Blacklists should be given to vendors, not ISPs
- 23 September, 2009 07:30
- Comments 35
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.
Come socialise with us! Facebook | LinkedIn
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
- Market Potential-Strategy Guide to the Active Archive Market
- Spectra Logic and Australian National University Success Story - March 2012
- In Search of the Long-Term Archiving Solution —Tape Continues to Be a Major Player
- Premier Media Group Fast Study
- Aberdeen Group: Building Business Resilience Through Active Archive
-
Telstra announces HTC One XL
-
Tech Watch: Who watches the datacentre?
-
Preview: HTC One S
-
Facebook scammers host Trojan horse extensions on the Chrome Web Store
-
Webroot: Growth in security
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
Jason
Censorship.
Here is a better idea, scrap the whole plan entirely.
MR1979
Pfft filtering!
I agree scrap the whole plan its nothing other than a waste of OUR tax payers money and profits for "filter" vendors.
Dave
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!
Anonymouse
Here is a better Idea
Upgrade
Here is a better Idea
Upgrade to Rudd 2.0
Dave2
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.
Regoers
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.
Stravros
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?
Anonymous
Impossible to maintain secrecy
A simple scan of the very limited IPv4 address space will reveal the entire content of any so-called secret blacklist.
But it does seems rather strange that a company employed to simply test the effectiveness of a filter should be making recommendations to the government on the issue of ACMA secrecy. Perhaps Enex did the blacklist leaking?
A government which imposes universal and secret control of its citizens is not a democratic government. And a government which prefers to underfund policing, fails to pursue criminals but instead filters out the bad is failing itself and its electorate.
Will this government be putting mandatory speed limiters in our vehicles next?
Anonymous
Waste of time and money
This Great Australian Firewall plan is going the same way the anti-piracy war has gone, the government (big business) throws up a hurdle, you simply jump over it. Website blocked? use a proxy outside of australia. simple. Billions of Aussie Taxpayer dollars wasted right there.
Firewall updated/modified to inspect IP packets (breaking your private online transactions possibly)? then look at encrypting your connection to your proxy. This is just the primary school level tricks we are talking about here. No doubt there will be better and faster ways to break the firewall once it is forced upon us.
Anonymous
What if...
What if the vendor is the ISP?
Anonymous
I don't support the filter as a secret list, however I do support "A" filter in the same way we have our tv and film "filtered". And yes there are already ways around those, but they work for the vast majority. As long as the filter stops there, I can see nothing wrong with having a filter as long as there is some sort of appeal and checking mechanism.
Regarding who has the info on the so-called list, how about just putting the filter on the 4 cables which connect Australia to the rest of the world. Surely this would be cheaer, easier and more secure than having every ISP needing to do it? Why have 500 "routers" in ISPs when you can effectively have 4 - one for each international cable. This would be the equivalent of Customs checking incoming mail and arriving passengers for illegal videos. Anything hosted locally would be subject to normal policing, not a secret filter.
Anthony
It hasn't taken somone this long....
“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.
Surely it hasn't taken someone this long to realise that there is no real policy and that a whole range of issues have yet to be considered that have nothing to do with a trial.
What happens when a business is blacklisted by mistake?
- How will they know?
- How long has it been in place?
- How to they get the listing reviewed and their URL removed?
- How long will it take?
- Will the government compensate the business for loss of income due to customers being blocked access?
What happens if a perfectly normal and legal site that someone uses everyday gets blocked by mistake?
- Can anyone lodge a complaint?
- How long will it take to be reviewed?
- What happens if someone posts the URL on a forum, it is after on the blacklist, even if it's 'wrong'.
That's just a couple of policy issues that have nothing to do with all the technical issues related to a forced censorship filter. Let alone considering the waste of money, etc.
Anonymous
mr ipsec vpn says your filter will not work.
you fail.
Arran
yes, get rid of it
I agree! Get rid of those filters. U can easily bypass it through a vpn and they'res gonna be lots popping up if this filter plan goes ahead.
Anonymous
Does that include foreign vendors, like Watchdog? Please tell me this Tett feller isn't seriously suggesting that giving Christian conservatives like Peter Mancer should have the power control what the entire population of Australia can and cannot access on the web!?
Anonymous
Re: "I don't support the filter as a secret list, however I do support "A" filter in the same way we have our tv and film "filtered"."
How do you mean "the same way"? Films are rated by the Classification Board, but Television is self-regulated. Both follow very different sets of standards. So...which one do you think should be applied to the Internet, and why?
Besides, there are already two ways you can accomplish something very similar to this for yourself: you can either install PC-level filter software, or sign up to an ISP that already offers a filtered feed, such as Webshield.
Either option is there if you want it, right now. The rest of us, who don't want either one, will continue to fight the government that is trying to force it upon us.
