[AusNOG] ISOC-AU position on filtering - with Skeeve's thoughts

[Mark Newton]

Hi Skeeve.

Remember, this is a political issue, not a technical issue.  So...

On 18/07/2010, at 8:08 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:

I just think we have to be realistic about what we can and can’t fight.

Not sure if you've noticed, but some of us have been successfully fighting
it for three years, to the extent that the Government has been unable to
gain any traction on the issue for the entirety of their first term.

Filtering is fine as long as we aren’t all made to do it.  If we aren’t made to do it, many of us won’t care, but I do think many of us would introduce product support anyway.

Yes, that's a worthy position to take.


What we have here is an issue to address.  It won’t go away.  If it isn’t now, it will be later.  There is clearly a desire and a need from a certain segment of the community for some sort of filtering – whether we like it or not.

It will go away -- See my comments about generational change starting
at the beginning of my submission here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscc/subs/sub_15.pdf

It's interesting that you're taking something that was entirely unthinkable
just three years ago and now viewing as so inevitable that it isn't worth
fighting anymore.


I do NOT believe desktop filtering is a viable option... it is just too easy to get around and the burden on the parents to manage it when they often barely understand what their kids are doing - is just too much to ask.

Bearing in mind that in saying that you've just made a technical argument
in a political debate...

Getting around ISP censorware is easier than getting around PC filters.
No matter what you do with your ISP censorware, I can (and, in all likelihood,
will) host an online service which implements countermeasures specific to
your controls which can be accessed effortlessly via a standard web browser
in approximately zero seconds.

PC filters don't have that attribute.

Mounting an argument that says PC filters aren't viable because they're
easy to bypass is the same pig-ignorant rubbish the ALP used to kick-start
their policy in the first place.  It's objectively wrong, and should be denounced
as such.


What I do support is however, is a government that financially supports ISP’s who wish to be 100% a filtered ISP, or those wishing to offer filtering products.  This can be done with discounted equipment, tax breaks, advertising and advise support (www.filterme.gov.au<http://www.filterme.gov.au>) or something like this.

What I support is not having the Government involved at all;  or, if they
must be involved, having safeguards in place to limit their involvement.

Again:  This is a political argument.  If you accept that this is a legitimate
area of Government involvement, you'll never get them out of it, and
we'll spend the next 10 - 15 years resisting their inevitable efforts to
tighten the screws.

That's why we're fighting this debate now in the first place:  The previous
Government established a foothold, legitimising governmental involvement
in PC filters (which, as far as I can tell, is a position unique in the Western
world -- And probably the Eastern world too, given that the Chinese haven't
been able to pull off Green Dam yet)

Because we let them establish that foothold, we're now paying the
consequences:  A decade down the track we have a new Government
which says that the involvement of politicians in PC filtering has been
a failure, and now we need to segue that involvement into ISPs instead.

The important thing to note here is that the argument we're having now
is an absolute, 100% consequence of the argument we lost in 1999.

So, you have to ask:  If we accept and legitimise Governmental
involvement in ISP censorware now (even limited involvement, such as
funding it), what consequences will that produce in another decade?
Given that we know with complete certainty that ISP censorware isn't
going to have any impact at all on availability of internet content to
Australians, we also know with complete certainty that the next party
that wins Government will want to kick this one for doing something
pointless, and will want to have an alternative policy in place which
demands something "pointful."

What do you envisage that policy will look like?

Pretty sure I can tell you.  You can probably tell me too.

The correct answer, in my view, is to accept that if there is a market need
then some ISPs may want to fill it;  But that the government has no role
in making it happen.  If Telstra, Optus and Primus want to bring along
censored services next year, then so be it -- But we should be very careful
about the acceptability of governmental involvement, particularly given
that we know what the government actually wants and will actually be
trying to do.

Putting the message into soundbite form:  "Only an idiot would believe
that the previous Government's inability to demonstrate that filtering
serves any useful purpose is a legitimate reason to do more of it."

 If you take a look at Webshield (www.webshield.com.au<http://www.webshield.com.au>), they are a perfect example of how I think this could work.

Yep -- And with the benefit of three years of free publicity AND involvement
of their managing director on the Government's Cyber Safety Advisory
Committee AND the Australian dealership of Watchdog/8e6 products,
Webshield still only has approximately 6000 customers Australia-wide.

As a niche provider for the professed needs of the Christadelphian community
group, they're great and should have every success.  They're also already
available, demonstrating that governmental involvement isn't actually
needed to "solve" this "problem."

But they're not a perfect example of something that can or should be touted
as a one stop shop for normal Australian families.

 If a parent is worried about what their kids can do, then they should sign up for a ‘filtered’ ISP or ISP product.

Well, no.  If a parent is worried about what their kids can do, then they should
parent their children.

We expect that in literally every other sphere of parental life.  I can't think of
anywhere where we let parents say, "It's all too hard, I'm not going to do
anything," without involving the Department of Family Services.

Conroy says the Internet "is not special."  He should put his money where
his mouth is:  If it ain't special, then it should have the same demands for
parental involvement that everything else has.

This means the parents don’t have to worry about what is going on with their kids computers at home or school (should they join up).

It is grossly irresponsible to send that message, Skeeve.

(something Webshield still hasn't learned, incidentally -- their customer
testimonial page is just terrible, and has been for years:
http://www.webshield.net.au/about-us/testimonials/ )

 We’ve talked about the many ways people can get past filtering.

But, if you had an ISP like Webshield (and I am sure 50 would spring up over night, that specialised in filtering), then you could deal with nearly all of the above by locking things down big time.

Nope, not happening.  Read up about "covert channels," and have a think
about how someone who knows what they're doing can use them to
provide censored users with uncensored access.

It ain't rocket surgery.

And, again:  It's irresponsible of you to send that message.

This kind of product, or ISP is what I would be happy to see the government throw some money at.

Policy positions ought not be dictated by what is easy for the Government
to throw money at.

I believe this deals with most of our objections.

Speak for yourself.

Those who don’t want to be filtered, don’t have to be.  Those that want a certain level, or fully filtered, can join an ISP whose specific job it is to do that.  Those ISP’s that don’t have the hardware can’t be made to do it by project/legal creep.

You, Sir, are dreaming.  Think long term, and remember how we got to where
we are today.

  - mark

--
Mark Newton                               Email:  newton at internode.com.au<mailto:newton at internode.com.au> (W)
Network Engineer                          Email:  newton at atdot.dotat.org<mailto:newton at atdot.dotat.org>  (H)
Internode Pty Ltd                         Desk:   +61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile: +61-416-202-223





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100719/74453b48/attachment.html>