[AusNOG] Conroy announcement on filtering

Thu Dec 17 23:24:29 EST 2009

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Darren Moss <Darren.Moss at em3.com.au>wrote:

> That was very good viewing.
>
> I had no idea X-rated content was not included.
>
> How will "the filter" determine if x-rated content does not contain
> "inappropriate" or "child related" material ?
> Is somebody going to watch material and make a determination ?
>

It's simple - the rule is that anything on the list is blocked.  Anything
beyond that is irrelevant.  Yes, there's a small group of people in Canberra
who view anything someone complains about and add it to their list if they
think it's inappropriate.  Yes, that's insane.  The govt doesn't want to
block bad things, they only want to block the bad things they know about -
that's how the rules work.  At least right now.

The catch is whether filter companies will give you a "Australian censorship
only" blocking, or if they'll lump it all in with other categories - or
whether ISPs will apply other categories because they're there and make
sense to apply (why wouldn't you apply the "child porn" filter if it's there
and easy to switch on?  Therein lies the slippery slope.)

No-one will ever, ever go back and assess whether these things are working -
the same way no-one has, in 10 years of operating the block list, ever
verified that the American filtering companies that are being fed the list
(the only people who are allowed to see what's on it) are actually adding
those items to their systems.  It can't be independently verified, of
course, because the govt won't give you the list, and the filtering
companies treat that information as commercially sensitive.

Oh, and don't even think about trying to get something removed ;)

> Maybe we should ask the porn manufacturers to adhere to a classification
> standard. You think.
>
> I understand there is a great deal of contention regarding this topic,
> but all emotive comments aside, surely we are not yet ready for
> "solution mode" when fundamentals are not in order. Given taxpayers'
> money is about to be spent on this, I would be very nervous about the
> potential (lack of) results.
>

There will be no results.  The money will be spent by the govt, the ISPs
will be required to spend copious amounts to apply blocking, and nothing
will be gained by it.  Oh, except the govt will be seen to have done
something to curry favour with the block represented by Family First and
their ilk.

I think you make a mistake if you expect to find a solution in here they're
trying to achieve. Kate Lundy's blog entry was enlightening - the conditions
have all been sitting there waiting for this, they've always said that when
it's feasible it will be implemented - now they're stuck with having to hold
true to their word.  I have doubts that it is actually feasible for the NBN
or anything above a few Gb of upstream, certainly at a decent price point
(of course, the RoI for this equipment doesn't exist at all, because there's
no money to be made in installing it anyway, so any price is indecent), but
that's not what they've measured against - and anyone less than those sizes
is going to be facing a tough decision.

Having said that, they could easily have found from that last study that it
wasn't feasible - it's all in the interpretation of the numbers - so someone
has a bee in their bonnet about filtering gaining them something.

> It appears a classic case of business making plans which are not
> technically sound, not to mention wasting millions of dollars and the
> time of service providers who are already battling to maintain third
> party compliance (AFACT vs iiNet current example).
>
> A simple web browser proxy setting or tunnel will defeat the whole
> filter.
>
> Whilst some of the general public, who choose to defeat "the filter",
> won't give a toss for AUSNOG (and other group) rantings, the biggest
> issue I see is that we are all going to be forced to pay for compliance
> (infrastructure and software) when the very people who we are supposed
> to be protecting will just proxy around it anyway.

I imagine the costs will be passed down.  Really, that point should be made
in public - this will cause a significant rise in the cost of broadband for
the Australian public.  Thanks, Conroy.  Hard point for the ISPs themselves
to make, obviously, but perhaps some of us related people can say it loud
enough...

I would love to see iiNet and co publically take offence at the press
release trying to co-opt them. The wording was very nicely managed to make
it look like the top four supported the filtering to a casual reader.  I
don't believe that's the case, and I think enough public, loud backlash
right now might actually carry the day.  But then iiNet have enough on their
plate already, and the others aren't known for that sort of move...

KevinL

> Regards,
>
>
> Darren Moss
> General Manager, Director
> [p] 1300 131 083 [f] 03 9017 2287
> [e] Darren.Moss at em3.com.au [w] www.em3.com.au
>
> em3 People and Technology | Managed Technology Experts
> postal: PO Box 2333, Moorabbin VIC 3189
>
> New Zealand Airedale Street, Auckland City
> [p] 09 92 555 26 [f] 09 887 0273 [m] 021 841 541
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Grubb [mailto:ben at techwiredau.com]
> Sent: 2009-12-17 8:39 pm
> To: Darren Moss
> Cc: Curtis Bayne; ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net; Skeeve Stevens; Mark
> Smith; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Conroy announcement on filtering
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhAJgrISMrI
>
> --
> Ben Grubb
>
> On 17/12/2009, at 8:14 PM, Darren Moss wrote:
>
> > I think Ten re-runs 7pm Project after Late News.
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Darren Moss
> > General Manager, Director
> > [p] 1300 131 083 [f] 03 9017 2287
> > [e] Darren.Moss at em3.com.au [w] www.em3.com.au
> >
> > Reach me on extension 105.
> > For technical support, please visit our website.
> >
> >
> > em3 People and Technology | Managed Technology Experts Celebrating 10
> > Great Years of Service 1999-2009.
> > postal: PO Box 2333, Moorabbin VIC 3189
> >
> > New Zealand Airedale Street, Auckland City
> > postal: PO Box 39573, Howick 2045
> > [p] 09 92 555 26 [f] 09 887 0273
> >
> > ** Sent from my wireless Blackberry mobile with Hosted Microsoft
> > Exchange from em3 **
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Curtis Bayne" <curtis at bayne.com.au>
> > Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:09:35
> > To: Skeeve Stevens<Skeeve at eintellego.net>; Mark
> > Smith<nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
> > Cc: <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
> > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Conroy announcement on filtering
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>

-- 
Kevin Littlejohn
Obsidian Consulting Group
ph: +613 9355 7844
skype: silarsis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20091217/85efca68/attachment.html>