"Anything hosted locally would be subject to normal policing, not a secret filter."
Actually, it's already like that now. Local hosts can be issued with takedown orders and threatened with fines for hosting anything that fails to comply with the Broadcasting Services Act. Case in point: Whirlpool's host being threatened in March with $11,000-per-day for linking to a site that turned out to be on the blacklist.
Not to mention the fact that the *actual* Police are already trawling the net for nasties: that's what OCSET do.
Anonymous
Comrade Rudd's political information filter
"A simple scan of the very limited IPv4 address space will reveal the entire content of any so-called secret blacklist."
Agreed.
@ Regoers, why should we, the citizens, have to pay our tax dollars for Comrade Rudd's political information filter?
Thanks to Comrade Rudd & Conroy, Australians will become the second highest users of Tor/Proxies/VPNs behind Germany.
Anonymous
And Enex is independent.
This
And Enex is independent.
This whole trial is turning into an acceptance test for netclean/8e6 from watchdog.
They even have been given a netclean box to evaluate.
Who would have guessed that they recommend that watchdog (vendor) should get additional income to handle the regular update of the boxes installed in each of 100's of ISPs.
MR1979
Dr Robi is deluded
How much is enex paying you Dr Robi for your deluded defence on the filter ?.
Rob
What!!
You are either delusional, making stuff up or paid a lot of money to come up with this tripe.
Anonymous
"Dr" Robi
I seriously hope you are a parody.
Anonymous
Re: Re: "I don't support the filter as a secret list, however I
My point was that tv and film etc IS censored. No-one complains about it (usually tho there are occasional exceptions). This censorship works generally very well. We do expect those forms of censorship to continue - you don't have Terminator 2 on at 4pm on a weekday (kids hours) for example.
Censorship is used to stop inadvertent viewing (eg keep graphic stuff late night). People who want to get stuff will ALWAYS be able to, but the vast majority will not "discover" it either accidentally or through general "channel surfing".
Anonymous
Don't insult our intelligence, Dr Robbi
"In conclusion the internet has so much evil pornography that to not have a filter is [to] have a nation of abuse."
If that 'conclusion' were true, then Australia must already be a 'nation of abuse'. We've had unfiltered internet access for the past 15+ years!
Garbage research, garbage conclusions. Don't insult our intelligence, Dr Robbi.
Dr.Astounded (Book now for inspiring talks)
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.
Anonymous
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?
Megan
Is this Dr Robi the same guy on youtube?
If it is then this guy is a Dr who has sold out to a filter vendor. I would not trust him to treat anyone. Dunno what he is buying into this article for, as Enex is basically supporting watchdog and Dr Robi is supporting another vendor.
Anonymous
Succesful Troll is Succesful
I don't think the real Dr. Robi even knows how to use the internet much less comment on it. Go mighty troll.
GW
Dr. Robi does use the internet
He's for real and certainly makes use of the internet to promote his speaking engagements and a range of his products which he sells on line.
http://www.drrobi.com/shop.html
He also has a series of YouTube videos - just search for Dr Robi Sonderegger, you'll find heaps on his opinions about pornography, family values and several promoting SafeEyes filtering products.
However, although he has a PhD and is a clinical psychologist, there are nine published work where is listed as a co-author and not one of them relates to any research on the claims he makes about pornography. He has also been a missionary.
http://www.wcg.org/WN/04novdec/window_on_the_world.htm
CW
Show me yours and I will show you mine
Mr Robi S, I too have conducted my own research. My findings prove the existence of fairies and unicorns, however are inconclusive regarding leprechauns.
Like you, I have not cited, or even published my research as the general public are not ready for it yet.
If you show me your research, I will show you mine.
Matthewmatty
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.
Anonymous
>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.
AD of Sydney
Remember what the real danger with the filter is
Quote from Dr Robi: "If a man views pornography even once, he will desire more. When he gives into that desire, he finds that he is desiring even harder material. Eventually he finds himself seeking out younder and younger pornography until one day he realises that he is viewing underaged pornography."
Are you kidding?! Are you seriously trying to say, anyone who views porn will ultimately become a pedophile?
That sort of sensationalism aside, one of the key issues with the filter is that WHAT is being filtered is being kept secret. Therefore, there is no independant scrutiny of what is being blocked. This leads to the potential for sites to be blocked based upon special interest groups and because of the secrecy, the general public would be none the wiser.
This has the very real danger of giving a very (unaccountable) few, great power over a great many! In a democratic country that values free-speech, this cannot be allowed to happen.
Anon
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)
Anonymous
@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.
downfrpovidz
XFbtFInkvWGLYdFfRqB
Download Free Online Porn Video
NEW PORN GALLERIES WITH FREE SEX PICTURES AND XXX VIDEO CLIPS!
http://tiny.cc/TDrZh