Australia Plans to Filter the Internet

[Dr Bunsen]

Labor's high-speed National Broadband Network is a step in the right direction, but their plan to block inappropriate websites by forcing ISPs to install content filtering systems will slow down internet access and raise the cost of service.

Unlike website filters installed on your personal computer, filters installed at your ISP need to check hundreds of thousands of websites and then decide whether they're pornographic or inappropriate. As it stands, no technology capable of doing this accurately exists. Current filters are of varying accuracy and severely affect internet performance - and the Government knows it.

A recent ACMA report on ISP filtering products showed that all of the products tested degraded Internet performance, with two of them reducing speed by more than 75 per cent. One filter reduced network speed by only 2 per cent, but it was one of the least accurate at identifying inappropriate and illegal websites. It also mistakenly blocked many innocent sites. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, seemed oblivious to this and hailed the trial a success.

Senator Conroy insists mandatory filtering will protect children from violent and pornographic content online, but that's simply untrue. It's rare that surfing the web will unwillingly land you head first in illicit pictures and movies. On most occasions you need to be searching for risqué material to find it and that won't change with a filter in place. Nor will access to it as circumvention can be easily achieved within minutes. For those occasions when you do accidently stumble across pornography, there's no guarantee a filter would block it anyway.

As for banning websites that are 'inappropriate', is the Government really in the best position to decide what that is? Does inappropriate include information on sexual health, breast-feeding, drugs and abortion? The one size fits all approach of filtering at ISP level causes problems because young children, teenagers and adults often use the same family computer. Material inappropriate in one household might be appropriate in another, but the Government's scheme doesn't allow for any fine-tuning. It's a poor substitute for the discretion and attention of parents.

A combination of supervision, education and empowerment is the only way we can be sure children are equipped to navigate the web responsibly. Arguments that filtering is worth trying, even if it doesn't work, show complete disregard for the well being of young Australians and their future standing as technology leaders.

Meanwhile, extra ISP infrastructure needed to meet the burden of filtering will drive up the cost of your internet service bill. Network engineer Mark Newton says ISPs will also require more call centre staff to deal with angry customers who can't access websites.

Large operators may be able to absorb these costs, but small ISPs risk going under and consumer choice becoming limited. As a matter of fact, all businesses risk losing out under the Government's plan. Given the rate the tested filters block innocent websites, a whopping 10,000 out of every one million at best, it won't take long for sites belonging to the local plumber or GP to be mistaken and banned. Any loss of income due to website downtime is inexcusable and it's still not clear if or how we'll be able to appeal a decision.

There's also the issue of filtering HTTPS web traffic - the protocol used for online banking transactions. Five of the filters tested for ACMA could intercept HTTPS traffic, a worrying prospect if the Government intends to use one for blocking secure websites that are inappropriate or illegal. A filter inspecting secure banking data and online purchases for unsavory content effectively opens the door to fraudsters and undermines the entire e-commerce process.

To provide a safer environment for children online we need to focus on areas posing a real threat to young Australians like cyber-bullying, identity theft and online predators. Filtering does nothing to reduce these risks. Just like we educate children about staying safe outside, we need to educate them about staying safe online. Walk them through it just like we'd walk them to the park. If that means educating parents unfamiliar with the Internet as well, then let's do it.

Despite all the shortcomings in the ACMA report, the Government is progressing to live ISPs trials using real customers. Senator Conroy and his department are unwilling to acknowledge that ISP filtering is unworkable and find themselves in a position where it seems hard to turn back, though not impossible. Instead his office prefers to brand those who object as presenting extreme views or equating freedom of speech with watching child pornography. I'm sure Labor's time would be better spent implementing their other cyber-safety promises aimed at actually benefiting children.

To make matters worse, Senator Conroy's office now says filters will be mandatory for all internet users.

Australians will pay for ISP filtering with decreased performance and higher charges, but to limit the free flow of information that makes the Internet the most valuable communication and education tool of our time, means we'll pay a much larger price in the long term.

ABC News

[Raj]

[General Lighting]

Unfortunately, for a seemingly "Western" nation it does look like Australia has been extremely heavily influenced by the culture and power structures of the Republic of Singapore (who also have a significant investment in the telecoms infrastructure of AU), so its hardly surprising they are trying this...

in fact if you read the ACMA report its clear that Australia has been working on this for 10 years or more...

The "free speech" laws in Australia are already more restrictive than Britain or the EU. For instance according to the existing ACMA guidelines (ACMA is Australia's equivalent of Ofcom). it is actually a criminal offence for an AU citizen to talk openly about drugs on a website based in Australia...

[O-D]

I wonder what Senator Conroy is getting for doing this, which he must be because he can't be ignorant of the glaring problems.

