Live filtering trial to leave ISPs in the lurch (and what else the EOI tells us)
November 10, 2008 – 10:25 pmA certain Senator in Canberra is hoping for a miracle this Christmas. That’s the only conclusion I can come to when I read that the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy expects their live ISP filtering trial to begin before the end of the year. Preferably before 24 December 2008 to be precise.
According to EOI documents released today relating to the live pilot (read them here), ISPs have only until November 18 to lodge questions to the DBCDE about the trial and December 8 to submit an Expression of Interest. That gives the government just over 2 weeks to select which ISPs will take part in the the trial before its planned start date. Now unless Senator Conroy has Santa’s elves working overtime, in the words of The Castle’s Darryl Kerrigan, tell him he’s dreamin’.
Before ISP’s play with fire and fit a filter between their customers and the Internet, is it too much to ask that they have time to research exactly what is required from a technical standpoint. The DBCDE’s skimp eight page Technical Testing Framework document sheds little light.
ISPs are invited to participate in the Pilot through two streams:
1. Index filtering only of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) blacklist of prohibited URLs; or2. The ACMA blacklist plus additional filtering e.g. more extensive index filtering through to dynamic filtering of other unwanted internet content and non web based applications.
The Pilot is seeking to test a range of filtering solutions, using as a minimum filtering based on the ACMA blacklist. If a number of ISPs wish to participate in the Pilot to trial a number of different filtering solutions, their inclusion will be facilitated. We note that some ISPs already provide such filtering solutions and we would welcome participation by those ISPs, as well as ISPs who wish to trial the introduction of a filtering service.
[...]
Ideally, a participating ISP would provide a filtering solution to a sample of their customer base. Enex would then be provided with a sample filtered service and ideally a sample unfiltered service from the same participating ISP. If this is not feasible, a ‘before filtering’ and ‘after filtering’ approach may be used.
What we can learn though is that the trials will not accurately account for the proposed National Broadband Network. The pilot aims to assess delivery across internet delivery mediums ranging in speed from 56Kbps through to 12Mbps when at the same time Conroy wants the NBN to deliver speeds of at least 12 megabits per second. According to the Technical Testing Framework, only an assessment or examination will be given to future internet network performance above 12Mbps.
When it comes to over and under-blocking the department is ‘interested in evaluating mechanisms to address over-blocking, including through end user reporting, where a participating ISP is willing to trial such a mechanism. This includes the end-user’s ability to report sites that they believe have been blocked incorrectly and vice-versa (reporting sites that they feel should be blocked).’
The department also acknowledges ‘filtering can be circumvented by motivated people with a sufficient level of technical knowledge’ so that will be tested as well (it takes a real wiz you see).
There’s one big problem with testing over-blocking, under-blocking and circumvention in a trial where customers volunteer to take part — many are likely to be hardcore filtering supporters. Mark Newton sums it up: ‘Their tests for circumvention, overblocking complaints and underblocking complaints aren’t going to deliver anything like real-world results when the only people using the system are those 2% of “true believers” in any ISP’s customer base who actually want [to trial] it.’
When you consider that and the fact the minimum trial period is six weeks, obtaining real world results seems less important then rushing filters into every house and business across Australia.
A few weeks back when Senator Scott Ludlam questioned Senator Conroy about filtering, Conroy said his department didn’t have any benchmarks set in regards to what is an acceptable rate of false positives (amongst other things). Now that they intend to start as early as December 24, 2008, one might expect those benchmarks to have been set. I won’t hold my breath.
Other blogger and media coverage
Tech Wired AU: Australian Internet Filtering Expression Of Interest Put Forward
Public Polity: Expressions of interest Released for ISP filtering
The Age: Opposition rises to internet filter (eBay backed lobby group NetChoice steps in)
Australian IT: Canberra calls net filter trial (Telstra undecided)
9 Responses to “Live filtering trial to leave ISPs in the lurch (and what else the EOI tells us)”
Awesome article. I didn’t pick up on the time restrictions. It seems incredibly unlikely that a properly function ISP filter can be designed, coded and implemented in time.
Even the 6 week trial length is too short for realistic results.
By websinthe on Nov 10, 2008
This just gets more and more ridiculous. This reeks of incompetence and rushing to get something through to the point where they don’t care how it’s implemented as long as it is.
By Sam Clifford on Nov 11, 2008
Good article. The time frames alone clearly show that Conroy’s office is desperate for this whole saga to be over as soon as possible even if the results are utterly meaningless.
“Meaningless” being the operative word, as this would be the only way they could claim the filters “work”.
And >12Mbps is “future technology”! Was this written in 1998?
By Frank Filippone on Nov 11, 2008
It just goes to show that they’re desperate to get the filter in before it can be stopped, instead of taking into consideration other factors. But then, I’m not surprised considering Conroy’s previous responses to people who believe that ISP filtering is pointless.
By Joyce on Nov 11, 2008
Does anyone know where / if we can see this mythical “blacklist of prohibited URLs” from the ACMA. I have tried calling the ACMA, but they have no idea what it is…
By Fosnez on Nov 11, 2008
Yea I picked up on the time frame, and its obviously it is designed to obscure the introduction of the filtering without any thought to the timeframes to do what is being asked.
Conroy is quickly becoming the laughing stock of the world. It would be funny to us, except it is so damned serious.
My guess is that the trial will fail because of the badly written and thought out EOI, and Conroy will just say that its time to push ahead with installing mandatory filtering. He will justify it with “It just has to be done to protect the children and we are confident that any problems can be dealt with as it is installed.
ALL HAIL THE RUDD and HIS PROPHET CLOWNBOY
By Robo on Nov 11, 2008