Comments on: Optus will participate in Internet filtering trial

By: Toejam

Toejam — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:31:55 +0000

Just don’t churn to Exetel:

http://steve.blogs.exetel.com.au/index.php?/archives/186-Content-Filtering.html
http://steve.blogs.exetel.com.au/index.php?/archives/187-Content-Filtering-Opt-InOpt-Out.html

By: Glenn

Glenn — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:08:29 +0000

So Optus was more than happy to do their master’s bidding. This is one ISP that I refuse to sign up to.

I am with iPrimus, which is participating in the filtering trials, but I am already considering jumping ship.

Bad move, Optus, very bad move.

By: John

John — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:35:33 +0000

“Refused Classification material includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.”

This is the first time they’ve detailed what “RC” pertains to. Usually they give a vague answer like – “Anything that goes against the morals of a standard person” or something similar.

By: Gabba

Gabba — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:07:51 +0000

It all boils down to the fact that they can’t do any serious filtering without breaking or banning encrypted connections. No other fact really matters in this debate.

Try asking Senator Conroy what the government is planning to do about encrypted connections, and watch him change subject immediately, completely avoid the question, and start blathering on about protecting the kiddies.

I do not believe for a second that they can spin their way out of this one. The general public has already made it very clear that they seriously unimpressed by this plan. The government have effectively already lost the debate. Now they are just trying to save face and minimise the humiliation and political cost.

By: HTA

HTA — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:33:35 +0000

“their plan will amount to diddly squat, just bullshit window-dressing feel-good propaganda, completely useless at achieving what they claim it will.”

But will that stop them from doing it?

I doubt it.

Democracy is all about propaganda. It’s what you can persuade people you’re doing that counts… not what you actually do.

By: Gabba

Gabba — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:09:35 +0000

“Folks, reckon we’d better get ready for a clean-fed internet.”

Nah. Unless the government is planning on breaking ALL encrypted connections with a man-in-the-middle attack (and you would know if that happened), or just banning them outright (which is simply not possible if they want legit commercial internet activity to continue), then their plan will amount to diddly squat, just bullshit window-dressing feel-good propaganda, completely useless at achieving what they claim it will.

It is a joke.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:40:37 +0000

Yep. Thought so. After all that’s happened recently, with Conroy on Q&A, Insight and such and being made to look not quite the child-porn abolishing hero he wants us to think he is, the Minister’s line has still not changed one iota. Mr. Conroy will have his mandatory clean feed, whether anyone else wants it or not.
The expectation of “robust results” after the trial says it all. In other words, the results will favour a technically feasible outcome, as far as the DBCDE is concerned. That much has already been ascertained.

Folks, reckon we’d better get ready for a clean-fed internet. Lest the Senate save us. But get ready for a double dissolution first (alcopops tax) before a clean-feed gets through.

By: Toejam

Toejam — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:42:47 +0000

No, Glenn, iPrimus have been in favour of this from the start. They used to offer Webshield-style filtering as an extra service for those who wanted it, but stopped a while back – most likely because it wasn’t profitable enough. Now, their CEO and press departments are all smiles about the idea of bringing it back.

The ISP you’re thinking of that was only trying to participate to prove it wasn’t possible was iiNet, but they were rejected for wanting to do a properly scientific double-blind test.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:19:41 +0000

Didn’t I read that both Optus and iPrimus slammed the mandatory filtering proposal? Optus is only participate just to prove that it won’t work, methinks.

By: Bob Bain

Bob Bain — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:12:26 +0000

@GW: That wasn’t all that was released today. The Filter Testing FAQs from ISPs was published
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_consumers/funding_programs__and__support/cybersafety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot/questions_and_answers

It’s fairly clear that there’s no consistent design criteria or testing methodology. What will Enex be looking for exactly?

—————————

… and at the bottom the quandry of what to do if a website is on the blacklist and blocked and I quote….

23. What is the expected behaviour of an internet service that attempts to reach blocked content, should:

a) A page showing ‘content blocked by filter’ or equivalent be displayed, which would leak the contents of the ACMA list to users?

b) The page to not load, which would probably prompt the end user to call the ISP’s technical support?

c) The attempt to reach blocked content be logged?

d) Something else or a combination of the above happens?

a) will leak the blacklist to Internet users
b) will cause confusion for ISP help desks
c) I’m not sure that logging can be done without invoking either a) or b) and as “RC” material is perfectly legal to purchase and own in most States of Australia it isn’t illegal material and therefore shouldn’t be blocked. If they go back to the drawing board they might like to look at the guidelines and redraft them and change the laws to reflect reality rather than simply stating “It’s RC thereefore it’s bad”.

d) says thet they haven’t a clue what they are attempting to do…

Bob