Slashdot Mirror


Australian Net Filter Gets One Step Closer

Condobolin sends in an update to the Australian government's ongoing efforts to implement ISP-level filtering. One of the hurdles they had to overcome was to build a system that would allow them to filter content without impairing other internet usage. A trial of the system has just concluded, and the results are positive — at least, for the government. Quoting: "More than half of the Internet service providers (ISPs) taking part in the Federal Government's ISP filtering trial have reported minimal speed disruptions or technology problems. Of the nine participating ISPs, iPrimus, Netforce, Webshield, Nelson Bay Online and OMNIconnect told ARN they had seen no slowdowns in Internet speeds or problems with the filtering solutions in place. Of the remaining four ISPs, Tech2U and Highway1 were unable to respond by time of publication while Unwired and Optus refused to comment. ... 'From a technical perspective we're more than confident that if the government decided to roll out a mandatory Internet filter based on or around an Australian Communications and Media Authority blacklist or subset thereof, then it can be done without any impact whatsoever to the speed of the Internet,' [said Webshield managing director Anthony Pillion]."

31 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Aus can sleep peacefully now... by heretic108 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah right.

    Results of filtering - bearing in mind that the incumbent Labor federal government is largely ruled by the Catholic-dominated right wing faction:

    • Child porn sites.... gone (except for tech-savvy paedophiles ie most paedophiles)
    • Gay advocacy sites... going
    • Abortion advice/counselling sites... going!
    • Teenage sexuality and health sites... going!
    • Anti-Catholic sites... endangered

    This is a huge worry. The blacklist will not be subject to public oversight. As an Aussie expat, I'm glad to be residing across the ditch in New Zealand (where ISPs are allowed to opt out of the filtering).

    --
    -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
    1. Re:Aus can sleep peacefully now... by Norsefire · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm glad to be residing across the ditch in New Zealand (where ISPs are allowed to opt out of the filtering).

      Can but ain't. They're all queuing up to opt-in; we've got Telecom's CEO saying the Internet needed this years ago. It's the fallback for John "The Internet is the Wild West" Key's three-strikes-filesharing-bill, I'll bet money if they can't pass that they'll just use the filter to block the likes of the The Pirate Bay. Hopefully we IPREDator before we get the filters.

    2. Re:Aus can sleep peacefully now... by heretic108 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Can but ain't. They're all queuing up to opt-in;

      Some ISPs, including one of the market leaders Orcon, have clearly stated they will opt out and instead offer voluntary filtering software to their subscribers.

      Hopefully we IPREDator before we get the filters

      Sorry, but IPREDator in recent discussion, has been flagged as not quite the knight in shining armour. Best we fall back on the likes of Tor or I2P.

      --
      -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
  2. Isn't It AMAZING !!!! by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The Australian Government sponsored testing of an "internet filter' (ie censorship technology).

    The participants were all
    • already in the business of selling internet filters ... or
    • tiny tiny ISPs ... or
    • respectably large ISPs who limited the "testing" to
      • a tiny fraction of their userbase
      • who were *willing to be filtered*

    And an the obvious (some would say FOREGONE) conslusion was "it works just fine".

    .... brought to you by the department of No!Really?

    Seriously folks, aside from all the dodgy (ie totally unscientific and statistically irrelevant) testing, this "internet filtering" is bad because CENSORSHIP IS EVIL!

    Always, in every case, by definition and in principle.

    Censorship is NEVER, ever, in any sense of the phrase, a good thing.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    1. Re:Isn't It AMAZING !!!! by PenguSven · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a two part filter. There vague descriptions split it into "illegal" (which we already know is not limited purely to illegal material) and "unwanted" (who knows what that could include. The "unwanted" part is Opt out, the "illegal" is mandatory, with no public oversight, and no standardised review process.

      --
      What is...?
    2. Re:Isn't It AMAZING !!!! by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no "opt-out box" just a slow filter with an ever expanding list of sites based on the personal whim of a cubicle geek and their faith based government master.
      The opt out will be the same list of min of ~10 000 sites minus 5 IPs/urls.
      Just as slow, just as expensive, just as useless.
      Also telling your ISP you opted out may be very unhealthy long term as that information would be shared with numerous state and federal agencies from day one or as mission creep.
      Opt-out would light up your IP for a "random" net use log sample?
      A few months later you become the 'example' of how a black list helps catch 'really really' bad people.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Isn't It AMAZING !!!! by srjh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just remember - this is the senator who said that the previous trials were a success as well.

