Slashdot Mirror
Australian Telco Causes Minor Panic While Preparing Web Filter
Twisted64 writes "Australia's largest telco, Telstra, has been frightening users of its mobile data services for the last week. Logging revealed that HTTP requests from a mobile device on Telstra's network were duplicated with a request from another server, located in Chicago. Eyebrows were raised on the Whirlpool forums, with fears that Telstra was giving up Australian browsing data to a U.S. company and therefore the U.S. government. Following a well-worded letter, Telstra revealed today that the reason for this behavior is that the company is preparing an opt-in web filter. Personally, while the idea of my browsing data being logged anywhere does not fill me with joy, the idea of the U.S. government having access to it (randomized or not) is probably going to be enough to make me switch to an inferior carrier once my current plan ends."
Switch now, switch immediately. You can cite breach of privacy as a breach of contract by Telstra,
Australia's laws and internet restrictions are worse than anything the USA can do to you.
We finally get something outsourced to us and everyone is scared... We freakin outsource our EMR coding to India, the one thing we value the most of our private data.
... and crickies, and wombats, and koalas, and dingos, and fantasies of USA-gov backed conspiracies to compromise YOUR stupid privacy. Who the hell cares about you anyway that you think this is important?
It's not.
What a nicely biased summary.
Why does Telstra need to send all URLs to another company in order to "prepare" a content filter?
Do they expect us to believe that Netsweeper didn't already have a database of URLs?
Maybe they plan to relocate the server somewhere more local once it's running.
You're not really a telstra user are you? Way to turn a real issue into a advertorial.
after all of the horses have escaped.
Seriously, what makes you think that the US doesn't already have all of your browsing history?
From TFA: "Telstra was waiting on confirmation from its legal team before it is expected to issue a statement later today."
Hmm. Do something and then only check if it's legal? Equivalent to fire first and ask questions later. Tsk tsk.
Other Telstra users who frequent /.: is this typical behavior for them?
All I can say is,
"It's opt-in. For now."
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
These double requests also causes a lot of trouble for some people.
I'm working for a company running a web service for corporations and we have a very high level of logging and surveillance in order to provide a good service. However we get a lot of strange alerts from double requests from different ip numbers. It appears that some content filtering companies like to do the same (Bluecoat I'm looking at you) and they even do requests with cloned cookies (so they act in the same session as the user).
A lot of funky things happens if you assume that a user is only going to access certain (GET) links once but a filtering company is intercepting the request and sometimes manage to make the request faster than the user.
Just another good reason to use a different provider which doesn't undertake sloppy, questionable, or objectionable practices.
Personally, while the idea of my browsing data being logged anywhere does not fill me with joy, the idea of the U.S. government having access to it...
My US-based Business stores user's information (I own a repair shop, we document model & S/N, names, addresses, etc, just like any other company), but that doesn't mean we share that information with the US government. What leap of logic could possibly lead people to believe that just because the server is in the US that the US Feds have access to it, or even care? Sure, the Feds like to spy on us (citizens), but why would they care what you (Aussies) shop for on eBay? Even if you can come up with a decent conspiracy theory, is it likely enough to warranty a story recommending people switch carriers?
Very misleading summary.
"is probably going to be enough to make me switch to an inferior carrier once my current plan ends." --- ha! Telstra is an inferior carrier, you really should be supporting iiNet. They are looking after their users rights, something Telstra has never done.
Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
Even if you switch an ISP, 99% of your browsing will still be logged by third-party servers (most of which are in the US, if that matters to you).
Most sites today use iframes that send HTTP requests to the following:
Google Analytics
Google ads
Facebook
Twitter
etc.
Just like NoScript breaks the web for me,
That's normal and intented. NoScript is supposed completely block any interactive content (either scriptable/programmable stuff like javascript/java/.net/flash, or big media files like audio/video tags), until you whitelist something. :-) ) until you say: "Well, I might trust that source not to completely bork my machine, please unbreak it, and only it".
