Mandatory ISP-Level Filtering report released
- 15 December, 2009 16:32
- Comments 10
After much delay the Federal Government has released the results of Enex TestLab’s test pilot into mandatory ISP-level content filtering, finding that a technically competent user could circumvent filtering technology based on ACMA’s blacklist.
According to the report, initially all filters had issues with loading the ACMA blacklist indicating a need for routine checking to ensure the blacklist is filtered correctly with each update.
On the up side, testing also revealed that ISPs filtering only the ACMA blacklist during the trial had no noticeable performance degradation that could be attributed to the filter itself.
Of the ISPs filtering only the ACMA blacklist, two ISPs used Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) pass-through monitoring technology and the third proxy filtering technology.
In addition to filtering the ACMA blacklist, six ISPs filtered other categories of content using DPI pass-through monitoring technology and pass-by hybrid technologies.
In blocking additional categories of content all six ISPs achieved 78 percent to 84 percent accuracy when assessed against the test list of URLs compiled by Enex TestLab.
“These results represent an improved level of performance when compared to previous Enex testing, and suggest commercially available filtering products are increasingly effective at including additional categories of content on their filtering lists,” the report reads. “One hundred per cent accuracy using these commercial lists is unlikely to be achieved as the content on different commercial lists varies and there is a high rate at which new content is created on the internet.
“Testing was also undertaken against a list of content, prepared by Enex, considered to be innocuous and which should not be blocked by a filter. All participants experienced some level of over-blocking in this test. All filters blocked less than 3.4 percent of such content.”
On the performance front, the report found that the majority of these filtering technologies, when correctly installed, enable the filtering of additional content with minimal or no performance impact.
“One technology, however, displayed a noticeable performance impact,” the report reads. “This finding was similar to levels recorded by Enex in previous trials.”
On circumvention, the report found that filtering of additional categories of content enabled ISPs to implement measures which made some common circumvention techniques difficult.
“As a general rule, there appears to be a relationship between measures to counter deliberate circumvention and impact on internet performance -- i.e. stronger circumvention prevention measures can result in greater degradation of internet performance,” the report reads.
End user feedback
Discussing customer feedback on the pilot, the report finds that a small number of customers indicated they had experienced some over-blocking and/or under-blocking of content during the pilot.
“These events were considered relatively minor and occurred only once or twice,” the report reads. “A small number of customers also reported slower network speeds as a result of the service which filtered additional categories of content.
“Overall the service offered by the ISPs was considered effective by customers, with around two-thirds of customers participating in the survey indicating that they would either probably or definitely continue using additional content filtering services.
Customers also expressed the view that it was important for there to be mechanisms for self-management of the filter settings and improved visibility of the filter in action.
Telstra’s Informal Trial
The report also details Telstra’s informal participation in ISP level filtering in which it undertook its own testing of ISP filtering of a blacklist of up to 10,000 URLs using a ‘domain name server plus proxy server’ filtering solution.
No customers were involved in the Telstra trial and testing was conducted using Telstra’s test environment, which is a replication of its network and used by Telstra for testing its products prior to release, according to the report.
:Telstra found that its filtering solution was 100 percent accurate at blocking a blacklist of 10,000 URLs. Telstra also found there was no discernible performance degradation,” the report reads. “Telstra did not test circumvention, because it considers that filtering can be circumvented by a technically competent user.”
According to the report, Telstra found its filtering solution was not effective in the case of non-web based protocols such as instant messaging, peer-to-peer or chat rooms.
“Enex confirms that this is also the case for all filters presented in the pilot,” the report reads. “Telstra reported that heavy traffic sites could overload its trial filtering solution if included in the filtering blacklist. This is also the case for all filters presented in the pilot.”
Email Computerworld or follow @computerworldau on Twitter.
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
-
Coalition NBN better or worse?
-
Coalition NBN better or worse?
-
CeBIT 2012: Will NBN speed up freight delivery times?
-
NBN build gaining momentum daily: Quigley
-
Coalition NBN better or worse?
-
Windows 7 for Dummies® Dvd+book Bundle
-
Computers for Seniors for Dummies, 2nd Edition
-
Office 2007 for Dummies
-
Teach Yourself Visually Windows 7
-
Windows 7 for Dummies®
-
MYOB Software for Dummies 6E Australian Edition
-
Microsoft Office
-
Excel 2007 All-In-One Desk Reference for Dummies
-
Windows 7 for Seniors for Dummies®
Comments
Anonymous
Conjob is all over the media now saying that his secret censorship is perfect and creates no problems, will save all the children (from what?) and will be introduced immediately.
Any sensible person will have realised by now that he appears to be lying, except for the last bit. He is a disgrace even by the low standards of some recent comms ministers, and should resign or be sacked immediately.
Anonymous
The purpose of this filter is NOT to filter innapropriate content as this minister says. Its actually to filter copyright material such as movies and songs from the internet to protect the music industrys dying business model.
Jahm Mitt
The great thing about all of this religious or "culty" guff, is that all the sheeple groveling in their steeple, they all have "opinions" about what their deity is "saying" and righteously so, but the deity in the last few thousands of years of "omnipotence", has never once put in a personal appearance.
You know like if "JC and the Space Cadets" were a rock band - the clueless would have caught on that while the promoters claim that they play in gigs all over the land, but they have never turned up; while the clueless and stupid keep rocking up and buying the tickets.