      Those previous trials showed an average 30% slowdown (87% for the most accurate filter), and still managed to block about 1% of the internet by mistake.

      The current trials are a farce - everyone knew they would be rigged from the start (one ISP - iiNet asked if they could perform a comprehensive double-blind test and Labor told them to go jump in a lake). We have an extremely tiny proportion of the population testing the filters, on a purely opt-in basis (scalability and selection bias are obvious concerns here) - and they can't possibly test the potential for over-blocking (there are over 1 trillion urls on the internet, and there are only 15 users trialling the filter in some cases). They've also got nothing to do with what Conroy now claims the filter is going to block (halfway through the trial when the blacklist leaked he actually realised what was on it and promised the real blacklist would be different).

      As for redtube being blocked by mistake - it's not a mistake. It was on the leaked blacklist from March and the user who submitted it has the official response from ACMA confirming it is prohibited in Australia. Virtually all pornography on the internet is technically prohibited here, even "simulated" sexual activity and "adult nudity" (check out ACMA's homepage linked to from TFA if anyone doesn't believe me).

    4. Re:Isn't It AMAZING !!!! by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2, Funny

      As is <censored> in a <censored> (<censored> duly <censored> and <censored>).

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    5. Re:Isn't It AMAZING !!!! by deniable · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny thing is, we have a guy at work signed up for Conroy's media releases. Spam Assassin keeps blocking them and for rules that look odd from a government mail server. I'll have to scrounge one up and see what triggers it. Maybe the whole department are idiots.

  3. yeah but look at the isp's by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    the 3 biggest ISP's which account for about 90% of the traffic didn't participate and are opposed to it... so the test doesn't do anything to gauge the impact on speed if you tried ramping this up to cover the whole country.

    then again, you can't expect to talk sense with the labor party....

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:yeah but look at the isp's by PenguSven · · Score: 5, Informative

      then again, you can't expect to talk sense with the labor party....

      I hate this planned filter as much as the next guy, but don't think this is a labour-only special. The Coalition wanted to do the same thing during the late 90's.

      --
      What is...?
    2. Re:yeah but look at the isp's by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Informative

      no, what they did was provide free filtering software to anyone that wanted it. a much better, cheaper solution for anyone concerned about billy seeing his first boobie.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:yeah but look at the isp's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm posting anonymously, as I work for an Australian ISP (and no, not the one indicated by my IP address).

      The previous government did have a filtering plan. Which it had been investigating for around five years. Every time they needed Senator Harridine's balance-of-power vote, they'd announce another inquiry into Internet censorship. And having got his vote they'd shelve the report. For all Senator Alston's lack of understanding of the Internet, he was superb at politics and he knew how to create the illusion of progress whilst making sure the rubber never actually hit the road. Which Alston was clever enough to know would lead to a showdown between the liberal (Costello) and conservative (Howard) elements in the party. A showdown which would damage the government, and thus to be avoided.

      Then Labor arrives. And hey, how inefficient was the previous government, making no progress on this for the past five years, despite all of that work? So the new minister tells the department that he want results this time. Without quite understanding what he is asking for. Again there's a rabid conservative religious nutter holding the balance of power. But the new minister lacks the political skills of the old, and has set the snowball rolling...

      Technically, the report is a farce. I don't care what a group of hick ISPs say about filtering not having an impact. They aren't the ones with multiple 10Gbps links to the USA, links so fast that any PC-based filtering just doesn't cut it. Those hick ISPs don't have customers that need a robust network, because people die when those customers websites go down. It's just the government fishing for the results it wants. If it actually cared, it would only ask the top five ISPs. And they've all said that filtering will hurt performance somewhat and hurt robustness a lot. And since CPUs aren't getting faster at anything like the rate at which links are getting faster, the performance hit increases over the years.

    4. Re:yeah but look at the isp's by mjwx · · Score: 2, Informative

      the 3 biggest ISP's which account for about 90%

      Try the 5 biggest. Telstra, Optus, iinet, internode and one other I cant remember. IPrimus is the 6th largest ISP but the other 5 make up 80-90% of Australia's ISP market.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  4. Re:Yeah, but... by PenguSven · · Score: 4, Informative

    The only ISP of any size who are saying it's all find and dandy is iPrimus. They had the filtering trial as an Opt In. There is of course also the fact that the company is run by fucking idiots. Before the trial started, when the public debate about the filter was first firing up, the CEO of Primus Australia tried to do a cosy deal with Stephen Conroy to allow Primus to make a profit from the whole thing.

