Comments on: Filtering wrap up: What ‘works’ and what kills small ISPs

By: Ghostdoc

Ghostdoc — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:02:13 +0000

we won’t be rooted, we’ll be routed (ba-dum-cha, thanks, I’ll be here all week)

As I understand it, there are 5 reasons to oppose the filter:
1. it’ll slow down the internet for users
2. it enables politicians to control what the public can see on the internet (political censorship)
3. the list of blocked sites is secret, and so therefore there is no appeal process for a blocked site
4. the list of blocked sites is secret, so therefore there is no method of determining if it is being used inappropriately by the politicians
5. it introduces a burden on the ISP’s, both procedural and legal,that will discourage competition and raise prices.

The so-called trial proved that, maybe, reason number 1 is a bit dodgy for small numbers of users on a small number of ISP’s. There’s still plenty of other reasons that this is a really really bad idea.

The singe ‘best’ reason for implementing the filter is to protect children from abusers. However, all the studies have shown that the single largest threat to children (outside of family members which no-one can protect them from) is authority figures in their community. Yet no-one is talking about making sure that children are safe from these people. The recent Irish investigation found that the Catholic church has abused thousands of children over decades of abuse. The largest single source of child abuse in the world is the Catholic Church, yet no-one is even talking about monitoring Catholic priests or protecting children from them. Instead they suggest that the internet needs monitoring?

If we oppose the filter, we need to get the message across that the filter is there to save politicians, not children.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:20:29 +0000

Voracity, is right. Our argument’s should not be biased on technology.

We need to take the moral stance, not just for this generation but also for all future generations of Australian’s who should have the right to free-speech and not live in a society where other people can oppress and silence them into submission.

By: Sam D

Sam D — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 05:37:23 +0000

@ Daniel:
Yes, the Filter will probably slow the Internet. The point is that if Conroy has ‘proof’ that it won’t, then your arguments about speed instantly loose traction with anyone who doesn’t understand the technical issues.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:28:08 +0000

Of course the filter will slow down the internet. That’s what any filter does. You can’t filtrate without the flow itself slowing down. I’ve seen it in China, agonizingly slow internet due to top down packet filtering and it will happen here too. It’s as certain as gravity.
But then, already the internet’s sometimes very slow in any case. It’s going to be extremely difficult for people to go “Hey! My internetnet’s slow today! Must be because of the filter!” and go and prove that. It would be almost impossible to pin slow internet speeds down to packet filtering. Once again, to use China as an example, some of the internet’s really very fast and some if it just crawls along at snail speeds. What crawled yesterday might speed along today and what sped along yesterday might crawl or just be blocked tomorrow. But you never know if that’s because Beijing is filtering your packets or because your ISP is jammed up today. Slow internet – as well as blocked web sites like Wikipedia – is just a fact of life there and you deal with it and move on.
I reiterate my belief that Conroy will have his packet filtering no matter what anyone says or how much people protest. Because our leaders cannot sit back and just let such an important source of information like the internet continue to go unregulated and uncensored. Historically, it’s just not how we do things in this country. We censor and regulate everything, including the pet cat, in Australia. And once it’s in place, whenever people blame problems on the filter, the government will just shift the blame and say “but you don’t really know if that’s the filter. It’s most likely just a problem with your connection.”
Basicaly: when it comes to ISP level filtering, we are rooted.

By: Sam D

Sam D — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:24:46 +0000

@voracity: I totally agree. Whether or not you can do something is much less important that whether or not you should do it!

I would be against any censorship of the internet, even if it didn’t slow it down at all. I’d be against it even if it made my broadband go faster baked me cookies and gave me foot massages.

The trouble is that many people in this debate (especially on Whirlpool) are experts on the technical side of things, but know bugger all about ethics.

By: james

james — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:09:08 +0000

I’m reminded of a joke about a child resting near a barn. On the wall, targets have been painted, arrows dead in the centre of every single one.

A man rides past and hails: “That’s some pretty solid shooting, son.”
“That?” He says. “Ain’t nuthin’ to it. You just fire the arrows against the wall and paint the target around it.”

By: Nick Andrew

Nick Andrew — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:39:09 +0000

Reading Conroy’s exchange with O’Toole reminds me, by way of contrast, with the James Randi Educational Foundation’s million-dollar prize to “any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under mutually agreed upon scientific conditions.”

The key words here are “mutually agreed-upon scientific conditions”. While James Randi and Co are usually seen as debunking psychics and other fraudsters, those people are actually debunking themselves. The million-dollar prize stands, through no lack of challengers, because the JREF agrees upon a test or a series of tests with the person claiming paranormal ability, and this specifically includes the success criteria. This allows an objective assessment of whether the subject passed or failed the test. To date, all subjects have failed the test, despite having previously agreed that the test was fair and the success criteria were fair.

So I see quite a contrast with Senator Conroy who has run a “trial” but refused to publish or perhaps even consider success criteria for this trial, instead handwaving away the question with a weak “You wait to see what the result is and then you make a decision based on the result.” How much better for everybody the outcome may have been if Senator Conroy had taken a leaf out of Randi’s book and had determined success criteria (or even negotiated it) before beginning this trial.

By: voracity

voracity — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:32:42 +0000

Fascinating. Eagerly awaiting the results of those next tests, Dan.

Again, I agree with Icaria (and not just in hindsight — I argued this on Whirlpool long ago). What bothered me was the claims of ‘Up to 87% slow down!’ when that result was due to one particularly poorly performing filter that no ISP was ever going to choose.

We need to make our arguments not against the worst performing filter, nor even the best. We need to make our argument against the best filter imaginable, because the filtering industry will increasingly create filters that approach that standard. We might be able to bat off ridiculous censorship with technical arguments today, but we do a disservice to the generations living 10, 30 or 50 years from now by not settling the argument for good.

By: Mick

Mick — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:19:11 +0000

Whether or not filtering is feasible is irrelevant. There just shouldn’t be that type of government control on what people access from within their own home. Filtering connections in parliament, schools and libraries for all I care, but stay the fuck away from MY CONNECTION!

Once again Conroy totally misses the point.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 09:49:09 +0000

I have been conducting my own tests to see if Internet Censorship causes a slowdown. The test is quite simple, I configure my firewall to block certain domains. I then attempt to access the blocked domains.

From my tests I can conclude that Internet Censorship causes virtually 100% slowdown. I plan to conduct further trials with my router unplugged and see if there is any difference between the results of the two tests.