Slashdot Mirror
Technical Specs Released For Aussie Net Filtering
smallkathryn writes "Technical specifications have just been released for the Australian net filtering trial. The trial, which aims to prove that ISP-level filtering is a viable way to stop 'unwanted content' from reaching users, will go live on 24 December. The trial will involve ISPs choosing a commercially available hardware filter from an internet content filter (ICF) vendor, adding it to their networks, then loading the blacklist of unwanted sites. Still no indication of how peer-to-peer information will be addressed."
This is the time to invest in and bring to market an encryption product to the masses in Australia. What would stop a US company from selling cheap VPN tunnels to end users down under?
I do not believe any government should censor speech. This sort of technology is ripe for abuse. There will probably be sites which "accidently" are filtered, maybe sites with unpopular political views, or legal material, such as adult pornography. As well, this sets dangerous precedents as well, that government has a right to censor things. It could set a dangerous precedent for censoring things we all agree should not be censored, like pornography of consenting adults and unpopular (communist, marxist, etc) political views.
then loading the blacklist of unwanted sites.
Obviously someone wants these sites, else there would be no need to blacklist them.
We'll all be rooned.
Won't somebody please think of the children, who will be grown-ups one day -- grown-ups shackled with the consequences of implementing this unethical system?
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Putting aside the question of whether filtering is desirable in the first place ("think of the children!"), or issues regarding the potential for future abuse (e.g., censorship of unpopular speech, and who determines what needs to be filtered in the first place) at the technical level any halfway-reliable filtering technology that peeks into the transport layer is going to add a huge amount of overhead that will increase costs and degrade performance. Good for the equipment companies, but bad for everyone who would prefer their Internet connection as dumb and fast as possible.
OTOH, OpenDNS provides a free, opt-in filtering service available to anyone who wants it. It's very easy to deploy, why not just use that?
TurnKey Linux: if it can be easy, it should be easy
We patch apache (patch XXX obviously) to toss back hex or D-word IP addresses when hit with them. Actually I don't think a patch is necessary; I can think of a quick and dirty way to do it in Korn with forward and reverse proxying on..huh, pretty much any apache from 1.33 on.
Then all we need to do is wait until the Aussies load so many obfuscated hosts into their border boxen that they all fry themselves and the silly idea it is will be really quite clear to anyone with opposable thumbs.
Only the *testing* is voluntary.
When (if, hopefully) the real thing goes live, "Filtering will be mandatory in all homes and schools across the country".
See: http://nocleanfeed.com
ISP-level filtering is a viable way to stop 'unwanted content' from reaching users
Unwanted by whom?
What good could come from it?
There could be some new and interesting ways to get around such filtering?
Gains the attention of more people to find against such stupidity?
THE INTERNET SHOULD BE FREE, FOREVER.
Filtering should only ever be done on the client end!
Merry Christmas!! Here's your broken internet!
The paper says that the filtering will be URL based (to start with, possibly moving to other methods later). With that in mind, I present my (patented..?) two step method to bypassing the filter:
Step 1: Get IP address of blocked site
Step 2: Enter that IP address
The awesome thing here is that the ISPs are now responsible for all the actions their users take.
Did Bob Aussieman pirate a movie? Well, the ISP should have filtered that out. Did Steve Kiddyporn upload/download illegal pictures of children? The ISP should have stopped it.
By even doing token filtering, they're taking responsibility for everything that happens on their network.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
If I were the ISP, I would add a few extra domains to the blacklist. Block some things that I as an ISP find objectionable, such as the web sites of candidates that support filtering. Media outlets that carry advertising for candidates that I don't like. Etc.
The government panders to them only for a single reason, namely that it is in the interest of the government to pander to them. More precisely, they're the excuse because "see, at least SOME want that!"
Else it would have been easy. You want filtering? No problem, we make a law that your ISP has to provide it at your request, for free (i.e. everyone has to pay for it, because no provider will ever sit on expenses and not brush it off to its clients). If you're concerned that you don't want to see OMGWTF content, here's an easy solution. That would have been pandering to those people if the government wasn't interested in filtering.
Since they are, the solution is to make filters mandatory.
So I wouldn't just say it's the fault of the OMFGPR0N! crowd. They're just the excuse to do what has quite different reasons but can somehow not really be "sold" that way.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Did Steve Kiddyporn upload/download illegal pictures of children? The ISP should have stopped it.
His name is Bryan Kiddyporn! Not everyone in Australia is called Bob or Steve!
Cheers
Bruce
Australia already has that law. Free NetNanny for everyone that wants a "clean" connection.
Now ask me how many people have taken up this offer...
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Rest assured there will be a law that absolves them. Else the lights will go out pretty fast in the fiberoptic cables of Aussieland.
Because, as everyone here knows, there WILL be downloads and there WILL be illegal content, and you can filter however and whatever you like, it will get through. Now, ISPs are usually international companies, few are still single country. And when I am in constant danger of a lawsuit that threatens my very business in some country, I'll pull out. Providing internet services is a lossy business in Australia? Ok. Shut down the branch, we move the resources to some other country. It's done everywhere? Most ISPs are either also in telco or cable TV, so let's shut down the ISP biz and concentrate on the rest.
If ISPs become the new scapegoat of the sue happy industries, they will close their doors. Unlike real people, corporations can easily move, and they can easily "die" without anyone being hurt.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
42.
That's actual people that took up the Netnanny offer before you start going on about some answer to life, the universe and everything.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Shouldn't trials test a hypothesis or design? If you set out to prove something with a trial, I'm fairly certain that you will carefully design it so that it does, indeed, prove it; as you have already decided you will do it and are now cynically producing evidence.
