<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>RE: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>People will not seek a solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet - point in hand: IPv6.<BR>
<BR>
We need something far more radical.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net on behalf of Daniel Hood<BR>
Sent: Thu 7/1/2010 11:14 AM<BR>
To: 'Sean K. Finn'; 'John Glendenning'; ausnog@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter<BR>
<BR>
If you want to stop this filter from coming through, we need mass awareness<BR>
that this filter isn't going to work.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
This can easily be achieved by creating a bunch of videos / written / audio<BR>
tutorials with something like "The 5 easy steps to beating the filter". Just<BR>
show people how to install TOR for firefox or such. If we can show that the<BR>
filter is going to be ineffective to the general public then he'll lose all<BR>
footing. If people know that theres a simple and easy way to beat this thing<BR>
then why support Conroy to implement a multimillion system thats useless<BR>
from the start? Also, in the process it would be a huge embarrassment for<BR>
Conroy and his technicals "Know-it-all" noobs if the government's technical<BR>
department's massive omniscience filter, can be beaten by an old woman at<BR>
home with "them internets", firefox and a firefox-TOR-plugin.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Thoughts?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Dan<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
From: ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
[<A HREF="mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net">mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net</A>] On Behalf Of Sean K. Finn<BR>
Sent: Thursday, 1 July 2010 10:40 AM<BR>
To: 'John Glendenning'; 'ausnog@lists.ausnog.net'<BR>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
You mean sacrificial Lamb..<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Do what Clive Palmer does. He's loud and takes a far-out approach. Sure it<BR>
might not be true, but it brings the general concensus somewhere over the<BR>
middle line that is needed to win the issue.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
He doesn't care that he looks like a goose, he's a damn billionaire.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Conroy doesn't care that he looks like a goose, he over-states things to<BR>
bring the median view of the average joe across the line that swings in his<BR>
favour.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
What we need is an equally ridiculous but still credible loud mouth pushing<BR>
an edge issue to swing the general view somewhere in the middle of the<BR>
field.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Then we need someone else seriously credible that is a loud mouth but not<BR>
known for exaggeration to step into the middle and exert the extra couple of<BR>
grams of pressure needed to bring the issue to our side and to a close.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Politics 101.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Truth has nothing to do with it, no matter how hard you believe.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
We have several seriously credible and quoted loud mouths on this list, but<BR>
none that are both credible and radical enough to push an extreme view that<BR>
will be listened to.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And although I am both Radical enough and have enough of a loud mouth to do<BR>
it, I'm not a well known or credible source otherwise I would put my hand up<BR>
in an instant to be the decoy / dummy runner.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
S.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
From: ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
[<A HREF="mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net">mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net</A>] On Behalf Of John Glendenning<BR>
Sent: Thursday, 1 July 2010 9:36 AM<BR>
To: ausnog@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
What is the Internet Industry Association doing amongst all of this? They<BR>
have been "representing the interests" of the industry back to when Alston<BR>
first proposed filtering back in 2000.<BR>
<BR>
The mining companies have infinitely more political clout - they are<BR>
unified, have deep pockets ($130M in advertising!) and stood for Aussie<BR>
jobs. Our telco industry has been offshoring for years, is intensely<BR>
compettive/fragmented and is lead by geeks who understandably want to avoid<BR>
making political statements for fear of retribrution.<BR>
<BR>
We need an Aussie Icon/geek to assist with this one. Bring on Dick Smith or<BR>
Dr Karl!<BR>
<BR>
Who is gunna pay for the advertising though?<BR>
<BR>
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Curtis Bayne <curtis@bayne.com.au> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
As I was going to say in my post that failed last night, the solution to<BR>
this is easy: get political.<BR>
<BR>
Screw net neutrality - our policy of passive benevolence will not work here.<BR>
<BR>
Do what we (SONET) do: actively refuse to carry pro-filter content on your<BR>
network. If every one of us actively deny proponents to spread their FUD,<BR>
they'll get irksome and start telling everybody that we're pedophiles.<BR>
Outrage = airtime and I'll be happy to tell the Today Tonight reporter<BR>
what's REALLY going on.<BR>
<BR>
Sure, there will be some collateral if we start black-holing shared web<BR>
servers that have pro-filter material, but who cares? This will give people<BR>
a taste of exactly what it will be like under a government-administered<BR>
filter regime. In your customers minds, filter = bad and frustrating.<BR>