Losers.
So the same overlording us with more holier than thou drivel, is projected into the area of computer games and internet sites.
Again while people get slaughtered for fun and profit in the movies and the real world, playing computer games doing the same stuff is just not on?
Why?
Am I surprised that the people thrusting their liturgical loins at the censors office for "standards and decency" are not trying to put the shackles on those who choose to have their own autonomous opinions, by declaring them to workers of the devil, sorcery and witches - starting with the jabbings for the devils mark.
Am I even further surprised that this is now extending into the Great Australian Firewall.
Perhaps those who cry loudest are those who look forlornly upon the promises of the bible, such as Ezekiel 23: 21 "whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions."
I mean who wouldn't want that or to be getting that?
I mean thank god Conroy is standing up for real Christian family values.
Jesus said in Revelation 2:22-23 "And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."
So Jesus wants to kill our kids - that's cool cause it is Jesus.
Timbo says I Timothy 2:11-14 "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
So all the women ought to keep their traps shut. I mean it's in the bible - so it must be true right.
And God digs killing pregnant chicks by knifing them and smashing their kids brains out on the ground; so the christians have got this family values stuff down pat: Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
So Conroy and his catholic buddies have got this right - we have to be protected against them out there on the internet and subjugate ourselves to the righteous christians showing us how their god loves us and how we ought to be kissing his ass, on the basis of their say so.
Oh did I mention that the old testament is a scammed copy of the Code of Hammurubi? The King of Babylons state laws - and the first 6 books of the bible are bare faced rip offs of this, just rebranded to a diety instead of the king?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_code_of_Hammurabi.pdf
Yep gotta remember them good old christian family values, the true word of god is the bible... except that getting nailed for copyright and plagarisim wasn't invented then.
Anonymous
Trust the Senator to propose legislation that is unconstitutional in nature.
GL trying to get this through; not only do the government need an absolute majority in parliament (plus states, plus referendum), but the premise behind the legislation is as inept as the Senator himself.
Looking for a legacy, he only found what he is lacking. Conroy is an embarrassment to all Australians, and to homo sapians.
Gabriel
Another tool that the Government agencies will abuse to rob us of our civil rights and liberties while blaming it on some fictious terrorists in a far away land...
Kevin Rudd and his administration are such a pack of bores. Now they will be telling us what we have to view on the Internet... There will only be 2 sites: kevinrudd.com and hillsong.com
Little will we know the politicians will be persuaded by the major coporates to black list their competition (The family business) for a few extra bucks in a brown paper bag... They're all on the take, you better believe that, all of them...
This is a very dangerous move away from democracy and a total invasion of our freedom of expression.
All I have seen is the technology trials, no mention of the criteria for blacklisting and who controls it.
Verdict: ACMA are a pack of incompentent ludites and will screw it up for everybody.
Anonymous
Most people miss the point. Whilst child protection is an admirable aim - this internet filter is not about that.
It has already been clearly stated by government that child pornography is only a small portion of what is supposed to be on the "black-list".
Given that the black-list itself will be "secret" - this is clearly an attempt at blanket government control of a new technology under the guise of protecting our children.
Coupled with the flaws in the technology - performance, accuracy, circumvention, relevance; this should definitely not happen and the Australian public should be up in arms.
My opposition to this filter is despite my strong agreement that protecting our children is important.
What about mandating that all new PC's are shipped with filtering software? Oops - they already are - it is built into Windows 7 and various forms of filtering software has been in Internet Explorer since the release of Windows XP.
The fact that no-one turns it on says something about the reliability of the technology and what most families really think about the need.
TuffGuy
Regardless of how effective this blacklist and filter is, even if it were 100% accurate, the whole exercise is pointless. One way to put it would be that the filter may stop most naughty stuff by people with an average or below knowledge of computers and the internet. Anyone care to guess what % of the population would be above this level of knowedge and whom would be competant enough to use one of the many other methods of viewing such material???
Given that there are so many avenues of access why waste a whole bunch of money just blocking one??????????????
Anonymous
Wow, UNDER 3.4% of the selection of sites specially approved for public viewing were blocked by the filter. That means probably no more than 5% of government-censor-approved sites will disappear along with the other, 'unwanted', content.
And some people thought the filter would have a negative effect on the Internet. How wrong they were!
Anonymous 2
The ppl that love kiddie porn the most are the ones most apt at hiding their activities, how's mandatory ISP filtering going to stop them? I smell a rat!
Democracy, yeah right. Rudd - I'll say what'll do, but not do what I say and the other choice Abbott - I'll ram the bible down your childrens throats in public schools despite your religious beliefs. I guess then, maybe, public schools would get more funding for being a christian school ???
JonnyMuzz
What a ridiculous waste of $45 million setup plus $33 million a year ongoing, especially when it will have no impact on pedophiles transmitting their files. Give me that much money and I will infiltrate the ranks and hand them to you on a silver platter. Most of the industry experts have said it's a waste of money and won't work, along with the AFP. Steven Conroy should stick to economics, the field in which he was educated; It makes no sense why he is the Shadow Minister for Communications and Information Technology. He spouts Moore's Law at a few interviews so people think he knows what he's talking about.
I will have a video coming to YouTube soon displaying to what extent Steven Conroy is an ignoramus.
Post new comment