RSS Feeds
Online
You Have Every Right To Be Angry: The Government Wants To Kill The Internet
Posted by Nick Broughall at 9:30 AM on November 3, 2008
Yes, no matter how ridiculous it seems to any Internet user with even the tiniest morsel of common sense, the Government believes that the Howard porn filter didn't work because it wasn't mandatory for all Australians. And so now we as Australians are faced with possibly the single biggest affront to our online freedoms, while the Government decides it needs to follow up on a headline-grabbing election promise that is impossible to enforce.
While 99.9 percent of Gizmodians understand that mandatory internet filtering just can't work, for that 0.1 percent, here's why the filter is doomed to fail, and why you should lend your voice to the online activism movement taking the government to task over their foolhardy attempts to censor the net.
The mandatory filter won't stop all illegal content
Field trials of Internet filters were conducted in Tasmania earlier this year by the ACMA and the full report was submitted to Conroy in June. The results showed a number of different results, all of which should set of alarm bells in any sane human being's thought processor.
One of the biggest though, is that none of the filters could stop all illegal content 100%. Of course, ask any anti-virus software maker worth their salt and they'll tell you the same thing - black lists of inappropriate sites are almost impossible to maintain. For every new site you find and mark with a big black 'X', another five can spring up instantly. By the time you've found all of those and blacklisted them, you've got 25 more. The best performing filter could only manage 97 per cent accuracy, which means that within 15 clicks of your mouse button you could end up with a face full of fully illegal and inappropriate child pornography.
What's more, the filters can't touch your P2P content, or software like MSN Messenger or Skype. So the criminals who do traffic in illegal content like child pornography are just going to hit bittorrent to trade their illegal content without fear of being blocked or filtered by the government. At the moment, P2P accounts for 60 per cent of Australia's net traffic, which adds up to a hell of a lot that isn't getting filtered. Especially when you consider the other negative effects the filter will have.
The mandatory filter will slow down your already slow broadband connection
Minister Conroy came out swinging with the results of the field survey with statements that one of the tested filters only slowed down the network by two per cent. What he didn't mention was that this was one of the least effective filters. The study found that the more effective the filter, the more it slowed down your net connection. Some of the filters slowed down the network by up to 80 per cent, which is quite simply inexcusable. With speeds that slow, you can forget about any video streaming, flash-rich sites or any other engaging websites. You might as well be on dialup.
The filters block sites that aren't illegal or inappropriate
Another detail from the ACMA's report was that each of the filters blocked sites that weren't inappropriate at all. Between one and six percent of all sites were overblocked, depending on the filter, with most overblocking less than three per cent. Those figures sound pretty low, until you do the math to discover that even at the best percentage, for every million websites, 10,000 will be blocked unfairly. Of the world's estimated 108 million websites (in Feb 2007), that would mean you wouldn't be able to access over one million legitimate sites.
Now imagine the effect on your business if your site was unfairly blocked by this filter. You would not only lose money, but your reputation would also be tarnished. The other aspect is that the government has not informed the public who will be managing the website black list, what the process will be to remove your site from the blacklist, how long it will take to remove your site from the blacklist, and so on. Considering how much the government wants you to sacrifice, the lack of transparency in their policy is offensive.
Setting Up A Mandatory Internet Filter Is Expensive
So far, the government has put aside $44 million for their filter. As time goes on and they realise that it needs even more maintenance and upkeep, that number will grow.