Doesn't matter whose filter it is, we've got the jump to make this<BR>
association and that is the key in winning the war.<BR>
<BR>
...at least this way we can use squid instead of m86 too*.<BR>
<BR>
Mining companies fight for their rights, time for us to do the same.<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
Curtis<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
*I didn't sign an NDA, but if you did, here's your license to talk: The<BR>
filter trials were performed using appliances from<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.m86security.com/">http://www.m86security.com/</A>, formerly Marshall security before their merger.<BR>
"They told me" they have won a tender for a "filtering platform for an<BR>
entire country of about 20 million people". I am sick of the silence on this<BR>
topic.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net on behalf of Andrew Oskam<BR>
Sent: Thu 7/1/2010 8:59 AM<BR>
To: ausnog@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter<BR>
<BR>
I Agree - We, as an Industry, should be expanding and setting up a<BR>
community and working together much closer than we currently are.<BR>
<BR>
At present, I think we are just cruising along and accepting the beating<BR>
that government is throwing at us.<BR>
<BR>
I don't claim to have any specific ideas, But I think that we should be<BR>
doing more to voice our concerns about the varying changes that affect<BR>
this industry and the country.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Andrew Oskam<BR>
<BR>
E percy@th3interw3bs.net<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
NOTICE:<BR>
<BR>
These comments are my own personal opinions only and do not necessarily<BR>
reflect the positions or opinions of my employer or their affiliates.<BR>
All comments are based upon my current knowledge and my own personal<BR>
experiences. You should conduct independent tests to verify the validity<BR>
of any statements made in this email before basing any decisions upon<BR>
those statements.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 30/06/10 6:32 PM, Darren Moss wrote:<BR>
> Hi Noggers,<BR>
><BR>
> How about we build an industry web portal which represents our collective<BR>
view specifically relating to the Filter.<BR>
><BR>
> Then, we collect signatures on a petition and have them presented to Mr<BR>
Conroy.<BR>
><BR>
> We should also seek SME advice which can be added to the petition, so the<BR>
Minister can see just how ineffective this filter is going to be (at our<BR>
cost of course).<BR>
><BR>
> I am sure we could ask our journalist friends on this list to assist with<BR>
spreading the word and letting the Government know that this is not going to<BR>
get past without consultation.<BR>
><BR>
> My 2c.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Regards,<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Darren Moss<BR>
> General Manager<BR>
> Australia and New Zealand<BR>
> [p] 1300 131 083 [f] 03 9017 2287<BR>
> [e] Darren.Moss@em3.com.au [w] www.em3.com.au<BR>
><BR>
> em3 People and Technology | Managed Technology Experts<BR>
> postal: PO Box 2333, Moorabbin VIC 3189<BR>
><BR>
> New Zealand Airedale Street, Auckland City<BR>
> postal: PO Box 39573, Howick 2045<BR>
> [p] 09 887 0550 [f] 09 887 0273<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
[<A HREF="mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net">mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net</A>] On Behalf Of Sean K. Finn<BR>
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 June 2010 6:24 PM<BR>
> To: 'Andrew Fort'; 'Phillip Grasso'<BR>
> Cc: 'ausnog@ausnog.net'<BR>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter<BR>
><BR>
> We don't really have a union to represent us.<BR>
><BR>
> If we do I've never heard of them, which means they aren't doing a good<BR>
enough job getting the message out there.<BR>
><BR>
> S.<BR>
><BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
[<A HREF="mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net">mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net</A>] On Behalf Of Andrew Fort<BR>
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 June 2010 6:21 PM<BR>
> To: Phillip Grasso<BR>
> Cc: ausnog@ausnog.net<BR>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter<BR>
><BR>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Phillip Grasso<phillip.grasso@gmail.com><BR>
wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
>> Unfortunately the change in leadership looks to not have changed the<BR>
>> filtering picture much.<BR>
>><BR>
>> <A HREF="http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/351461/conroy_reaffirms_commit">http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/351461/conroy_reaffirms_commit</A><BR>
>> ment_filter/<BR>
>><BR>
>> My question what are we 'as an industry' going to do about it?<BR>
>> <BR>
> The miners made the claim their jobs were at stake; rather, the mine<BR>
_owners_. Are any large ISPs threatening they'll have to go under -<BR>
destroying jobs - if this legislation is passed? If no-one wants to even<BR>
bluff, I guess we're SOL.<BR>
><BR>
> -a<BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> AusNOG mailing list<BR>
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
> <A HREF="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</A><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> AusNOG mailing list<BR>
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
> <A HREF="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</A><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> AusNOG mailing list<BR>
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
> <A HREF="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</A><BR>
> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
AusNOG mailing list<BR>
AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>