RMIT: Internet filtering alone is not enough
- 16 December, 2009 14:23
- Comments 41
Australia’s Internet filtering is only step one in a much broader strategy the Government needs to adopt to regulate the Internet, according to an RMIT University academic.
Minister for Broadband, Senator Stephen Conroy, announced the Government’s intention to introduce a mandatory ISP-level filtering bill to Parliament at a Melbourne press conference yesterday.
The proposed filter has been criticised for not being failproof, but RMIT network engineer program director, Dr Mark Gregory, said it satisfied the Government’s primary objective to reduce the incidents and possibility of users inadvertently encountering illegal material such as child pornography.
“Is it going to stop the hardcore addicts gaining access to such material? No, it’s not going to stop that,” he said. “The Internet filter is in no way there to stop these activities from happening. It is only step one in tackling illegal online activities.”
Mandatory Internet filtering will help the Government learn how to regulate Web content but it is not a long-term solution, Dr Gregory said. The global digital network was never designed for how people are using it today and what really needs to be done is an overhaul of the existing Internet network structure.
He claimed ISP-level filtering is not a practical solution and transit points should be set on international links, similar to how local customers operate in airports. But he conceded it will be a costly, but necessary step to take.
“Different countries have different legislation regarding what is illegal content,” Dr Gregory said. “We need to build the network in a way for countries to access content to conform to local laws. At the moment, there is no delineation across the Internet.”
He agreed the Internet was too unrestrained and needed regulations to reign it in with similar laws that govern other aspects of society. But he saw international co-operation as vital to any content filtering proposal.
“You don’t want Australia running off doing its own thing because it causes problems in dealing with other countries and cause bad press,” he said. “We need to be doing this with all the other countries working together.
“The legislation is, however, generating momentum in discussion and making people aware there is a next step we need to take.”
IDC telecommunications analyst, David Cannon, shared the same sentiment and expected other countries to follow Australia in considering an Internet filtering scheme.
Come socialise with us! Facebook | LinkedIn
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
-
REVIEW: Is the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 the new king of Android tablets?
-
MySpace: The next hot social network?
-
Datacom joins AFP, Microsoft and ninemsn to support ThinkUKnow
-
Lenovo awarded NSW DET netbook contract
-
Telstra-NBN Co wholesale broadband agreement “imminent”
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
Anonymous
yea well, ur an RMIT network engineer, ur opinion would obviously be tilted in favour of Internet filtering. Too much time tracking uni students on facebook? Internet filtering is yet another sign that this country is becoming an ultra conservative bastion. You start from child pornography and you move onto other things like torrents, ban parts of wikipedia, youtube....
Anonymous
hahah so true
I second the first post. G08 Uni's eat your heart out :P
Anonymous
Wake up
I guess the government just isn't smart enough to realise internet filtering simply won't work. Why can't they the just face the facts and admit they're way out of there league in this area and regardless of what they put in place there will be a way around it within 24hrs of them implementing it.
Anyone who thinks that this won't impact on our countries already inadequate broadband speed seriously needs a reality check.
Purely by design alone the internet will never ever be secure and internet filtering won't work.
Mostly Anonymous
Weak article
Why does Dr Gregory think filtering of any sort is necessary? Why does he think the current censorship proposal is a good idea when its major claim (preventing inadvertent exposure) is best done via locally installed PC software? Why does he support the proposed filtering regime when it directly takes funds from police units that are tackling on-line child abuse?
Going "Oh dear, the internet is just SO unrestrained!" is not a valid reason to install a costly mandatory censorship scheme, especially one with a secret blacklist and no clear limit on the type of items to be blocked. What do we gain from all this secrecy and loss of liberty?
Next time you speak with Dr Gregory, ask him some questions instead of just writing down whatever he's musing about at that moment.
Anonymous
Are they joking?!
The whole idea of the internet is that it isnt 'Regulated'.
Anonymous
RMIT is beholden to Rudd & their $800k fee for their flawed filter trials.
Anonymous
First "illegal" content...
Next it'll be a blight on the free and democratic nation of Australia for anonymous people to make comment on the noble and upstanding members of parliament: Bye bye freedom to comment on government policy.
After that: No one needs to be anonymous on the net unless they have something to hide: Bye bye
By bye Australia. Hello Brother Rudd's 1984 style utopia.
Anonymous
Don't care
Sorry Dr Gregory, but the government does not deserve any control over the internet. Education about what lies on the internet is a more acceptable model than government intervention.
You don't let your kids roam out on the street by themselves and the same should be said about the internet.
Anonymous
“We need to build the network in a way for countries to access content to conform to local laws. At the moment, there is no delineation across the Internet.”