All the experts think this is a stupid idea
Mark Newton is an engineer at Internode. Guy knows his stuff when it comes to the technical aspect of the Internet. And he's blasted the government for pursuing a flawed system of censorship. In his editorial at Online Opinion, he sums up his argument against the filter:
The online community's argument is a simple one:
* there's no problem to solve because actual illegal material on the Internet is so rare that nobody ever finds it;
* even if there was a problem to solve, there's no serious public demand to solve it;
* even if there was a public demand to solve it, none of the solutions proposed by the ALP will be effective, and the Government has handily provided original research to decimate their own case;
* even if they were effective, they'll slow down Internet access and reduce Internet reliability, as shown by the same original research released by the Minister on July 22;
* even if the proposed solutions had perfect performance and reliability, none of them are affordable;
* even if they were affordable, they'll be implemented terribly by the same underclass of bureaucrat that deemed Mohammad Haneef a terrorist, or Bill Henson a pornographer. The salivating of hangers-on like Family First and Nick Xenophon, lobbying to have the blacklist expanded before it's even in force, demonstrate perfectly how open the system will be to political manipulation and lobbying;
* even if they were implemented perfectly by perfect administrators, the blacklists will inevitably leak, be published on the Internet, whereupon they'll fall into the hands of nefarious individuals and consequently enable child abuse all over the world, with the direct assistance of the Commonwealth of Australia; and
* there's no possibility that the blacklists won't leak. Finland's list has already leaked, CyberPatrol's encrypted blacklist is cracked every six months or so. It's delusional to believe that Australia will be any better at securing its officially sanctioned list of Child Porn and Terrorism sites than anyone else. It might take a month, a year, five years, ten years, or two hours. But it will leak, secrets always do. Pressing it into service will be like setting a ticking time bomb, and when it explodes there'll be a thronging multitude of critics pointing at Senator Conroy and saying, "I told you so, you were warned, but you did it anyway".
Also providing arguments against the online filter is Gordon Ross, creator and inventor of the world's first Internet Filter software, Net Nanny. He commented on an interview conducted by TechWired AU with the Electronic Frontiers Australia rep Colin Jacobs. In his comment, he warned:
The inappropriate content for children should be filtered, however, not by the ISP, but by the Parents or guardians of the children. It is not the government's place to do this. Governments should be spending their time funding more education for those who do not understand the dangers on the Internet. Law enforcement also is grossly underfunded and that is where politicians should be concentrating their efforts, in my humble opinion.
And if that's not enough, why not check out this video from ZDNet Australia which interviews Telstra Media's Justin Milne, iiNet's Michael Malone and Internode's Simon Hackett for their thoughts and opinions on ISP-level content filtering. Needless to say, none of them believe that it's a feasible concept. And if these heads of ISPs think it won't work, why does Senator Conroy believe he knows better?
So What Can You Do?
The one incredibly encouraging thing to come out of this whole farce is the effectiveness of grassroots online action against the government's planned internet filter. The Age and the ABC have both reported on just how much the noise being made online is driving attention to the lack of thought in the government's filter policy. And the more people who know how stupid an idea this is, the less likely we'll be forced to endure slower broadband speeds and filtering of perfectly legitimate sites.
The first thing you should do is write a letter to your local Federal MP. Email it, fax it, print it out and post it - just to make sure they receive it. Make sure you voice your disgust at being treated like a child incapable of looking after your own concerns.
The next thing is to follow the dissent. Visit the No Clean Feed website - they logically discuss why the filter is a terrible idea and what can be done to stop it. Another good website is Somebody Think of the Children, plus there are plenty of other sites out there voicing their concern. If you're on Twitter, make sure you follow the #nocleanfeed discussion, as well as actively voicing your opinion on it. Share your disgust on any other forums discussing the situation as well - Whirlpool has quite an extensive discussion n the topic.
Just remember that to win this fight against the absurd stupidity the government seems to be fostering, your voice needs to be added to the choir. It doesn't matter if you don't have the best singing voice, just make sure you sing loud and clear.
[Thanks to NoCleanFeed, somebodythinkofthechildren, Stilgherrian, Crikey, TechWiredAU, ZDNet AU, Whirlpool, Mark Newton and the countless other Australians fighting for the cause]
Comments
mike
Posted November 3, 2008 12:03 PM
Fck off. We don't need the Govt telling us what we can and can't view/do on the Internet. As if Australians aren't censored enough.
Wigman
Posted November 3, 2008 12:16 PM
Top post Nick, but I think this is going to be another uphill struggle along the lines of the R18+ rating for video games debacle. When dealing with the likes of Monkey Conroy and Monkey Atkinson, what hope have we got?
That said, this is supposedly a democracy, so the more voices that are raised against this madness, the more likely the monkeys will listen (but most likely still not comprehend).
My local MP shall be hearing from me... I'd email a link to your post above, but I have no confidence that they'd be able to use it.
