I’ve posted several times on plans by the Australian government to introduce mandatory Internet filtering at the ISP level. Since these plans first came to light it has become quite clear that one of the biggest obstacles we face is uninformed contributions by technically ignorant people, especially people who have some degree of influence over the thinking of others.
Would somebody please explain to me why the “professionally religious” always seem to feel the need to attempt to mould the opinions of their followers, regardless of the topic, and regardless of whether or not they have any specific expertise to backup their position.
Recently a major Australian newspaper published a Viewpoint article by one Ruth Limkin, described as a “pastor and writer”. The general gist of Limkin’s article was wholehearted support for the proposed filtering/censoring legislation. The arguments presented by Limkin were typical of those repeated ad nauseam by the technically illiterate expressing wish lists and personal opinions and ignoring facts and practicalities. Such action is all the more harmful, deceptive in fact, when the commenter is someone who could be perceived as a community leader.
Obviously Limkin is relying heavily on the veracity of the assertions made by communications minister Senator Stephen Conroy. Yet most claims relating to the Internet filter that have emanated from Conroy and his office have been at best a misrepresentation of the facts and in many cases a blatant lie.
Some of the main (but by no means all) objections of qualified observers are as follows:
- Circumventing the filter will be trivially easy. The official Enex report into the testing phase states “A technically competent user could, if they wished, circumvent the filtering technology”, and further “Telstra did not test circumvention, because it considers that filtering can be circumvented by a technically competent user”. What isn’t admitted is that the level of technical competence required is itself trivial, and would in fact qualify pretty much any pre-pubescent old enough to manage a keyboard.It’s an inescapable fact that ease of circumvention and impact on performance are directly related. The only way to reduce performance degradation (a very big concern regarding this filtering regime) is to reduce the security, which in turn simplifies circumvention.
- The list of websites which will be blocked will be secret and there is no avenue of appeal should your site be inappropriately listed. There have already been numerous instances of inappropriate listing, as has been publicly demonstrated (did a dentist get blocked because of his root canal work?). How can secret lists be justified? If the government was confident that its content filter worked there would be no purpose in secrecy, as banned websites would be inaccessible.
- Law enforcement agencies the world over are well aware that peer-to-peer is the medium of choice for trafficking in the really nasty and unacceptable material, such as child porn. Conroy’s filters will have no impact whatsoever on this traffic.
- The proposed filters will present no impediment to paedophiles and deviates who use social networking sites such as FaceBook, or any of the tens of thousands of chat rooms, to get access to their targets.
- Conroy’s big claim that performance will not be impacted by the introduction of a mandatory filter. This claim is misdirection built upon fabrication based upon lie, over and over again. The Labor Government’s much touted National Broadband Network (NBN) promises 100 megabit per second performance, but filter testing contractor Enex was only required to consider the likely impact on the currently available 12 megabits per second system. Yet Enex didn’t even go that far. The report shows that they only ran their tests up to 8 megabits per second. This clearly violates the government’s own already inadequate and deceptive Technical Testing Framework, and produces results that bear no relationship to reality.
That’s not all of the anti-filter argument by a long shot — it would be very easy to fill pages with all the things that are wrong with this plan. Many technical commentators have done just that if you care to search further.
Many facts and arguments can be presented to indicate convincingly that this filtering and censoring plan is not about child protection, but much more likely to be about preventing adults from viewing material which the government would prefer they not have access to.
Australia, you are being conned. Senator Conroy has repeatedly deceived the Australian public on practically every aspect of his Internet censorship plan since it was first announced. How could we possibly take at face value anything that comes out of his office on the subject?
The bottom line is this:
There is no upside to this plan because for very sound technical reasons it cannot achieve its stated aims (which, incidentally, may be very different to the government’s real aims). Every competent technologist in the country knows this.
There is however substantial downside. This country’s Internet capabilities are already far enough behind the rest of the Western world, without stupid people bogging it down still further with stupid implementations.
My New Year wish is that the Ruth Limkin’s of this world either get a sound education in the technology, or cease giving their opinions on topics they know nothing about.