Ah, a clear case of the don't-quite-get-its there. Part of what makes the internet so valuable is precisely that it's just that bit beyond the grasp of any single government, including those with oppressive intent.
Anonymous
NO TO LABOR..
This is why Labor should not be in Government. Another excesses of Labor...And to think that we are funding this through our taxes.... WHY not build better/faster and resilient networks.. The internet was designed to be resilient and not censored... Idiots in government especially Conroy...Freedom to the people..
Roddy
Internet unregulated? No that was not the idea....
The internet was not conceptualised to be unregulated Anonymous. It wa sonly when the momentous growth set in an a multitude of commercial entities got involved that the foreseen control mechanisms stopped functioning well.
Too much money and pressure group to make more money.
In 1995 you could not get a domoain name in Australia that was either a dictionary word or place name, unless that was your own name...
Universities were and are the homes of the internet, and many have pounded their chests demanding we listen to the experts.
Well here they are making a comment and look how quickly many will now try and silence their uncomfortable words...
Typical.
Another Anonymous
Who is this tit?
I'll tell
Who is this tit?
I'll tell you who he is - a quick google on this chap shows that he's a consultant for ENEX Testlab; the dodgy company doing the tests behind the internet filtering who have been accused of improper methodology. They get paid to rig the tests so the filter looks like it works.
This guy is trying to drum up more business. What a scam!
Anonymous
All over again ....
I'm a retired technical computer consultant and well remember Blair(UK) passing a lot of absurd unenforceable legislation (ca. 1997) relating to the use of encryption technology with ten year jail sentences liberally available.
Unfortunately, the legislation was framed on the advice of "IT professionals" who actually knew nothing about encryption except in its Windows manifestation. It was and still is totally ineffective and easily worked around - essentially junk legislation.
To me, Brother Conroy's mission in life appears to be to make legal internet access more awkward, slower and more costly while completely failing to prevent or even detect its use for nefarious purposes by a competent criminal.
Perhaps Australia should do as the Germany does and concentrate on policing expertise rather than vain attempts to castrate the existing communication system.
In summary looks like unwanted, ineffectual tinkering by politicians and technical advisors of dubious provenance.
Anonymous
Disgusting.
Anonymous
Like now?
They already target youtube and a lot of other content. Its entirely misleading to say they are only blocking 'illegal' content. RC contains a lot of other categories, Spanking and video games that don't fit under ma15+ for a few examples.
Anonymous
Slippery slope
Censorship is a slippery slope... one that should never be ventured on by governments...
The proposed legislation puts Australia on par with nations such as Iran and China who are both infamous for their attempts to control access to the internet. I guess in that sense Australia is quickly moving towards becoming a totalitarian state. What's next? Censoring newspapers? Censoring history books?
Information wants to be free...
Mike
Who is this fool?
Perhaps he'd like to suggest Australia Post opens every piece of mail on the off chance it <em>might</em> contain something illegal? The answer is education and law enforcement, not ineffectual filters which are trivial to bypass.
Now how to complain about the dog's breakfast of a proposal. If you send off an angry email about filtering, all you’ll get is an automated reply giving you the standard words on the issue. This will not get you very far or change the policy. Don't waste your time, waste theirs instead! See http://bit.ly/7a0orA for instructions. The absolute worst thing you can do to a public servant is create paperwork for them. Think of it as a snail mail version of a DDoS.
Anonymous
how ironic
It is already illegal to access and download certain type of contents. As such, the government has means and way to punish offenders and discourage others. Even blocking a million sites let alone a few hundred will not prevent sexual abuse and terrorism which have been around for much longer then internet.
And how ironic that the member of institutions that support and will have say on what is filtered are convicted on almost weekly basis for the very crimes that this filter will magically prevent.
Anonymous
"Accidental exposure?'" Yeah sure.......
<em>Dr Mark Gregory, said it satisfied the Government’s primary objective to reduce the incidents and possibility of users inadvertently encountering illegal material such as child pornography. </em>
"Hey Dr. Gregory ... I've got an anti-bear rock here you could buy.
Well do you see any bears?"
Dr. Gregory " Sir, I'd like to buy your anti-bear rock'
Simon Shaw
ENEX
So, you work for ENEX... And ENEX hoped to produce an independent report for the government on filtering. Yet we have an ENEX guy here, spouting openly that filterings just fantastic!
Gee, that filtering report wouldn't be biased, would it?
Ben
@ Simon Shaw
Perhaps he's on commission from the government. Every comment in favour of the government's agenda results in a free wad of taxpayer funds.
Anonymous
The Enemy
Dr Mark Gregory is an Enemy of Freedom
bill smith
Creeps
a Gruby rudd Government for a Clean Internet now thats a policy bravo bravo rudd.
