[AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter

Thu Jul 1 11:16:26 EST 2010

People will not seek a solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet - point in hand: IPv6.

We need something far more radical.

-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net on behalf of Daniel Hood
Sent: Thu 7/1/2010 11:14 AM
To: 'Sean K. Finn'; 'John Glendenning'; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter

If you want to stop this filter from coming through, we need mass awareness
that this filter isn't going to work. 

This can easily be achieved by creating a bunch of videos / written / audio
tutorials with something like "The 5 easy steps to beating the filter". Just
show people how to install TOR for firefox or such. If we can show that the
filter is going to be ineffective to the general public then he'll lose all
footing. If people know that theres a simple and easy way to beat this thing
then why support Conroy to implement a multimillion system thats useless
from the start? Also, in the process it would be a huge embarrassment for
Conroy and his technicals "Know-it-all" noobs if the government's technical
department's massive omniscience filter, can be beaten by an old woman at
home with "them internets", firefox and a firefox-TOR-plugin. 

Thoughts?

Dan

From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Sean K. Finn
Sent: Thursday, 1 July 2010 10:40 AM
To: 'John Glendenning'; 'ausnog at lists.ausnog.net'
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter

You mean sacrificial Lamb..

Do what Clive Palmer does. He's loud and takes a far-out approach. Sure it
might not be true, but it brings the general concensus somewhere over the
middle line that is needed to win the issue.

He doesn't care that he looks like a goose, he's a damn billionaire.

Conroy doesn't care that he looks like a goose, he over-states things to
bring the median view of the average joe across the line that swings in his
favour.

What we need is an equally ridiculous but still credible loud mouth pushing
an edge issue to swing the general view somewhere in the middle of the
field.

Then we need someone else seriously credible that is a loud mouth but not
known for exaggeration to step into the middle and exert the extra couple of
grams of pressure needed to bring the issue to our side and to a close.

Politics 101.

Truth has nothing to do with it, no matter how hard you believe.

We have several seriously credible and quoted loud mouths on this list, but
none that are both credible and radical enough to push an extreme view that
will be listened to.

And although I am both Radical enough and have enough of a loud mouth to do
it, I'm not a well known or credible source otherwise I would put my hand up
in an instant to be the decoy / dummy runner.

S.

From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of John Glendenning
Sent: Thursday, 1 July 2010 9:36 AM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter

What is the Internet Industry Association doing amongst all of this? They
have been "representing the interests" of the industry back to when Alston
first proposed filtering back in 2000.

The mining companies have infinitely more political clout - they are
unified, have deep pockets ($130M in advertising!) and stood for Aussie
jobs. Our telco industry has been offshoring for years, is intensely
compettive/fragmented and is lead by geeks who understandably want to avoid
making political statements for fear of retribrution.

We need an Aussie Icon/geek to assist with this one. Bring on Dick Smith or
Dr Karl!

Who is gunna pay for the advertising though?

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Curtis Bayne <curtis at bayne.com.au> wrote:

As I was going to say in my post that failed last night, the solution to
this is easy: get political.

Screw net neutrality - our policy of passive benevolence will not work here.

Do what we (SONET) do: actively refuse to carry pro-filter content on your
network. If every one of us actively deny proponents to spread their FUD,
they'll get irksome and start telling everybody that we're pedophiles.
Outrage = airtime and I'll be happy to tell the Today Tonight reporter
what's REALLY going on.

Sure, there will be some collateral if we start black-holing shared web
servers that have pro-filter material, but who cares? This will give people
a taste of exactly what it will be like under a government-administered
filter regime. In your customers minds, filter = bad and frustrating.
Doesn't matter whose filter it is, we've got the jump to make this
association and that is the key in winning the war.

...at least this way we can use squid instead of m86 too*.

Mining companies fight for their rights, time for us to do the same.

Regards,
Curtis

*I didn't sign an NDA, but if you did, here's your license to talk: The
filter trials were performed using appliances from
http://www.m86security.com/, formerly Marshall security before their merger.
"They told me" they have won a tender for a "filtering platform for an
entire country of about 20 million people". I am sick of the silence on this
topic.

-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net on behalf of Andrew Oskam
Sent: Thu 7/1/2010 8:59 AM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter

I Agree - We, as an Industry, should be expanding and setting up a
community and working together much closer than we currently are.

At present, I think we are just cruising along and accepting the beating
that government is throwing at us.

I don't claim to have any specific ideas, But I think that we should be
doing more to voice our concerns about the varying changes that affect
this industry and the country.

Andrew Oskam

E  percy at th3interw3bs.net

NOTICE:

These comments are my own personal opinions only and do not necessarily
reflect the positions or opinions of my employer or their affiliates.
All comments are based upon my current knowledge and my own personal
experiences. You should conduct independent tests to verify the validity
of any statements made in this email before basing any decisions upon
those statements.

On 30/06/10 6:32 PM, Darren Moss wrote:
> Hi Noggers,
>
> How about we build an industry web portal which represents our collective
view specifically relating to the Filter.
>
> Then, we collect signatures on a petition and have them presented to Mr
Conroy.
>
> We should also seek SME advice which can be added to the petition, so the
Minister can see just how ineffective this filter is going to be (at our
cost of course).
>
> I am sure we could ask our journalist friends on this list to assist with
spreading the word and letting the Government know that this is not going to
get past without consultation.
>
> My 2c.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Darren Moss
> General Manager
> Australia and New Zealand
> [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
> postal: PO Box 39573, Howick 2045
> [p] 09 887 0550 [f] 09 887 0273
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Sean K. Finn
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 June 2010 6:24 PM
> To: 'Andrew Fort'; 'Phillip Grasso'
> Cc: 'ausnog at ausnog.net'
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter
>
> We don't really have a union to represent us.
>
> If we do I've never heard of them, which means they aren't doing a good
enough job getting the message out there.
>
> S.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Fort
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 June 2010 6:21 PM
> To: Phillip Grasso
> Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Phillip Grasso<phillip.grasso at gmail.com>
wrote:
>   
>> Unfortunately the change in leadership looks to not have changed the
>> filtering picture much.
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/351461/conroy_reaffirms_commit
>> ment_filter/
>>
>> My question what are we 'as an industry' going to do about it?
>>     
> The miners made the claim their jobs were at stake; rather, the mine
_owners_.  Are any large ISPs threatening they'll have to go under -
destroying jobs - if this legislation is passed?  If no-one wants to even
bluff, I guess we're SOL.
>
> -a
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>   

_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100701/3e7d7365/attachment.html>