ISP’s who applied to take part in the filter trial have still not heard from the DBCDE on whether their application has been approved, despite the department wanting to start the trial on December 24. A spokesperson for Senator Conroy says they are still evaluating the applications. More at News.com.au.
Do we really need anymore proof the government has no idea of the complexity of the changes they are proposing. Conroy and staff continue to advise the media they are consulting with industry groups, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know ‘the industry’ would not suggest a start date so close to the Christmas break.
Meanwhile, the Systems Administrators Guild of Australia has written to Senator Conroy, announcing they will not support the filter. Donna Ashelford from SAGE-AU writes that the DBCDE testing mechanisms do not reflect actual patterns of internet use and that the proposed Internet filter cannot achieve its stated goal. Read the letter in full here.
Also of note: Mark Newton has written a new letter to Kate Ellis to bring her up to date on recent developments. Mark met personally with Ellis earlier this year to discuss the government’s plan.
34 comments
Mike of Melb says:
Dec 19, 2008
Mark Newtons letter is full of inaccuracies and suppositions, and he demonstrates a pretty dismal understanding of the modern state and levels of security and filtering technologies.
.
His conclusions are again lacking in any substance and amount to pure scare-mongering speculation in many cases.
.
Just another recalcitrant who cannot accept that the world has moved on, and moved on past him in the process. Sad guy.
.
If his head was any more in the sand then the ostriches would strike for defamation.
.
He has no idea what has been proposed for the upcoming trials and seems he has no idea at all that there is a major difference between the previously tested end user clients and the typical ISP “In the Core” / “In the Cloud” filtering technologies.
.
Hope he enjoys his 15 minutes of fame and the adoration of the ignorant. If he has so little knowledge of modern technologies, then he should stick to what he does know so well.
.
Being a network engineer does not automatically make you expert in the available security technologies in the market. We work with one platform that is filtering a 5 million user network in Asia, and is going fine. And why are there no catastrophe stories about? Because it simply does it’s job and works.
batman says:
Dec 20, 2008
wow… just when I thought the pro filter group couldn’t get any more delusional.
Stevian says:
Dec 20, 2008
Mike,
If Mark Newton does have a “dismal understanding of the modern state and levels of security and filtering technologies” then that puts him on par with Senator Conroy et al. Until those that are supposed to know what they are doing can supply us with substantive answers, instead of ignoring our questions and parroting a party line, we can only look on in bewilderment and wonder “What the Hell are they gonna do next?”
Geordie says:
Dec 20, 2008
Mike that was quite a tirade, I hope you feel better having got it off your chest.
Care to put down why you think Mark Newton and the vast majority of the network and communications industry are wrong? Or are you just going to gainsay?
Dennis says:
Dec 20, 2008
@Mike
You wrote:
“We work with one platform that is filtering a 5 million user network in Asia, and is going fine. And why are there no catastrophe stories about? Because it simply does it’s job and works.”
You work for a filtering business. This makes your agenda quite clear.
Richary says:
Dec 20, 2008
Interesting thoughts Mark. Please detail what filter system is being used, what it blocks, and how it is implemented. After all if it is a commercial product you shouldn’t be shy in advertising it.
The tests run so far show that the filters tested block sites they shouldn’t and let through sites they should. Does this mean the Government has simply tested the wrong ones? Ignoring the speed impacts of course.
We also have the issue that “unwanted” sites are to be blocked, as determined by the government of the day. Sorry, that sounds too much like censorship to me.
So instead of personal attacks on someone, tell us why your filter works better than the already tested ones. And why we should support any *censorship* (and yes I am using that word rather than filtering) in Australia. When it is perfectly obvious that CP is not spread via webpages but via private P2P networks.
Gerson says:
Dec 20, 2008
Mike,
You mentioned you work with one platform that is filtering a 5 million user network in Asia, and is going fine. What is your definition of ‘fine’, do you think you can elaborate? What if any problems ever occur, what issue did you have first time? Please share your technical view with us!
If i get 45/100 in my Maths test, i would also tell my parent FINE!
Rastko Petrovic says:
Dec 20, 2008
Replying to Mike of Melb….
Mike, do you know how internet works? Do you know how proposed filters will filter the traffic? DO you know what P2P is? Do you knwo what FTP is> Do you know what HTTPS is?
Mark has quite a good understanding of how internet work, and I believe much better then you and me put together
Proposed filters will affect you secure internet connection for your online banking, where if filters are hacked, by resident trojan, can log your bank details and password, and than you get identity theft.
The best filter has slowed internet down by 87%… with 10% of false positives. The worst filter has slowed internet down by 20% with 3% of false positives. Let me put it in the prospective for you.