    --
    What is...?
  5. Re:Performance was the barrier? by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it is a total failure, iinet has already provided the communicatino minister with ample evidence of this, but he's commited to being a total idiot it seems.

    The whole point of censorship is to thwart opposing opinion, the ministers apparent asshattery should come as no surprise.

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  6. Re:Performance was the barrier? by Norsefire · · Score: 2, Funny

    minister ... commited to being a total idiot

    Person in Government is a total idiot, more news at 11.

  7. Time to by vikstar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    move out of Chin..ahem.. Australia.

    --
    The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
  8. The thing that riles me most by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are all my fellow countrymen who just don't care. Indeed, even my close family believe it to be a good idea, even after I've explained just why it isn't. They either think it'll stop them receiving spam, or think it'll stop some middle eastern type fellow from finding bomb plans on the internet and killing us (because we've had such a problem with that here).

    I'm tired of explaining these things to people only to have them throw it back in my face and ignore everything I say. I've sort of gotten to the stage where I just think "Fuck em. Let them implement their filter and we'll see what happens." If it fails miserably, perhaps we can finally get some interest from the every day Australian.

  9. Re:Performance was the barrier? by davester666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, all the citizens need to do is search the internet for the results of the trial, and they only get results indicating everything went great.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  10. Australia already has censorship! by the_raptor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why aren't you protesting against existing censorship in Australia? Unlike America our ratings system is run by and enforced by the government. This is why our highest rating for video games is MA and we why we have no R rating ("because the nintendos is for kids right?").

    Sad to say it but this internet filtering fits right in with general government and public belief that a minority should be able to control what material adults consume.

    Fire up your proxies gentleman!

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    1. Re:Australia already has censorship! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Like in the US, Australian protests are surrounded by clean faced people in strange clothing with cameras

      I think you meant "clean shaven" and in any event you don't see much of that here in the U.S., not anymore. Generally the Feds don't give much of a damn about protests, because We the People no longer give a damn about protests. Besides, don't you know that it's terrorists that are the big threat here now, not protesters, and we're on the path towards a UK-style camera-State anyway. They'll have us all on camera, all the time, so no point in sending agents around to make home movies of us.

      It was different back in the fifties during the Red Scare, when everyone was afraid that their neighbor was a Commie. Or should I say, was induced to believe that their neighbor could be a Commie ... the government did a pretty thorough job of creating an atmosphere of fear, just like they're doing now with terrorism, and for the same damn reason. Civil liberties are so gosh-darned inconvenient, after all. Hell, back in the old days the FBI and even local cops were infiltrating all kinds of (ahem) "subversive" groups, even though for the most part the people being investigated were just exercising their Constitutional right to be stupid and misguided. There really was a sort of governmental paranoia going on at the time: pretty bizarre by current standards ... I guess insanity changes over time. I can't say we're any better off today, really.

      So far as Australia goes, though ... I'll take your word for it since I've never been there. Maybe you guys need to come up with some appropriate legal protections at some point.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  11. More than half by Psychotria · · Score: 3, Insightful

    More than half of the Internet service providers (ISPs) taking part in the Federal Government's ISP filtering trial have reported minimal speed disruptions or technology problems.

    So, in other words, just less than half reported significant speed and technology problems. This entire situation pisses me off! I emailed the minister in charge of this and he didn't even have the decency to reply with a non-canned response. So, all the big ISPs are saying that this will result in big speed disruptions, but the other half (idiot home-run ISPs most likely) are saying it's fine. Gee, I wonder if it's because those ISPs have negligible traffic anyway!

  12. Re:Performance was the barrier? by Psychotria · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it is a total failure, iinet has already provided the communicatino minister with ample evidence of this, but he's commited to being a total idiot it seems.

    Yes. But you see what is happening don't you? He (Conroy or his department) is playing with dodgy statistics to put his argument/proposal in the best probable light. "More than half" of the ISPs he surveyed said the filtering was ok. What does that mean? Does that mean that more than half of the surveyed ISPs were little players without many customers? Does it mean that more than half of the surveyed ISPs are in the government's pockets? Does it mean that more than half of the surveyed ISPs are OWNED by the government? I don't know. But these are not reasons being put forward. They (the government) are playing the dodgy statistics game in the hope that the masses will fall for their flawed studies. The masses will fall for it, though. I won't and I will remain pissed off.

