Blacklists should be given to vendors, not ISPs
The testing company that conducted the Federal Government’s controversial ISP filtering trial claims any blacklists should be kept away from ISPs.
Enex Testlab principal, Matt Tett, said while he was surprised that many of the filtering products performed as advertised, no single option performed perfectly.
“I don’t think there’s anything that showed all good and there wasn’t anything that showed all bad. It was just balanced,” he said. “We never find products that stand out.”
But Tett admitted some issues arose during the trial that would require changes to be made by the Government, particularly if the blacklist’s security was a priority. He declined to discuss specific concerns but called for more policy discussion.
“There’s a lot of things outside of the area of the trial that will probably need, and were identified within the trial, need further…policy written about it,” he said.
“With access to the blacklist, really it’s a vendor’s domain – not to maintain the list but have access to the list and incorporate them into their products. If a government agency like ACMA or another body was putting together that list they would need to distribute it to vendors.
“Having an ISP accessing a list is a risk and a risk that some ISPs, especially smaller ISPs, may not want to have, particularly if it shouldn’t be released.”
Tett’s comments come after an earlier blacklist created by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) was leaked over the Internet to the general public, allegedly by an Internet filter operator.
They are echoed by experts who insist blacklists cannot be provided to ISPs if they are to remain secret and out of public hands.
Comments
@anon See
@anon
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxvSoUGxVMA&feature=related
And this is the man who claims things that no one else claims "yet"
This is now the man who is the "authority" that the ACL uses to justify the need for a internet filter.
The effects?
"Are you kidding?! Are you seriously trying to say, anyone who views porn will ultimately become a pedophile?"
It's a stretch to claim that AD. This guy says "when", which is the possibility sense. Some people do, most people do not.
He is saying that viewing porn is a step in pedo development for many pedos, which is true. It is all a question of whether an individual moves from viewing to power viewing to activity when porn is involved. Irrespective of whether it involves pedos or others, it works out it's influence in many ways, depending on the individual.
Physiologically, viewing porn releases strong reactions in the individual person, which then have corresponding emotional reactions, again depending on the individual and their current state.
Whether or not they act on those physical and emotional reactions again depends on the individual. The mass of porn traffic on the internet tends to confirm that most people who view porn view it just once... (just the legal stuff)
>however I do support "A"
>however I do support "A" filter in the same way we have our tv and film "filtered"
If you support "a" filter for your internet then install one of the many existing filtering products. But please don't mess with _my_ internet connection.
There are sufficient differences between the internet and TV such that you can't write "in the same way" without justification.
I disagree with the article.
I disagree with the article. If the ACMA list is going to be a list of static URLs, a lot of ISPs will simply use squid and a custom ACL. If ISPs are forced to use a commercial filter, I'll set myself up as a vendor and provide exactly that solution for a token fee. Calls to only allow vendor products for the sake of hiding the list shows just another monster sized hole in this nonsensical censorship plan. I call for a declaration of interests by all the proponents.
Dr Robi
Assuming you really are Robi Sonderegger and not just some troll, how much are InternetSafety.com paying you to schill for their products?
Oh, and has your research been subjected to peer review, and published in any scientific journals outside of the ACL's circle of tame publications?
Dr.Robi please provide references
Dr.Robi you are coming across as a parody.
Please provide links to the research. Is it peer reviewed and accepted or just conjecture?
Could this have anything to do with your stance?
"As professionals we are invited to forums that Christians would otherwise not be welcome, and yet we deliver a Christian message wrapped up in a scientific framework."
BTW no matter what the Australian Christian Lobby says in its podcasts or press releases, the policy was never "opt in for porn"
Also back on track in relation to the article. Enex said that none of the filters performed perfectly. If they can't get filtering right against a blacklist of around 1000 specified URLs, what hope is there of a national filter that will cleanse the evil of porn.
Outsource censorship!!!!!!!!
Enex have just conducted some sort of testing of a system, using an undisclosed testing methodology with undisclosed design criteria and no specification. The majority of the systems tested came from the same vendor. A vendor that was excluded from the previous series of tests published in 2008.
There is a risk of any blacklist leaking and this is what has happened in most countries where this sort of system is imposed. It is a problem with blacklists and mandatory censorship. He is seriously suggesting that mandatory censorship for Australians should be handled only by censorware vendors with a vested commercial interest in developing a case for further censorship to be imposed and system expanded. There may only be a single censorware vendor deployed in all but the major ISPs. He's certainly correct that it is their field, but failed to mention their commercial, and "other" interests.
What is not correct is that he isn't applying any civil liberties or considerations of public scrutiny or accountability to his suggestion. The controlling corporations for the censorware vendors are outside Australian jurisdiction. There is no form of public scrutiny that could adequately control potential serious conflicts between their commercial interests, government requirements AND the rights of Australian citizens to some form of accountability and transparency about a mandatory system of censorship.
The IWF is bad enough in terms of secrecy of its activities, but it is supposedly audited and has no commercial interest in selling censorware systems. Its main source of income from ISPs and member organisations. Even with the IWF, there is a lack of accountability to the people being censored.
The censorware vendors are snake oil merchants that simply want more of the millions of dollars being handed to them on a plate by the Rudd government who appear to managing the entire issue by the censorware vendor powerpoint presentations and lobbying.
Remind me; are Enex still claiming that have conducted "independent" testing?
Give it a break guys...
What is it with some of you guys? You seem to lack the simple ability to address the actual article, but drone on every time with the same and tired old lines about the filter and you already obvious dislike of it? How about addressing the actual content of the article itself?
If you think you are convincing anyone with this approach then you are sadly mistaken...
MR1979, are you suggesting that all vendors that supply ISPs do it for free? All routers, switches, web server vendors, contractors, UPS suppliers?
BTW, Matt Tett is probably right. However if the blacklist was always and only supplied in encrypted format, and needed to be processed in that format, that would probably assist in it's security.
ISPs will need access
Sure, vendors will need access to the list but so will ISPs. Many ISPs, especially smaller ones, will want to roll their own solutions for this rather than being forced to pay a vendor for one.
Here is a better Idea Upgrade
Here is a better Idea
Upgrade to Rudd 2.0
Accountability
If Rudd's proposed Censorship scheme worked, why not publish the blacklist openly?
Could it be because the Rudd Censorship scheme is easily bypassed? YES!
Could it be because the Rudd Censorship scheme will be ineffective? YES!
Could it be because the Rudd Censorship scheme will block legal to read and view material? YES!
Could it be because the Rudd Censorship scheme is a waste of taxpayers money? YES!
Could it be because the Rudd Censorship scheme is a way to try to control the flow of political information? YES!
Pfft filtering!
I agree scrap the whole plan its nothing other than a waste of OUR tax payers money and profits for "filter" vendors.
Censorship.
Here is a better idea, scrap the whole plan entirely.
Post new comment