Let the whitewash begin (Aus Net Filtering)

[weemadando]

Because if there's one thing we've learnt it's that governments/businesses/people never create skewed scenarios to allow their product to be advanced.

Filtering works, Enex trial shows


Fran Foo | October 01, 2009

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.
However, a highly anticipated report based on the pilot is still weeks away and the federal Opposition says the government can not be trusted to deliver on the $43 billion national broadband network when the goalpost keeps shifting for a mere $300,000 filtering trial.

"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."

Unwired, Optus, Primus, Highway 1, Nelson Bay Online, Netforce, OMNIconnect, TECH 2U and Webshield participated in the trial, conducted by Enex TestLab.

The tests involved thousands of internet users, mostly on an opt-in basis. Australia's largest ISP, Telstra BigPond, chose not to participate.

Trials concluded last month and Enex has submitted the test results to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

Enex declined to comment on the results, citing a confidentiality agreement with the department.

It is still unclear when exactly Communications Minister Stephen Conroy expects to take receipt of the report that is being compiled by the department. It will contain recommendations to government on the ISP filtering framework.

There have been several missed deadlines due to the various ISPs’ different start dates for testing.

A spokesman for Senator Conroy could not provide a likely timetable, but said the report would be provided to the Minister once it was finalised.

Opposition communications spokesman Nick Minchin slammed the government for the delay and said it had produced "nothing" since the filtering policy was first announced in the run up to the 2007 federal election.

"This procrastination is unbelievable," Senator Minchin said. “They should release the report now. There seems to be a systemic problem with Senator Conroy and deadlines," he said. "Until today, we still don't even know what the criteria for the trials are."

"Senator Conroy doesn't seem to be able to handle a small trial. How on earth can we expect him to handle a $43bn broadband project?

"This incompetence doesn't bode well for taxpayers," Senator Minchin said.

The government is assessing the technical feasibility of ISP-level content filtering, which means a "clean feed" will be provided to homes. This approach is starkly different to PC-based filters that are installed on computers to help identify and stop children from accessing undesirable websites.

Originally the government wanted to bar every web page listed on a secret blacklist managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The list contains a wide array of URLs that contain both illegal and prohibited content.

The government has since changed tack, saying it would only seek to block "refused classification" material on the blacklist. RC includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates terrorist acts.

For the trial, ISPs were invited to test filter the entire ACMA blacklist of prohibited URLs. There was the option to do additional testing of content filtering solutions to test for non-web based applications such as peer-to-peer networks.

Senator Conroy has always stated that ISP filtering is no silver bullet and was not the only answer in tackling child pornography. He has pledged to make the report public in "due course".

The filtering scheme can be introduced via legislation or as a mandatory code registered with ACMA.

Senator Minchin said the Coalition did not support mandatory internet filtering, but if legislation was the chosen route, it would study it carefully before making a decision.

The controversial filtering plan has been slammed by several quarters including privacy advocates, child protection groups and advocacy organisation GetUp.

Their main concern is the mandatory nature of the program which forces ISPs to play ball. Most argue that a voluntary approach by industry is the way to go.

GetUp’s petition against the proposal has garnered more than 115,000 signatures. It has raised over $100,000 in contributions that have been geared towards online, television and print advertising, including a parody TV advertisement dubbed Censordyne.

[Akkleptos]

Government censorship on Australian internet access will be censorship...
(and will cost taxpayers' AUS dollars...)

Who knew?

[Stark]

I love the phrase 'clean feed' when it's nothing of the sort. Media buzzwords, lol?

I will continue to believe it when I see it. Remember the January rollout? That was a big event! lol

[ThomasP]

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

This pretty much makes the entire proposal redundant, given Conroy's stated purpose for this filter, no?

[Stark]

Lol! That's why people with clues think a) it's a waste of time and will never work and b) will probably never happen. They didn't let iiNet and Internode into the trial because they were too mean about it.

[weemadando]

Yeah, given that it was all about:

"STOP THE CHILD PORN!"

That statement pretty much blows that out of the water. But remember, Conroy shifted the goal posts to:

"Stop unrated content."

Man, I want to see the OFLC rate EVERY INTERNET SITE. Do it now.

Meanwhile, the police use non-filter based methods to identify thousands of potential offenders in Melbourne alone. Why not fund that instead of your white elephant Conroy.

Oh wait I forgot. Hillsong, Catch a Fire, Exclusive Bretheren, Family First, Nick Xenophon and all the others who they rely on.

[Stark]

The best part is the iiNet director was just 'yeah, ps this will never work because it can't hit xyz vector or stop encrypted content, thus it can never do what it's designed to do and instead simply gives the government power to do what it wants'.

I'm just waiting for them to turn it on and see how long it stays on before corporate pressure ('holy shit nothing works') forces it to be turned off again.

[weemadando]

I'm actually going to change over to iiNet - between their resolute opposition to the filter, fighting AFACTs privacy and confidentiality infringements in court and offering shit like XBox Live, iView and a heap of other content unmetered? Why the fuck wouldn't I?

[Vendetta]

Lol! That's why people with clues think a) it's a waste of time and will never work and b) will probably never happen. They didn't let iiNet and Internode into the trial because they were too mean about it.

Just because it's a waste of time and will never work doesn't mean a politician won't do it to score some points Protecting the Kiddies from the Internet, which is full of pedophiles, rapists, and assorted scum, and has no redeeming value because it didn't exist when they were born.

[Xon]

I know at one small ISP on the filtering trial; it was documented that the filtering added, a small but, noticable latency when opening html pages.

[Stark]

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that the real and unavoidable problems are going to cause enough problems that it just isn't practical. Everyone wants omg teh childr0ns to be safe, but when latency and resolution issues show up people will change their tune.

Or I'll move to Canada.

Either or.

[Lusankya]

Oh wait I forgot. Hillsong, Catch a Fire, Exclusive Bretheren, Family First, Nick Xenophon and all the others who they rely on.

Last I heard, Xenophon opposed the filter. Has his position shifted in the last couple of months, or do you just hate him because you think he's a single issue campaigner, rather than a slightly more conservative version of the old-school Democrats (from back in the day when they appealed to disaffected Liberals)?

[Ryan Thunder]

Hillsong

Are they actually in on this bullshit?

[Xon]

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that the real and unavoidable problems are going to cause enough problems that it just isn't practical. Everyone wants omg teh childr0ns to be safe, but when latency and resolution issues show up people will change their tune.

This was just with ADSL2 with less than 2 dozen users, start chucking a thousands of users with 100mbps (the stated goal for the national broadband network via fiber) and the entire issue becomes completely untractable.

Or I'll move to Canada.

I've got dual Australia/Canada citizenship, so this is actually quite easy for me.

[weemadando]

Or I'll move to Canada.

I've got dual Australia/Canada citizenship, so this is actually quite easy for me.

I've got the same. Where shall we establish Ozville, Canuckistan? I'd say Alberta, just so we don't get too homesick, what with it being full of crazies.

[Stark]

Sorry Xon, that wasn't actually a reply to you... I'm just addicted to quick reply.

The funniest element of the whole thing is that every time something defeats the omg filt0r, the concerned fascists will make it more and more onerous. The first rme legitimate business use is blocked, the lols will ensue. It just remains to be seen how long it'll take.