[AusNOG] Open Letter to Senator Stephen Conroy

[Pinkerton, Eric]

Dear Minister,

RE: MANDATORY INTERNET FILTERING PROPOSAL

As a veteran IT security consultant with first hand experience working at two of Australia's Largest ISP/Telco's, encompassing the installing and configuration of many of the filtering technologies currently on the market, I am writing to express my deep concerns about your proposed Internet filter.

These views are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.

I am aware of your propensity to dismiss opponents to your filter as proponents of child pornography, so I have to state from the outset that conceptually I agree there are many things on the internet that in an ideal world would not exist.  Unfortunately, the world in which we live is not ideal in this respect, so there are several moot points to your proposal namely Requirement, Practicality and the surrounding Ethics.

What problem are we trying to solve?

Key to my concerns is a feeling that that the ends do not justify the means proposed.
The driving force behind this proposal seems to be a perceived hysteria regarding the damage that can be done to innocent children compounded by a fear of being seen to be doing nothing.

I would think it reasonable to ask that before your department commits $82 million of taxpayer's money, they should make public the statistical analysis that justifies the magnitude you attach to this issue?

Whilst they are about it, they may want to consider some of the other dangers Australians may be concerned about being delivered to their homes.


*        Gas and Electricity, Burns, maims and kills thousands of people worldwide every year, many of them children.
*        Water:- Has the potential to poison, spread disease, scald or even cause death by drowning - responsible for hundreds of fatalities each year, you guessed it - many of them children.
*        Telephone Lines:- Can be used to convey dangerous and illegal information with criminals throughout the world, and has the potential to connect dial-up networks to anywhere to transfer illegal files and information.
*        Aus Post/Couriers:- No safeguards are currently in place to prevent the dissemination of the type of materiel scoped by this proposal via post or courier, despite the fact that many gigabytes of data are transferred every day using this medium on CD's, DVD's and Magnetic tape.

Practicality.

On your recent appearance on the ABC's Q&A you cited 'Moore's Law' as an explanation as to why you now consider possible, that which was dismissed as impractical[1]<outbind://106/#_ftn1> by numerous experts previously.

Firstly 'Moore's Law' is not a law - it's an observation, but I digress.  The notion that a decrease in the cost of hardware coupled with an increase in computing power is the proverbial 'scissors' to various expert 'papers' somewhat ignores the 'rock' that is the simultaneous, and exponential growth of the number of websites, the number of users and the amount of bandwidth they consume.

Furthermore having recently announced an NBN project encompassing up to 100mb Speeds for 90% of the population in the coming 8 years you may need to redo your sums.  Your proposal now resembles a German autobahn with a Mexican border crossing in the middle.

Will somebody think of the taxpayers?

I have further concerns in regard to the cost of this exercise, as you are aware the last government (and I choose my words wisely) ' wasted ' $84.8 Million on a bespoke net nanny filter, despite the ubiquity of  both open source and cheap existing solutions that were perfectly adequate.

An embarrassingly low percentage of people downloaded and installed this software; including a child who was subsequently able to demonstrate the the media how to sidestep the filter in a matter of minutes.

Not your problem I understand, but from this epic failure, one might easily conclude that internet censorship is expensive, unpopular and an elusive goal.

Conversely, it seems your Government is determined to throw good money after bad.

The thin end of the wedge.

You made the point repeatedly during the Q&A program that the ACMA list has existed for nine years and as such is nothing new.

This list as it stands today is symptomatic of its impotence in the current landscape.  Once the proposed filter is in place, then this list becomes exponentially more critical.  At this point it is certain to grow rapidly, and require a team of experts to maintain and manage.  Inevitably the content any Government of the day deems 'inappropriate' shifts over time, and whilst we all agree wholeheartedly that child pornography should be blocked, Persons, often with powerful lobby groups will push hard for it's use in promoting their own political agendas.

As a purely hypothetical example suppose the Catholic Church, were to suggest it's followers petition the government to block sites deemed 'against the teachings of the church'?   Perhaps sexual health advice promoting the use of condoms is acceptable collateral damage?

Suppose the Church of Scientology, annoyed at being branded a cult by an opposing group asks that such religious persecution be dealt with by your filter? - Who will make a call on these things, and who will make the call on that person, and who will ensure the whole process is transparent and fair?

Suppose someone wanted to execute a Denial of Service attack against the website of an organisation they were at odds with? - Suppose they employed someone to hack[2]<outbind://106/#_ftn2> that website and upload an unsavoury image, before reporting that site to the ACMA for submission on the list? - Will the owner of that site be informed that they have been blacklisted and what will be the right of appeal and timeframe once the offending image is removed?

What could possibly go wrong?

It was recently reported in the press that your own office made moves to 'reign in'[3]<outbind://106/#_ftn3> dissent regarding this very proposal.  In doing so they are to be commended for illustrating better than anyone else, the inevitability of this solution being employed for questionable ends, and just how counter intuitive censorship can be.

Perhaps your department could benefit from discussing 'The Streisand Effect' before acting in future.[4]<outbind://106/#_ftn4>

As John Gilmore elegantly put it "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and thus routes around it."

Then what is the answer?

Well obviously there is no silver bullet, but a cheaper and more practical solution would be to set up a website where parents can learn:-


 *   Why there is no technical substitute for monitoring your children's internet use.
 *   What are the early signs of problems, and what should they be looking out for.
 *   What to do if they discover a problem or have a concern.
 *   What they should teach their children about interaction online.
 *   Where they can download and install an effective Net Nanny filter, and how they can configure it correctly.

Follow up with an advertising campaign.

Perhaps put some of the money saved in to canvasing public opinion before embarking on future moral crusades.
________________________________

[1]<outbind://106/#_ftnref1> http://www.netalert.net.au/00379-CSIRO-Filter-Report.pdf.

http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/10920/Online_Content_Review_Report.pdf

[2]<outbind://106/#_ftnref2> http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/03/26/aussie_classification_board_hacked.jpg

[3]<outbind://106/#_ftnref3> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Conroy-filter-gag-sparks-sysadmin-rage/0,130061744,339292861,00.htm

[4]<outbind://106/#_ftnref4> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20091216/eb1ce302/attachment.html>