It’s one thing to have an admirable goal in mind, but to realize that goal you must have a practical and workable solution. And this isn’t it.
Wisdom is supreme, therefore get wisdom.
Though it cost all you have – get understanding.
Proverbs 4:7
- Internet Censorship I – by Bill Hely
- Internet Censorship II – by Bill Hely
- Conroy’s Folly: The Great Australian Firewall – by Bill Hely
Related articles:
- Reporters Sans Frontières – Open letter to Australia’s Prime Minister
- Australia Edges Us Towards the Digital Dark Ages
- China arrests 5,000 for internet pornography offences
- China Nabs 5,400 People for Online Porn in 2009
- All you need to know that the Australian Governments Censorship Plan is Bollocks (and more)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=01219358-61e6-494c-8bc8-825c97b902ad)
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
I hear you Bill this is gonna really be a pain in the you know what when they pass this Bill (and you know it will pass)
they same thing went on here in Canada when they introduced the gun registry. It doesn’t work, is very expensive,and last but not least
it didnt keep the guns out of the criminals hands it actually made it easier for them…
now this is in Australia does this mean that your blog may be filtered?
Lance:
> now this is in Australia does this mean that your blog may be filtered?
Well, that’s another aspect of the whole secrecy thing — nobody knows what will get you blocked. We can’t believe what we’ve been told because a lot of that has already been lies and misdirection.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it becomes a blockable offence (maybe even a crime) to disclose weaknesses in the system, of which there will be plenty. I know a lot of technologists are planning to go public with means to circumvent the filter. Will that land them with loss of their website, a fine or even jail time? Welcome to Red Australia!
Bill,
I think most of us would agree that most members of Governments are suspect on their supposed area of “expertise” since most of them start spouting as experts within 5 minutes of appointment, and knowing that they are only likely to be there for time probably measured in months, so “what the hell – my successor can clear up the mess”, if they even recognise that a mess will be left.
Here in the UK, we have th same situation, where every luddite step taken (usually justified by this “war on terror”, which they don’t seem to be able to manage effectivelyin any case). But who are these people who are advising the government? There seem to be some people from the world of technology hidden away in some government department not obvious to the world, who are giving them this guff to spout and also feeding Government supporters like your Pastor you mentioned. We need to identify who these people are and let’s expose them to a bit of public debate on what they are saying. A bit of public ridicule can often help.
No doubt we shall see the usual “Statement” by the PR function, ususally reported as “A government spokesman said that everything was being done in the best interests of the users, both technical and non-technical guided by the greatest experts in the field, as this Government is committed to the development of the widest access possible to the benefits of the internet blah blah blah, justifying the fat risk free salaries and pensions we all receive and the grateful recognition of the gratitude of the State in the honours, titles and appointments to loads of highly paid quangos we will receive as our reward”. OK, I lied over the last bit – they won’t actually say it.
Andrew:
Government intrusion, existing and planned for the future, has UK citizens in deep, deep trouble with respect to privacy and civil rights. You are already the most watched nation on the planet, bar none, and much worse is planned for you. I believe it’s an election year in the UK, so there is at least a slight chance for you to be heard if enough people can be educated to the facts.
But as I have said in the past, such things are not just a concern for Australians and Brits. All governments aspire to more and more power and other governments of the world will be taking their cue from those that get away with it.
So US, Canada, Western Europe — watch out! You are already in their sights.
G,day Bill,
No sooner had I finished reading your article ‘A worthy goal doesn’t justify a stupid solution’ than a message came in from the king of stupidity himself justifying the government’s actions by quoting all the reasons that you had just demolished. This was in reply to my missive directed to him about a month ago. All I can say is ‘lord protect us from these cretin who believe they are doing good or god’s work in saving us from our baser selves. The global warming gang have the same mindset which is quasi-religious, or in the realm of belief with no basis in fact or logic.
Keep up the good work,
Sincerely,
Fabian Foale.
Well said Bill. Many times in my short life I have come across these words; “The truth shall set you free”. I believe this to be perhaps the most unpronounceable one liner for any person in government department of all levels. To mention these words could give them cause to defend their own positions of office.