Just a thought: if the filter is put in place and a very bad person manages to download/access illegal material, does that mean they should escape prosecution because the Government failed to protect them from themselves?
Daniel
Posted November 3, 2008 12:27 PM
There's actually a more insidous side to this. Once the infrastructure for this filter system is in place it can be used as a passive monitoring tool. After all the filter system has to see everything requested before knowing if it can be blocked.
This opens an interesting can of worms about liability - who controls this monitoring tool? Will it only be accessible by certified government officers or will the local ISP helpdesk guy have access to it as well?
In the last few years we have seen countless cases of people with access to personal information of others abusing this for personal profit or just to make fun of people.
So far there has been no word from the government on exactly what checks and balances would be put in place to secure personal information that will be forced to flow through this filter system.
hugh
Posted November 3, 2008 12:30 PM
can giz start a partition as well. i think that that would help
simon
Posted November 3, 2008 12:41 PM
fair enough, i understand the reasoning behind the filter. they want to stop child pr0n. and thats commendable.
dont get me wrong, im not for this filter, but i understand their reasoning. heres my proposed idea.
make it mandatory for ISPs to issue subscribers with parental controls, fact sheets, and information on how to manage these controls with a list of predefined sites/content that should be filtered by parents.
there, thats my solution, problem solved! but yes, it wont stop the kiddy pr0n which is deplorable and unavoidable in this sick and sad world we live in.
Elias Bizannes
Posted November 3, 2008 12:53 PM
Petition: http://petitions.takingitglobal.org/oznetcensorship?signedpetition=1417655782
Write letters, encourage the media to make more noise about it (done by you showing interest in the issue).
I sent my second letter last night, this one to all the senators.
http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/ruddfilter
Pierre
Posted November 3, 2008 1:01 PM
F^*k you Steven Conroy!
Trev
Posted November 3, 2008 1:04 PM
G'Day Nick,
Great post!, stole it and created a facebook group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=34547081269&ref=mf to get even more word out there, also put in there a link to this page.
Keep up the good work!
Cheers
websinthe
Posted November 3, 2008 1:10 PM
There are only a few ways this can go:
- The left faction can start something that will force Conroy to abandon his crusade and focus on something else
- The filter can (and probably will) be challenged in the High Court as being unlawful (existing law prevents interference with internet traffic)
- Rudd can move Conroy into a different portfolio, for all intents and purposes ending his career
- ISPs can refuse to implement it until it is enforced by legislation
- The filter might not make it through the House of Reps. Even though it started in the Senate, Conroy is acting as a member of cabinet.
-or-
- the filter goes through and all of a sudden Australia's tech investment goes elsewhere, leaving a very angry public staring at Conroy, Fielding and the Catholic right that put them where they are (I'm catholic myself so it's not a religious beef I have).
mr-crash
Posted November 3, 2008 1:11 PM
I think it's a good idea to say what can be done in a little more detail.
libertus has a great page with details of who to contact and that sort of thing:
http://libertus.net/liberty/future.html
When's the last time you did something to really help ensure our democracy (what precious little of it we have) actually stays a democracy? If it's been a while - consider writing a letter or doing a bit more than just thinking about it.
krispy89
Posted November 3, 2008 1:13 PM
that is a very good idea. The gov hasn't got a damn clue, they are a bunch of over protective dickheads who think that what they are doing is in the best intrests of the country. This is a cause that will just be thrown back in the polly's faces, just like when they tried to combat youth binge drinking. This will just crash and burn. The end.
willhem busch
Posted November 3, 2008 1:54 PM
Not to worry,with Conroy's already quetionable handling of all things internet it is highly unlikely he will be there for much longer in any case.He would be odds on to be the first minister to be moved,Arts ?
Censorship
Posted November 3, 2008 1:55 PM
Here are his contact details. Give him a call and let him know how you feel.
Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy
Parliament Contact:
Phone: (02) 6277 7480
Email: senator.conroy@aph.gov.au
spotrick
Posted November 3, 2008 2:15 PM
This is both hateful and stupid. If a site is illegal, and you know that, there are law enforcement agencies in all countries that are able to drop by and give them a kick in the goolies. So they don't need filtering, they need to be stopped by the usual legal channels. If a site is *not* illegal, then why are we filtering? To protect the children? Can't argue with that. Except - there are many, many sites that have content inappropriate to children: theaustralian.com.au and www.aph.gov.au to name two examples. Protecting children is a good thing, but filtering is not a viable way to do that.