Trials should be neutral, investigating or testing or gathering data. The *RESULTS* of a trial will support or disprove a concept.
Ultimately, you cant really "prove" anything; just gain sufficient confidence that despite your best efforts, you cannot disprove it.
Perhaps the trial aims to check "the feasibility of" rather than "prove"... well, we can hope.
err!
jak.
iiNet have said that NOBODY has EVER downloaded the free filtering software from their website.
As mentioned in my blog, I think if politicians are so keen to 'clean up the internet', they should start closer to home, in their own PCs. How many times have we seen Australian politicians in various compromising positions ... 'chair-sniffing', kiddie-porn scandals, and of course Prime Minister Rudd can't even remember his night out in Vagas where he had lap dances etc paid for by the Aussie taxpayer.
Of course this is less Labor's fault than fucking Family First, that bunch of ultra-conservative freaks who openly admit they want to turn Australia into a fundamentalist hell-hole, dissolving the separation between religion and state, and enforce their own sexually perverted vision on 'the right way' down everyone else's throats. Their backers include the Assembly of God nut-cases, who are outright hostile to democracy, prevent their own members from reading any non-God-related material, force their children into slave labour for the church, spread vicious lies about progressive political candidates, and support terrorist attacks on abortion clinics. They're a real piece of work! But on the other hand, it's enlightening to see Labor - the so-called 'alternative' party ( inside the 2-party system of course ) backing this lunacy.
I'm fairly sure one of the first things added to the list will be torrent indexes. No more TPB or ISOHunt for Australians. This is exactly what Australian media companies want: they used to have it good, they would hold over US shows and movies for rating windows and screw over viewers that just wanted to watch stuff current.
The big problem is, Australian media holds a lot of sway with the scum that is an Australian politician.
Of course you'll be able to access them in a round-about fashion. Maybe it will eventually become illegal to bypass the filter, call it hacking. Aussie freedom will go, china style.
I'm confused: as far as I can see, about the only people who want this implemented are Stephen Conroy and Family First. The Liberals don't want it, the Greens don't want it, citizens don't want it, child protection groups don't want it, and ISPs are only doing it to prove to the government that they're lying about the speed impact.
Child pornography is not "information." Child pornography is a product made through the rape and other sexual abuse of children.
A picture is information. A video is information. Sound is information. QED
Since no one could possibly believe that CP is just "information" (and I have a very low opinion of the intelligence of most people), the most likely explanation for your position on this is that you are a consumer and/or producer of child pornography yourself.
Just to be sure I'm understanding you, you claim that classification of "product" as not different from "information" proves me to be a consumer or producer of child porn?
Never a legitimate reason to stop information? That's so ridiculous it's beneath discussion.No, no it's not. And while we're throwing around ad hominems you, sir or madam, are an idiot.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Australia has classification and censorship (aka banning) of film, tv, radio, video games, newspapers, magazines, advertisements.. why wouldn't we want classification and censorship of the Internet too? I, personally, think classification is a good thing, but it should be voluntary and banning/censorship is just draconian. But are my views in the majority? Who knows. The current policies of my government would not seem to indicate so.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Sorry I'm having trouble understand you. Half of your post was filtered.
Don't quote me on this, but as far as I'm aware, only iiNet and Optus are participating.
I wouldn't be in a rush to leave if you're with them, though. The head of iiNet said that Conroy was the worst Comms. minister in the 15 years the internet industry has existed, and is only participating because it's the only way to show the government how stupid it is.
If we don't show them how stupid it is, showing them exactly what sites are blocked by mistake, how much it will slow the internet, how easy it is to break, how much porn will get through anyway, etc... we'll be stuck with it. Labor isn't backing down, so the only option left is making sure the filter goes down in flames so spectacularly that no-one will even dare touch the issue again in the near future.
Can somebody please supply me with a list of all blocked sites. My 4chan status could really use a boost.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Now, ISPs are usually international companies, few are still single country.
I don't know how it works in the US (or wherever you live) but the 2 of the top 3 ISPs in Australia (Telstra and iiNet) only serve within Australia, AFAIK. There headquarters are here too, meaning it would be difficult to move, especially since they own so much of the local infrastructure.
The reason for this is likely that Australia is geographically isolated from other countries, being a continent in its own right.
Most ISPs are either also in telco or cable TV, so let's shut down the ISP biz and concentrate on the rest.
Telstra is a telco, but iiNet is only an ISP. There's actually talk of them providing IPTV next year, but that would be over the internet.
Besides, at least one company will remain, and feel free to charge whatever they want (probably Telstra, due to their government given monopoly on the infrastructure). Isn't that the situation in the US - few people can choose an ISP other than Comcast?
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
This of course means that the blacklist will only impede a small, acceptable percentage of people and therefore should be implemented.
This of course means that there is a raging epidemic of accessing undesirable material is going on and the blacklist is therefore urgently required.
Why does no one ever demand scientific accountability? Let the government state its case, make testable claims and see if reality bears them out - and and scrap it if it does not even work out on paper!
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
Remember those protesting are porn *users* not porn producers. I doubt that the penises on display will be too huge, especially without any porn around. :P
a viable way to stop 'unwanted content' from reaching users
I have a viable way for users to stop unwanted content. Don't open it!
Sheesh, that was easy.
Oh, I'm sorry, that's not you wanted? Did you mean that you wanted censorship?
Then we're talking about stopping wanted content from reaching users.
Man, fuck the man.
42 people who sure as shit won't be finding out about life, the universe, and everything...