reason:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/child-welfare-is-more-important-than-net-freedom/

I didn't even get away with contemplating the case of someone "catching" paedophilia from looking at a website - I expect this to be torn apart ruthlessly.

(EDIT: the link is from the article texta linked)

[Shorty]

Double-posting, for good reason:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/child-welfare-is-more-important-than-net-freedom/

I didn't even get away with contemplating the case of someone "catching" paedophilia from looking at a website - I expect this to be torn apart ruthlessly.

(EDIT: the link is from the article texta linked)

There's an even better one in the Most Commented list - if filtering is "impossible", it's only because we're just not trying hard enough (http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/hey-geeks-stop-the-whining-and-build-a-better-filter-clean-feed/).

[Fenrir]

Oh, that's sick. He may as well goad us for not having solved the halting problem yet.

[Fenrir]

More technical adversity for web filtering (http://adrianchadd.blogspot.com/2009/12/filtering-via-bgp-and-why-this-doesnt.html). The botnet host argument came right out of left field for me - you could be looking at thousands of IP addresses just for one URI on the list, and it may be infeasible to actually source every last one of them. HTTP packets don't necessarily have to specify the host domain, either.
There is no reliable coupling between DNS lookup and data transmission, so I think it's fair to say that a botnet could be largely impervious to filtering attempts.

In unrelated news, our favourite communications minister has also announced plans for speed humps on Australian highways (http://digihub.smh.com.au/node/1484).


EDIT: more views from RMIT's direction (http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~gingrich/filter.html), this time opposing the filter, apparently.