(The libraries are paying him)

[General Lighting]

I think the Senator is just a pawn in a far bigger game. If you read the ACMA report in full they had a go at this in 1998 - clearly the technology wasn't up to scratch then but they still soldiered on. Even if this doesn't work in full there will be some of the project used, then in 2018 or maybe even 2013 they will re-visit it again.

the Asia pacific islands are going into "fortress mentality" at the moment.

They are trying to emulate Singapore where strong government has worked (building upon previous political and military experience, and learning from the mistakes of Britain and Japan who both lost the island!). Although SG only censors a few porn sites, what it does do is monitor traffic very closely so people what step out of line are quickly dealt with...

its simple - the govt sponsors or invests in Singtel so people can get 100MB/s broadband to their house but in return govt has control over the network.. most of the people just take the fast broadband and don't think about the politics (and to be fair life in SG can be the best in the region if you conform!)

think of a movie style scenario of a crocodile dundee dude turning up at a martial arts school, with his can of Fosters and hat bedecked with corks....

he tries to emulate all the nimble Chinese, and initially ends up regularly ending up on his arse and looking like a fool.

The young guys laugh at him -but the old "Sifu" takes him aside and trains him - pointing out how because he is physically larger he needs to work on his balance and poise better -

Eventually maybe it takes years - he learns the moves, and gets to the stage where he can beat up all the "baddies", and like all action movie heros, not even lose his hat!

This is whats happening in this region, and unlike hollywood there may not be a happy ending.. (incidentally Singapore own at least half of the wireless telecoms resources of Australia)

[madscientist]

Even if they do filter net traffic in Australia there are many ways around the filters... China for example is filtered by a company called BlueCoat and I happen to work for one of their competitors... we all know there are ways around it and this is proved day in day out by support calls from schools who find the students 'looking at sites they shouldn't'. If you live in China and have a bit of technical know-how you'll know how easy it can be to circumvent the filters... as the saying goes if man can make it man can break it.

And yes... HTTPS traffic can also be filtered - abeit the immense CPU power required (using regex (regular expression) off-load cards help this).

The truth is web filters have their uses, for example in schools, and the IWF does do good things (tm) but on a national level it seems obsurd to filter all traffic. The other problem here is the amount of trouble proxies cause to some sites (i.e. they break the site) for various reasons. RFC 2775 (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2775.txt) specifies the transparency of data flowing around the Internet and there is no doubt that any filter (proxy) goes against everything the RFC states.

What a load of bollocks.

[General Lighting]

Originally posted by madscientist

If you live in China and have a bit of technical know-how you'll know how easy it can be to circumvent the filters... as the saying goes if man can make it man can break it.

this is why I mentioned the karate movie scenario. The australians are behind the times, using a blunt instrument approach.

China has actually stood down loads of their filters, but of course kept the surveillance/monitoring going. Chinese youths are now permitted to freely discuss drugs, sex, partying and fashion etc (hence the influx of spam attempts from Chinese on this forum), but the political stuff will still get people in trouble, however it seems to be a policy of "let them post then bust them..."

with regard to the RFC etc, the private companies of the West are doing as much damage as any shadowy Eastern nations. Vast chunks of the net are becoming "gated" private resources dedicated to one company such as youtube servers whereas in the old days a net connected server ran an number of transparent shared services for the benefit of a community (although this ethos is probably long gone now...)

[globalloon]

the bastards

[madscientist]

Originally posted by General Lighting

with regard to the RFC etc, the private companies of the West are doing as much damage as any shadowy Eastern nations. Vast chunks of the net are becoming "gated" private resources dedicated to one company such as youtube servers whereas in the old days a net connected server ran an number of transparent shared services for the benefit of a community (although this ethos is probably long gone now...)

There is still some community element going on but it's never going to be like it was before you could buy old rope over the net with a credit card... as far as I'm concerned if I can get a free resource I'll share it :)

[General Lighting]

I think spammers, trolls and the black hat hackers have pissed on everyones chips to a great extent - sharing a resource can put you in danger unless you trust everyone you are granting access.

IMO the best you can hope for these days is what is coming through from the open source communities

People / groups are guarding their hardware and network resources as private or semi-private, but freely sharing the info on how to configure and make best use of the infrastructure...

[madscientist]

Originally posted by madscientist

.
And yes... HTTPS traffic can also be filtered - abeit the immense CPU power required (using regex (regular expression) off-load cards help this).

Gonna correct myself before someone else does .. regex off-load cards don't help with HTTPS, only anti-virus and some other random tasks like anti-spam. Almost all filters can only do HTTPS URL filtering, not content checking and on-the-fly categorisation as decrypting SSL is hefty work load but perfectly do-able.

What it sounds like Australia were trying to do is block illegal content, China on the other hand block political bullshit.