Adam
Posted November 3, 2008 2:31 PM
What a laughable, incompetent "government" we have, firstly, I didn't place my vote towards the ALP circus in last year's election, and the other thing is, with Australia's pathetic state of telecomm's infrastructure, if this filter is implemented (and sure as hell IT WON'T BE) then we might as well rip out all the phone lines from the ground. An absoulte disgrace - it's not the average internet user that needs policing, it's the sick beasts that look at illegal content, and the equally-disgraceful 'government' that needs to be investigated. I'm insulted.
kieran
Posted November 3, 2008 2:32 PM
I suspect Conroy thinks that he knows better because all the opponents of the filtering, thus far, seem to have a vested interest in keeping the internet free of meddling (I'm particularly referring to a slowed down experience, false positive blocks -- it simply isn't good for business). The thought of such a thing scares me. Having the infrastructure there means it can be circumvented on the whims of any ultra conservative government in the future.
If this stupid thing does get enforced, I just hope it pulls up false positives for the .gov.au domain, centrelink.com.au, ad nauseum. That would be quite ironic.
davec
Posted November 3, 2008 4:20 PM
What a waste of $44 million.
Eliot
Posted November 3, 2008 4:33 PM
I've never been so ashamed and angry to be a Labor voter before. Ever since Rudd came in to government it's been one stuff up after another. Sure the apology to the Aboriginals and the signing of Kyoto were all nice and symbolic, but they've done bugger all to actually make a good difference since. Then of course there's been the dodgy state Labor government (in NSW).
How much more inept can they be? The NBN has had delay after delay, the classification of games is still held back by the ignorant Mr Atkinson, and now this blunt stupidity (or clever way to control the masses)!
*sigh*
Whoever defeats these idiots gets my vote!
komandoe
Posted November 3, 2008 4:54 PM
having the goverment tell us where we can go on the net and where we cannot go is a terrible idea is going to piss of heaps of people.
ill enjoy watching the downfall of the goverment.
pd
Posted November 3, 2008 8:59 PM
I have no problem with the idea of the government trying to stop kids from being expose to pedophiles via the internet.
So far it seems those who whinge about internet censorship fall in the following categories:
1) Laughing at any entity that attempts what is a very technically challenging task.
These people are often techies who think they are kings who instead of working their arses off trying to stop pedophilia on the net with their skills, just mock those who try. Take a good hard look at the morals of the problem. What if it was your kid being exposed?
2) The anti-censorship crowd.
Why should the internet - the most insidious communications medium ever invented - be free from censorship when every other medium is not? Did someone change the fabric of our society from democracy to anarchy overnight? No, they didn't. There are sick people in this society and the majority of us are better off being shielded from their filth.
Believe that parents should be responsible for censoring their kids' net acces2s? Fair point, however the volume and simplicity of accessing information on the net is easier every day. Do we really believe that Google's just-completed book search has no porn in it? Now who's being naive? Parents, who often are legitimately techno-illiterate, need help with what is a very difficult task.
3. "the internet is just a means for pron" crowd.
These people joke about the amount of pron on the net without giving a second thought to others who might see what they can handle.
There will still be plenty of pron available on the net even if filtering is introduced. You might just have to keep your hands off yourself and on to the keyboard for a bit longer in order to find it.
How many people who purport to know enough about technology - the types who read Gizmodo - actually have any clue about the social impacts of anything other than their XboX?
That the minority of tech geeks whining about filtering are seemingly making more noise than the many families out there has to make you wonder. Those who are getting on with the tough task of raising families probably have little time to sit around browsing tech sites for the latest gadget that runs a few megahertz faster than the last one Wintel pushed down your throat like suckers. They are probably reading their kids stories from those things that they can easily monitor for pedophilia - BOOKS.