Large ISP, Telstra or Optus, can have 10000 hits for http sites per second. 3% of it is 300 per second, times by 60 = 1800 (per minute) time by 3600 ( 1hour) = 6480000 time 24 hours= 155520000 false positives.
If some has online business that has been blocked by mistake, and business owners don’t realise it, there is a potential of business being shout done and family risking losing or their possessions.
So, Mike do you parenting job as it should be done, unless ofcourse you want Government to do it for you
Rastko Petrovic says:
Dec 20, 2008
On another note Mike, with that network you’re filtering, please report what are the internet speeds and ping times to some web sites like inforwars.com
Did you read governments results of closed testing and what those results show and conclusion reached in chapter 1 page 15
neilmc says:
Dec 20, 2008
Mike, you are such a tease. Please tell us what the product is that you work with that filters 5 million users in Asia. Any links to a feature list or sales material?
What protocols does it support and is it immune to circumvention?
Is it dynamic or a blacklist filter?
Jason Geddes says:
Dec 20, 2008
Gee Mike of Melbourne your post fits you better than it does Mark Newton. Seems like you have issues…
Mark Newton as done an excellent job in exposing Conroy as a useless minister for technology. A minister that tries to silenece his policies detractors by trying to get him fired is what??
He also sticks to the issues rather than petty naming calling like you have so cowardly, and anonymously done.
Sansha says:
Dec 21, 2008
@Mike: Go speak to Deborah Robinson at Australian Women Online. I’m sure you’ll get along just fine since you both know more about the filter than everybody else: http://forums.australianwomenonline.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=181&sid=872c7a1174cee2dff66d7949481a0c4a
Mark Newton says:
Dec 21, 2008
Hey, Mike: It’s pretty easy to throw around words like, “scare-mongering speculation.” Tim Marshall from DBCDE used almost the same terms back in late October, when he was criticizing me for being right as well.
The problem you have when you use terms like that is that you’re calling me to account for my description of something that actually happened. To say that the IWF scheme wrecked Wikipedia in the UK isn’t inaccurate and isn’t supposition, it’s an actual description of a real historical event.
I don’t much care about your five-million-strong network in Asia, I care about the one that’s being proposed for Australia. The Minister has spent over 12 months telling us that he wants it modeled on the UK IWF scheme, so I think it’s completely reasonable to point to catastrophic failures in the architecture of the UK IWF scheme and ask, “Is this really the state-of-the-art that we want to force onto Australians?”
– mark
Asmodai says:
Dec 21, 2008
@Mike
and being an opiniated blogger doesn’t automatically make you right…
Oh, and the reason we aren’t hearing what a huge failure the “Great Firewall of China” is is because of the Chinese governments tight censorship of outgoing news. However, for graphic evidence of how bad the filter is, please refer to the Olympic censorship scandal.
Please remove the log in your eye before you try to pluck the speck from ours. You are in a minority no matter how much you think you aren’t.
Oh yeah, and forget the “oh waaah, the bloggers are picking on me” defense, you started with the cheap shots on Mark who has provided solid evidence for every claim he ever made (guess you would know that if you bothered to actually read his letters rather than go off half cocked). You had to expect a retort…
Balam says:
Dec 21, 2008
Mike,how long have you been on Conroys payroll?
Matthew says:
Dec 21, 2008
Sansha, Deborah Robinson is just amazing. She rejects all logic, facts and overwelming evidence showing that the filter will not work. And then she says on the 16th page of that thread that it would be “much more effective and cheaper to prevent crime on the Internet by blocking access to the illegal content”. Yeah screw the police, we won’t need them anymore!
CW says:
Dec 21, 2008
@Mike of Melb
A lot of vitriol with no facts to support your counter claims.
One would almost think you had a vested interest in censoring becoming a nation wide reality.
So you do know what is being proposed in the upcoming trials? How would you know?
Do you work for the DBCDE or a filtering vendor?
Jarrod says:
Dec 21, 2008
I’ve tried to reason with Deb and Danielle on the forum, but they are just not getting it. I just cant take reading another one of their posts.
batman says:
Dec 21, 2008
Trying to reason with women on a women’s forum is like trying to boil an ocean
Re: DBCDE still evaluating filtering trial applications, SAGE-AU won’t support « Mike The Participant says:
Dec 21, 2008
[...] posted this as “Mike Of Melb” on “Somebody Think Of The Children” Mark Newtons letter is full of inaccuracies and suppositions, and he demonstrates a pretty dismal [...]
Joyce says:
Dec 21, 2008
@batman: Even if you’re a woman.
Meanwhile, I just purchased a research paper on how women’s and girl’s magazines screw up women from “The Australian Women’s Forum” called “Faking It” and I’ve been very impressed that it’s a well put together read for anybody (male or female) and isn’t vilifying male roles.