Continuing the theme of privacy, if one nowadays wishes to use a Microsoft keyboard with extra function keys, the required software wants you to accept even more intrusion by telling Bill Gates ‘who knows what’ every time you press a key! You may enlighten us on this too Bill.
Hi Bill,
An hour and a quarter after your email, one arrived from The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. It was entitled: “Cyber-safety and internet service provider filtering” and was obviously in response to me responding to your earlier call to arms and firing off a protest note. Their timing was good. I’m sure you will have already received your copy.
In response to your question about the “professionally religious”, I can only comment that they have always put their penny’s worth in. They had far more power in the past! See The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. Their qualifications to discuss any technical matter, other than the contents of their scriptures, is laughable. Is the Earth still the centre of the universe? If not flat? I would no more go to a religious expert to help address technical issues than I would take advice from actresses like Jenny McCarthy on medical matters like vaccination. Even their morals are cartainly not above reproach.
Unfortunately, they do not go away.
The Government will spend our money, dig a bigger hole, pour more into it, create a bureaucracy to administer it, and in my worse vision, it will become a self sustaining qango. More optimistically, it will be quickly proven to be a farce, and be abandoned, with everyone concerned investing in major face and arse saving exercises.
Keep up the good work.
G’Day Bill.
I run an internet network for ex-ADF (primarily) which interfaces with other networks for Veterans and Serving members. My direct emailing list has in excess of 1200 members, within Australia and overseas. Many of them have way in excess of 1500 further members on their own Lists. Some I know have over 2500. It doesn’t take much in the way of re-transmissions to reach many hundreds of thousands. Some years ago the Howard Government claimed we have an end-readership of two million or more. That is their claim, not ours. Many of our readers are not cognisant with the implications of the internet, even tho they have embraced it as a means of fast communication between themselves.
Can I have your permission to mass-distribute selected articles, while at the same time advertising and extending your own reach?
Regards,
Jim Wiltshire 107 Phillips St Wodonga 3690 02 6024 1079
Major (Rtd) Vietnam Veteran and T&PI
Distribute away Jim — the more people we alert the better chance we’ve got, slim though it may be.
Anything I publish on the blog is for public consumption.
However you decide to redistribute, a reference back to the blog would be much appreciated.
Any Australian Defence Forces personnel wishing to contact Jim by e-mail can do so via my Contact Form and I’ll pass it on.
“Would somebody please explain to me why the “professionally religious” always seem to feel the need to attempt to mould the opinions of their followers, regardless of the topic, and regardless of whether or not they have any specific expertise to backup their position.”
It’s simple Bill.. religion always is, and always has been, about controlling other people. Anybody who fails to fall inside whatever narrowly defined list of acceptable behaviour they choose is clearly wicked and evil, deserving whatever happens to them. It’s about fear-based control.
Back to a more relevant topic though, what do you see as the primary means they’ll use to implement the filter? In discussions I’ve had, we’ve concluded the only partway feasible method is a DNS based blacklist. Realtime traffic inspection would surely have too much of a performance impact. In fact, based on this theory, I’ve already changed my gateway based DNS proxy away from my ISP’s domain servers to OpenDNS. If necessary, the next thing I will do is set up a VPN tunnel to a proxy located on my web-server in the US.
Garryck:
It is too early yet to get specific about technology, but you can be sure there will be no secrets in that regard. The majority of the ISPs are anti-filter and those companies are going to leak information like a sieve. Quite anonymously of course.
I think it’s important to appreciate that the tighter they try to screw it down the greater will be the impact on performance, and performance degradation will be the real killer in the public eye — even for those ignorant of the technology or careless of the ethics. Quoting from my article:
“It’s an inescapable fact that ease of circumvention and impact on performance are directly related. The only way to reduce performance degradation … is to reduce the security, which in turn simplifies circumvention.”
OpenDNS is a great service and the fact that it’s free removes any obstacle to its use by the general public. OpenDNS already provides very sound parental controls that are used for that very purpose by thousands of schools across the US and elsewhere, and is easily implemented in any household computer environment.
Parents concerned with their children’s online welfare, but who may be puzzled by the implementation, should get into the OpenDNS community forum and ask questions. They’ll get plenty of sympathetic help.