  13. Re:Performance was the barrier? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Censordyne ad had a great line about "get results indicating everything went great"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goEEbsEDEM4
    more about the ad
    http://www.censordyne.com.au/
    http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25781616-15306,00.html
    and how it was barred from airing on QANTAS flights to Canberra.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  14. Any iPrimus users out there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I guess the 15 users of Nelson Bay Online would be able to help, but iPrimus seems to be the only notable ISP taking part.

    I'm interested in testing a few url combinations - so if you are using iPrimus, could you post the results for the following urls:

    http://redtube.com/
    http://www.redtube.com/
    http://www.redtube.com/terms
    http://www.redtube.com/contact
    http://www.redtube.com/privacy
    http://www.redtube.com/dmca
    http://www.redtube.com/usc2257
    http://www.redtube.com/?foo=bar

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cyde/Weird_pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyde/Weird_pictures

    If you're reading slashdot, you should have figured out what I'm trying to test. The reason is that Conroy has claimed that only the exact url is supposed to be blocked, and if (for example) www.redtube.com is on the blacklist, no sub-pages should be blocked. How this is supposed to handle query strings (such as those used for slashdot threads) without overblocking or being trivial to defeat, I'm not sure.

    Note that these sites contain adult content, but nothing that is illegal to view in Australia.

    AC'ing because I don't want an $11,000 fine.

    (Most sites taken from here)

  15. Re:Yeah, but... by donaldm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, but they have to actually implement it before they can find out whether it can withstand all the attacks that will be launched against it. That's where it's likely to really cost them. :)

    I think the main attack is going to be the voter especially if the opposition groups can get a good logical argument going and definitely not any disobedience which will play into these peoples hands. The problem you have here in Australia is many people vote for a party (Liberal or Labour) not the man and even if you have a minister cultivate a small moustache, wears knee high boots and walks in a funny way many will vote for him because he is a member of the party that that person votes for.

    This is the sort of action that slowly erodes basic human freedoms by effectively having the Government gradually take over thinking for you and you really have to be stupid or just plain lazy not to see this. I have seen and heard arguments from various Government ministers on the so called internet monitoring and they initially sound rational with quotes like "Think of the children" and "We are against child porn" but behind the faÃade you really do have to worry.

    A very good quote comes to mind here. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance".

    --
    There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  16. Re:The voters are to blame by deniable · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, all of those people are what? 4% of the Victorian voters. And what's really annoying, if we get a double-dissolution causing an early election, Steve Fielding only needs half that to stay in the Senate. Bugger.

  17. The Great Firewall of Australia by David+Gerard · · Score: 3, Funny

    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has announced that the Australian government will build a new $43 billion national broadband network, connecting 90% of homes to 100-megabit fibre internet. "We believe that fast broadband is absolutely essential for our nation's future," he said.

    "Telstra has raised issues with the amount of bandwidth usage this will produce, given we're still hooked to America by tin cans and string, but our Great Firewall of Australia Internet filtering project should keep usage down to reasonable levels at near-dialup speeds. We promise you won't go over your download cap."

    The Great Firewall will reliably block all illegal material, child pornography, terrorism and unAustralian thoughts.

    "Not only are the contents of the list illegal," said Senator Stephen Conroy, "but revealing the list is also illegal, and so is linking to someone linking to someone claiming to reveal the list. So we're blocking Google Search. Having to use Anzwers should keep usage right down."

    Calling it the "single largest infrastructure decision in Australia's history," Mr Rudd said the project would employ up to 37,000 people a year monitoring citizens' net access, reading their email and correcting spelling errors in their football forum posts.

    A consultative process will determine the regulatory framework for the network. "We're considering getting Senator Fielding to do it personally," said Senator Conroy, "since he's the dickhead who demanded the censorship in return for his votes. Hopefully it'll melt his brain. Bloody balance of power. At least Xenophon's bloody sane."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  18. Re:The voters are to blame by David+Gerard · · Score: 2, Funny

    I blame that scientific genius Steven Fielding. Bloody balance of power.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  19. CENSORSHIP IS EVIL by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But its for the children.

    Seriously tho, i'm afraid LOTS of people out there believe that some censorship in exchange for their 'safety' is a good thing. Which is sad. Actually most of the world is ok with giving up rights ( that most never really had ... ) to their governments.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----