It is supposed to "break" everything (or more precisely make everything "Web 1.0"
It is for the paranoid us out there. It's not designed for someone who expect a set and forget solution to security (unlike tools like CertPatrol or HTTPS Everywhere, which don't require much fumbling from regular users). It's designed for people who don't trust anything and prefere to manually select which tiny bit of the web they might choose to trust, while disabling everything else (it's closer to Flashblock and other similar tools in that way. Except that NoScript has a wider scope by blocking *anything* interactive)
(In addition to that, it will also block cross-site-scripting until whitelisted, and will put alerts about click jacking).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Personally, while the idea of my browsing data being logged anywhere does not fill me with joy, the idea of the U.S. government having access to it (randomized or not) is probably going to be enough to make me switch to an inferior carrier once my current plan ends."
I didn't actually know there were inferior carriers. I remember Telstra. We were a loyal customer for years. These were the guys who in I think a world first introduced the concept of a download limit. 3GB. Yes that's no typo. We had 10mbit cable and a 3GB download limit. I remember hitting that download limit on the second day of our billing cycle after which we were capped at 28.8kbps. This is the company which introduced an acceptable use policy without defining what acceptable use was. This was the company which refused to roll out ADSL2 in areas which already had ADSL. This was the company which charged more for wholesale use of it's network than it charged it's retail customers. It was a wise business decision too because once the ACCC put a stop to that practice users left in droves to cheaper better ADSL2 services.
I remember my last few days of Telstra cable fondly. We were paying some $80 per month with a 20GB download limit. When we tried to quit they gave us $300 credit so we jumped on the most expensive plan and then quit a month later anyway. Now I pay $60 per month for completely unlimited internet which is faster than the old cable we were on and we don't pay phone line rental either.
The only time I've seen people recently give Telstra a choice is if a) the company is paying, b) they had absolutely no other choice. Even if I now look at their plans, $70 for 200GB ex line rental for ADSL2 it boggles the mind that someone would pay these people willingly.
This is another good reason not to google self incrimination while planning a murder.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The tool being used just checks whether a URL is banned.
Normally, a URL is banned (or not) based on information contained in a database in Telstra's network. When a URL is encountered that isn't in this database a request goes to the Netsweeper offsite database (in Chicago apparently) to find out whether the URL should be banned or not.
This is just Telstra priming their cache (ie their onsite database) for when they flip the switch on the actual product.
It has nothing to do with any interest in who's going to the page or the page contents (and lets be honest, if you think a URL is private information then you're doing it wrong), it's just to provide a faster service for customers who choose to use the service when it's released.
If I had to opt into a filter and the consequences were that my traffic has to go all the way from Austrialia to Chicago and back, that's not even about filtering anymore. Unacceptable ping time!!!
hasn't anyone ever heard of FATCA? How about passegers boarding in the UK on flights bound for Canada not being allowed to board if the US DHS says they can't. Te US owns the world and if you don't like it move to North Korea wheere. you can avoid the long arm of the law. (At least for now)
How/why? Simple - I filter those out too, via a custom hosts file, & it works... even vs. what you stated:
"Even if you switch an ISP, 99% of your browsing will still be logged by third-party servers (most of which are in the US, if that matters to you). Most sites today use iframes that send HTTP requests to the following: Google Analytics Google ads Facebook Twitter etc." - by trifish (826353) on Wednesday June 27, @02:56AM (#40464193)
21++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES:
I use hosts in the following ways (see my 'p.s.' below, in detail, for your reference) to COMPLIMENT & OVERCOME THOSE PROBLEMS IN DNS & OTHER MECHANISMS LARGELY!
Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):
---
1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites
2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware
3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use
4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers
5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content
6.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution)
7.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
8.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs)
9.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
10.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!)
11.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
12.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers - whereas the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself...)
13.) Blocking out TRACKERS
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.
---
* & FAR more... read on below IF you are interested (for detail).
APK
P.S.=> Details of the above synopsis/short summary are as follows below:
21++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES (over browser plugins for security, &/or DNS servers):
(Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs)).
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).
2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:
Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option )
AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.
Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people m