This is the sort of service that a government genuinely concerned with child welfare would be promoting. Not the intrusive and oppressive power trip they are currently riding.
I agree with you completely. Influential people should educate themselves about a topic before giving an opinion but they seldom do.
From a distance perspective, it seems like someone is trying to play Big Brother before it is time.
Hard to know how to fight incompetence, deliberate or no. Obviously, if it is not dealt with it will spread to other jurisdictions/countries and Big Bro will indeed be “on his way”. A far-reaching campaign of presenting the true facts as counterweight to the useless propaganda?
How uncomfortable will it be to be totally controlled by those who are incompetent to make decisions because of their ignorance of relevant facts? How far will they go when they realize that the proposed controls won’t work (as has already been shown)?
I agree with you whole heartedly. I do not know much about the working of a computer but I don’t need any more censorship imposed on me. I should be able to chose what site I wish to view. It is time for people to take responsibility for their action, not impose restrictionson other people.
Spot-on article, Bill.
As well as the technical downside you point out, there is also a serious social downside. I believe that ISP filtering will cause children to be harmed because parents will let their guard down, thinking “The government is doing my job for me.”
I’ve posted a scan of your Courier-Mail letter to the editor on my blog at http://mike.brisgeek.com/2010/01/01/christian-pastor-falls-for-conroys-con/
Mike:
Unfortunately the Letter to the Editor couldn’t contain the real meat of the argument – editors tend to cater to the lowest common nominator – hence the more comprehensive blog article.
And yes, I agree 100% that parental complacency is probably the greatest nontechnical argument against compulsory but technically inadequate filtering. As you suggest, a lot of parents are going to relax in the knowledge that the government is doing their job for them. Meanwhile, Little Tommy, who will have no trouble at all circumventing Conroy’s folly, can surf XXX sites to his heart’s content.
Bill. I’m completely with you and aginst the proposed Government plans for filtering.
Should this happen as it well may, we’ll be bordering on Socialism in the extreme and perhaps as or more severe than I presume is in place in China.
This seems typical of the Australian Labor Party when in power who want to control everything down to the smallest item or issue.
I’ll be forwarding your blog to many. Ron.
My shame and embarrassment increase daily…no…hourly…as I realize my relationship to that pompus club….”the human race”……please excuse me, as I refortify the locks on the inside of my closet door….as I retreat ..INSIDE the closet……I guess Prov 4: 7 isn’t much read…..plz forgive my rant……………
It seems to me that not only the government is out of control but the media has no sense of responsibility either. The media should do more investigative reporting. This would require, in most cases, that they develop more expertise. As Bill mentions a great many people could do more to achieve a better understanding of how the internet works and should not work.
Bill,
And I thought it was only in the UK we had ministers who have no idea about IT telling the tax payers what they should or should not do on the internet. They also seem to employ lot of consultants who are getting very rich. Strange how a lot of these Govenment types end up working for the same consultants or their associated companies when they finally get kicked out.
We have a history of ‘grand IT projects’ here in the UK which never get finished, cost many multiples of the original estimates, and simply do not work as they are flawed from the start.
But I would not expect any of the companies involved to say stop, after all they are raking a lot of money in from the contracts, which seem to be specified by people who have no idea how to lock down a contract, so the poor old tax payer gets screwed for every ‘change’.
While the UK government has not yet proposed a UK Firewall they want to log every connection a person makes (obviously unaware of how web pages have multiple connections the user often is not aware of) for ‘security reasons’, and every email we send and receive (although strangely MPs are likely to be exempt), 1984 has nothing on this lot.
Keep up the fight for freedom.
Dave
@Dave Pritt.
Hi Dave. Yes I’m well aware of what’s been going on in the UK. Anyone who doesn’t might like to refer to my article on the intrusions planned by the British government. This sort of thing should concern all of us, no matter where we live. If one government of a Western nation (I can’t bring myself to say “democratic nation”) gets away with it, others will be aiming to refine the blueprint. What is planned for Great Britain has already been implemented in China, which is a great recommendation!
{ 1 trackback }