Nathan
Posted November 3, 2008 9:08 PM
I would have to say that this pisses me off so much. Censorship is such a dangerous thing and should never be done on the internet. If you are worried about your kids looking at porn, sit with them when they are using the computer. Sex is fine and good and some people make a good living out of porn just because some people don't like it doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer.
The problem with most internet uses(pointing at the people who think that the internet is bad) is that will agree with everything the government says and does because it won't affect them or saves them from having to sit with there kids when they are on the computer.
There are only a couple of things in the world that make sick the stomach, this would have to top the list...note that very very very sick.
zamboge
Posted November 3, 2008 10:21 PM
Make yourself heard and make a suggestion to GetUp to make it one of their campaign's. The more that make the suggestion the more likely they will pick up the cause:
http://www.getup.org.au/about/contact/
Anthony
Posted November 3, 2008 10:59 PM
Wow, I want to move from this shit hole communist of a country.
micky
Posted November 4, 2008 2:12 AM
how about a coordinated flaming campaign or maybe getting all ISPs to stop net traffic for period of time (12 hours) to draw attention to the issue.. might be some legal issues with that one.
how many phone calls/snail mail/email @ the same time would it take to clog the system ?!
Nick Broughall
Posted November 4, 2008 7:02 AM
@pd – the obvious point you seem to be missing here is that there are free filtering programs that let parents filter the internet for their children. The Howard Government spent about $90 million on one last year, both on the product and the advertising, and it was a dismal failure.
Why was it a dismal failure? There are many arguments, but the fact it was hacked by a 16 year old within 30 minutes is probably the biggest.
Introducing ISP level filtering will not work. It won't stop pedophiles at all. They'll simply switch to programs like Bittorrent or MSN to target youngsters and share their filth. Meanwhile, your local child photography studio's website has been incorrectly blocked by an automated filter, and not only do they lose potential customers, but their name is tarnished by the fact they were blocked at all.
No, this whole plan is doomed to fail. If you want to protect your kids, supervision is still the best option. If you want a more technological approach, why not check out a personal filter for your own PC. But don't argue that destroying the net for everyone is the best course of action when it clearly isn't.
BJ
Posted November 4, 2008 8:59 AM
Hmmm, well my local federal member is Mr. K Rudd. I question how much my voice is heard when it will only be read and dealt with by office clerks.
Putto
Posted November 4, 2008 11:12 AM
I lived in the United Arab Emirates for a year which have internet filtering in place all i can say its a f-ck-n head ache and pain in the a#s for all the reasons mentioned above!
Jace1000
Posted November 4, 2008 3:32 PM
this is going to slow down the already snail-like "broadband" connection we all pay for (through the noses i might add). We pay the most and receive the worst ... Why is Australia moving backwards?
Daniel
Posted November 5, 2008 12:44 AM
this is fucking disgusting!
how dare that fucking government of ours tell us what we can do with our internet connection that we pay for!?!?
For staters, they already owe us faster internet, considering the amount we pay for it!! Countries like France and Japan have the fastest net around, while our dictatorship government is sending us backwards? this makes no fucking sense!
To be honest, if this government of ours starts to slow down our net, and filter certain content, then im fucking moving overseas no questions asked! because if they get this to work successfully, they would pretty much have us all obeying their every fucking command.
mind my swearing, but this is beyond a joke! this really makes me angry and ashamed to be an Australian citizen. Rudd... what a disgrace
Matt
Posted November 14, 2008 11:23 AM
What a disgusting invasion of privacy this filter is!! Americans in their country would immediately declare that it's unconstitutional. This filter is stepping all over our freedom of choice!
Aussies already spend 30-150 bucks a month for internet in their homes. And now the internet will be slowed by up to 80%? Shameful!! And what about Australian businesses that rely on the public to access their sites on the web? Must they suffer as well?
The most annoying part of all of this is that we are not allowed to know which sites are being blocked. Yeah, child pornography is evil. But what about the other sites? Terrorism? Ok, fair enough. But what else?
I reckon the government is going ahead and blocking adult websites, you know, the ones that are actually legal. And that's abusing our rights as citizens of this country. It's our choice to view adult material - how dare they take that choice from us!
Rudd is going to face a serious backlash as a result of this disgusting moral policing campaign!