@Sansha: I tried to have a reasonable discussion to begin with, but it became apparent that things weren’t quite right, so I’m just reading.
If you haven’t seen it today yet, a woman who is the mother of a child who has been sexually abused is saying the ISP filter is useless. I wonder whether she will also get the holier-than-thou treatment…
I admire how well-composed “Ms Caddy” is after her ordeal.
wayne says:
Dec 21, 2008
Don’t worry, those for it will the first to cry foul when they realize what the government has brought in. Time to move overseas i guess.
lauredhel says:
Dec 21, 2008
Batman: Do you attribute Conroy and Hamilton’s eejitry to their genitalia?
batman says:
Dec 21, 2008
that’s odd, I never said there were no unreasonable men in the world in my post lauredhel, perhaps you are assuming too much.
Mike says:
Dec 22, 2008
Hey guys,
Please note ‘Mike from Melb’ is not Mike (Michael Meloni) the creator of this blog.
Cheers,
Michael Meloni
MikeofMelb says:
Dec 22, 2008
OK folks, many points taken and I will take a big step back and look at all of your comments.
.
I was probably (most certainly) right of place targeting any criticism at Mark Newton. My apologies to you Mark, the reality is that I have no idea just how good you are at what you do and your levels of expertise. You have your full rights to campaign against what you disagree with. If I disagree with that then I should do that objectively, addressing the issues.
.
It is not professional when we let our frustation at media mis-information get to us and then zing off at people. I just did that.
.
So I will revisit all the comments, the issues and the state of the game and respond.
.
BTW, I also do have some serious concerns about the qualifications and expertise of many of the people involved with running these tests, right up the chain…
.
In the meantime I will give the whole subject a rethink…
Thanks
Mike
Jon Seymour says:
Dec 22, 2008
@MikeOfMelb This is a welcome development indeed, and I appreciate that you have done this.
You need to be aware that I have started a new blog “Mike The Participant” which has collected 10+ of your previous posts around various places and put them in a context that allows the observant reader to notice many common threads, biases and, frankly, huge clues as to your real identity.
You need to assume that if you ever comment in future, we will know exactly who is behind the pseudonym. This will be true, even if you change pseudonyms because you can’t completely change your online identity without ditching your lines of argument.
I hope now that your realise that your own professional reputation is in great peril, you will start to behave as if you had put your name on each post you make. I hope you will actually engage us in rational debate, instead of trolling us with the same, single-shot tired old arguments and blather.
As a gesture of good will, I will offer you the chance of a once-off anonymous post on MtP in which you can declare your interests and state your position. There really isn’t much point in it being anonymous since a lot of people already have already guessed who you are, but if you have a reason to maintain the pretence of anonymity, that’s your call.
Contact me at jon.seymour@gmail.com. I will, of course, respect your anonymity.
Mike The Participant can be found at: http://keepingthebastardshonest.net/blogs/miketheparticipant/
If nothing else, it may help refresh your memory of all the arguments you have raised in the past.
BTW: I am going to suggest to all anti-filtering bloggers that we introduce a troll-hash. This will allow posts from the same e-mail address to be identified without compromising the anonymity of poster. This will help to avoid this kind of abuse of anonymity in the future.
Sincerely,
Jon Seymour.
Kieran 'websinthe' Salsone says:
Dec 22, 2008
I encourage you to engage with this debate Mike. Changing your mind isn’t a sign of weakness, it takes a great deal of strength to admit you may have been wrong about some things.
MikeofMelb says:
Dec 22, 2008
Typo:
I was probably (most certainly) **NOT** right of place targeting any criticism at Mark Newton. My apologies to you Mark, the reality is that I have no idea just how good you are at what you do and your levels of expertise. You have your full rights to campaign against what you disagree with. If I disagree with that then I should do that objectively, addressing the issues.
john says:
Dec 22, 2008
Just put all violent video/music/game on a .xxx domain or whatever, simple as that it will be easy to filter then.
john says:
Dec 22, 2008
Just put all VIOLENT Video/music/Games on a .xxx domain, this will be easy to filter out.
Mike says:
Dec 22, 2008
@john
Apart from requiring the entire world to comply, why would violent content go on .xxx?
Ms Caddy says:
Dec 22, 2008
@Asmodai, @Joyce
Deborah Robinson’s response to me (thank you for the well informed links to Somebody Think of the Children in the thread by the way) is deleting my account.
It appears that someone speaking from personal experience of child abuse doesn’t work in her favour. Fortunately, Asmodai quoted my post in full and she has not deleted him (her?) yet.
What a repugnant woman.
Towards a more rational debate. « Mike The Participant says:
Dec 23, 2008
[...] also comments on “Somebody Think Of The Children” and “Broadbanned [...]