Internode: ISP-level filter goals still not clear

ISP says the objectives of the government's plan have still not been clarified despite moves to proceed with implementation

The objectives of the Federal Government's mandatory ISP-level filter plan announced today are still unclear, according to one of the companies likely to be directly affected.

Senator Stephen Conroy today said that he would push ahead the content filter to block URLs that received a Refused Content classification by the ACMA in the face of considerable public backlash.

However, Internode network engineer, Mark Newton, told Computerworld the question of whether the plan is a good idea in the first place, has still not been answered.

“They need to tell the public what they actually want to achieve, and they’ve never done that," he said. "We’ve been talking about this for two years now, and they’ve never once said what their objective is.

“It’s clearly not to keep stuff away from kids, because the data in this report shows that the products they have tested are completely ineffective at doing that.

“It’s clearly not to prevent adults from publishing information that’s inappropriate for kids, because one of the outcome’s of the report is that anyone who is motivated to circumvent these products can."

Newton's comments echo those of other industry figures including telco analyst Paul Budde, and Vocus CEO and one of the found members of AusNOG James Spenceley who described the decision as a bad day for the industry.

The Internode network engineer also questioned the results of Enex Testlab's report into a trial of content filtering run by several ISPs.

“Enex haven’t provided any information about sample sizes when they’ve been giving statistical data. They’ll give a percentage figure without saying the size of whatever quantity they were talking about," Newton said.

“Some of the performance numbers that they’ve given indicate that network performance is better with the censor were in place than without it, which doesn’t make any sense at all.

“They haven’t provided enough information to be able to tell whether the numbers they’re reporting are correct."

The Enex report found 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.

(The full Enex Testlab report can be downloaded from the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy website.)

“As a result of how it was announced today, we probably know less about how it’s going to work than we did this morning, because Conroy says that there will be an independent body to evaluate whether content is refused classification or not," Newton added. "At the moment we’ve got ACMA and the classification board doing that, so it looks like we’re going to have a third body in the government doing censorship with a separate blacklist and we don’t know anything about them yet.

“Where’s the accountability for them? So we’ll have to see the draft legislation to know where that’s at."

Additional reporting by Trevor Clarke

Sign up for Computerworld's newsletters.

Got a tip? Email Computerworld or follow @computerworldau on Twitter and let us know your thoughts.

More about: etwork, Internode
References show all

Comments

1

Unforgiven

Tue 15/12/2009 - 18:23

yay... just what this country needs... more censorship </sarcasm>
Freedom of Speech / Freedom of Expression :is this supposed democratic g'ment going to deny the one of the most basic human rights?

2

Simon Shaw

Tue 15/12/2009 - 19:21

In a few years the government in Australia will mandate that all children born must be wrapped in cotton wool as soon as feasible. This is to be kept on until you're buried.

3

Anonymous

Tue 15/12/2009 - 19:43

You do realise that "noticeable" performance degradation according to their trial was more than 20%? Even given the lack of information they've disclosed in this report to really judge their testing, they admit a significant percentage degradation to performance. Anyone who says 20% is "not noticeable" has a poor grasp of mathematics. Imagine if 20% of the population were killed in a nuclear blast - there's all of Sydney dead!

4

Anonymous

Tue 15/12/2009 - 19:55

Conroy you are such a numpty. Could the Labour party PLEASE hire someone to advise on what is technically feasible? Perhaps you should read up on King Canute.

5

Anonymous

Tue 15/12/2009 - 21:02

Freedom of speech went out the window when laws where invented to protect minorities and NOT the majority!

6

Ralph

Wed 16/12/2009 - 02:23

What scalability test were done? They've already said sites like youtube would suffer. What if, instead of 1000 clueless users, there were millions? Or if the block list was extended to a relatively useful level?

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but this should have always been a per-household voluntary scheme, like it already was back before they instigated all this nonsense..

7

Anonymous

Wed 16/12/2009 - 07:01

Censorship is in itself evil and part of the root of all that is evil. It leads to most of the worlds problems and the key methods bad people use to get away with their operations. It is the golden tool of corruption and cover-ups. We are all not children and should not be treated as such. Don't tell me what I am aloud to see and know.

8

neilmc

Tue 22/12/2009 - 10:54

@ Ralph "What scalability test were done?"

I'd like to know that too. There was a podcast recently where Conroy addressed that point.

Did he say they'll get the data out ASAP for that? No
Is it in the Enex report? No

What he did say was that he spoke to Enex about it and they'd told him that scalability wasn't a problem. I'm not sure what that's based on. Any Enex people around who would care to confirm that they've given the tick against scalability?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Users posting comments agree to the Computerworld comments policy.
Login or register to link comments to your user profile, or you may also post a comment without being logged in.
Related Coverage
Related Whitepapers
Latest Stories
Community Comments
Tags: internet content filtering, internode, Senator Stephen Conroy, mandatory internet fitering
Whitepapers
All whitepapers
Sign up now to get free exclusive access to reports, research and invitation only events.
Featured Download
/downloads/product/160/ultraiso/

UltraISO

UltraISO is an ISO CD/DVD image file tool that creates, edits and converts. It is also a bootable CD/DVD maker that has the ability to ...

Computerworld newsletter

Join the most dedicated community for IT managers, leaders and professionals in Australia