[AusNOG] Web filter a runaway success: Exetel

Colwell, Scott scott.colwell at nn.com.au
Wed May 6 10:24:09 EST 2009

Just been to see "The Boat that Rocked".
Can I interest anyone in setting up a web hosting business on a ship
outside the
territorial limits?   Moor it over PPC-1 and get Bev to hook you up!


	From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Matthew
	Sent: Tuesday, 5 May 2009 9:38 PM
	To: ausnog at ausnog.net
	Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Web filter a runaway success: Exetel
	And just so no one thinks this is a good idea:
	Insane and angry making.
	Mark Newton wrote: 

		On 05/05/2009, at 6:51 PM, Kai wrote:

			Mmmm, so the article doesn't tell the full
story, figures, but what's
			the bet that certain people in certain places
will use this one  
			to basically say "Hey, see, the filter aint ALL
bad..." :S

		The problem is that Peter Mancer from Watchdog has
already admitted that
		it can't satisfy even the most watered-down of the
		because it can't cope with URLs hosted on high-traffic
sites occupying
		the blacklist.
		Remember:  Since last year, Conroy has claimed that he
wants the ACMA
		prohibited list to be blocked.  When the ACMA prohibited
list was leaked
		that position became politically hilarious, so he
changed his tune to
		"almost exclusively RC" (SBS Insight 31 March 2009),
then "We've
		never stated that we were going to do anything other
than Refused
		Classification" (Triple J Hack, 7 April 2009)
		The problem is that the Classification Board has Refused
		to several YouTube videos, which means the ultimate
"high traffic site"
		is on the blacklist even after Conroy has changed all
the definitions.
		And Mancer has said that high-traffic sites will blow
his system's  
		out.  Indeed, the failure mode is exactly the same (and
for exactly the
		same reason) as the IWF Wikipedia failure in the UK in
early December.
		Mancer's proposed solution is to whitelist high-traffic
sites, so they  
		be blocked even if the Government insists that they must
		So Exetel has had a "runaway success" in testing a
system which cannot
		satisfy the Government's requirements.
		Can Exetel deploy Mancer's censorbox without a
Government mandate to
		deploy a voluntary filtering service in response to
demand from their
		customers?  By all means, and more power to them.  Hope
it works out
		for them.
		But will that meet the dictates of the Government's
stated policy?
		Nope.  They'll need another, untested censorbox to do
		   - mark
		Mark Newton                               Email:
newton at internode.com.au 
		Network Engineer                          Email:   
		newton at atdot.dotat.org  (H)
		Internode Pty Ltd                         Desk:
		"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile:
		AusNOG mailing list
		AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.


This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed 
Scanning Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information 
visit http://www.mci.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20090506/f74a78b7/attachment.html>

More information about the AusNOG mailing list