Alinos
Not wanting censorship doesnt = kiddie porn lover
That arguement is week if we ban everything because theres a chance it might offend someone we may as well all sit in a white padded cell
i have never unintentionally ran accross any sort of porn by accident and have nvr seen kiddie porn, its people who open every stupid email they recieve that end up with it
australia is becomming a country were we ban the many on the wrongs of the Few
Allowing the public to report sites(which are then blacklisted and reviewd at a later date is wrong) oh want your opponent off the net for a week just say there site linked to abortion(whirlpool did and got pegged with a cease and desist)
the fact that mark says that anyone who wants to get around it can suggests that the filter itself should be optional not mandatory
i mean according to my highschool Google could lead to porn so it was banned, anything with javagames in it was associated with terrorism and was banned
they also want to block P2P because it has illegal applications it also has a lot of Legal applications video games, MSN, conferencing they all use similar ports and processes and the govt has stated earlier that thier filter cannot determine the difference between any of these just that your doing it
if we let the govt censor one thing on principle we give them a slippery slope to start doing it with others and when that happens and i say "When" not "if" it will be the time i start planning to move to another country that doesnt restrict what i can or can not choose to view
Also if these Creeps couldn't get there kiddie porn fix what do you think there going to do next, My view there like crack addicts they need it and wont stop to get it only thing is there only source now is going to be the playground and i dont think there gonna stop at perverted pictures once they break that threshold
simon.young@ce.com.au
So the games begin.
Regulation is just another word for censorship.
Anonymous
What next?
Well with the Krudd government doing whatever they want who knows what will be next on the agenda? Maybe we'll have morality police, curfews and enforced prayer sessions...
It's scary when every poll I have seen has over 95% of respondents against the ISP filtering Conroy is planning. How can this go through? Has the government found a way to avoid the safety checks put in place? eg: The senate...
Or will this still have to get passed by them? If thats the case we still have hope that there will be at least a couple of free thinking members in the Senate that could still stop this...
Another concerning factor is how the filter works. Does it just work off a ban list or does it also have a word filter that looks for certain paraphrases that could also end up with site blocking?
Most online MMO's are not rated for online content. Does this mean that they also fall in the RC listing??
This is just insane.. I have never come across child porn on the internet and I'll admit I do surf porn sites. The problem is that the idiots in goverment don't understand that this is a futile exercise that will only effect everyone else but not the people who supposedly are the reason they are doing this in the first place. They'll just change methods of getting their disgusting crap...
I do believe that the paedophiles are an excuse so that they can implement their personal viewpoints and not that of the people.
Welcome to Australchina.
Anonymous
The hand is quicker than the eye
The time effort and cost to taxpayers that is being wasted on this filter does nothing to address the simple fact that the internet is dynamic. Over time you will create a cat and mouse game that will ultimately never stop the problem, only waste money pursuing some unobtainable goal.
Although you may block a specific IP or domain, those who are hosting this stuff can move it to new domains, new IP's and there are ways to encrypt and deliver this information so that NO filter can ever detect it. And criminals do go to extraordinary measures to achieve their goals, thats what makes them criminals. The only good thing this will do is stop fools trying to host this stuff from their home PC.
Im all for the removal of morally unjust content, but you need to address the source.
Anonymous
Wow you people really know how to over dramatise. It's not the end of the world, and it's not the first signs of Australia becoming a dictatorship.
Stop making mountains out of molehills.
simon.young@ce.com.au
You're kidding aren't you
Australia becoming a dictatorship and censorship of information on the web that a government thinks is not fit for our eyes is not a bloody molehill. It is Everest.
Anonymous
Except Australia isn't becoming a dictatorship, and I don't see anyone throwing this kind of irrational tantrum over films, books, live performance, or videogames over a RC rating existing for those mediums. Those mediums are also censored, you realise?
Really, the only thing that is getting tired is these childish, paranoid rants that accompany every single piece written on the filter.
Roddy
Ah, good old Ben making some aspersions...?
Hey Ben, people only ever do that sort of stuff for the money, right? lol
Now why didn't we all see that coming...?
Of course anyone making comments that do not disagree with the filter initiative must be doing it for the cash?
lol
Whilst filter protesters (filtesters...?) are as pure as the driven snow and only ever protesting out of the goodness and purity of their innocent hearts...
*sigh*
Such selflessness in the face of such adversity...
Hang on, I missed your responses on IPv6, I need to get back over there and check them out...
BTW, the telco engineer I spoke with last week claims such ideas are total codswallop, and if there were any ISP engineers on the thread that did not correct you, as the thread is apparently full of experts, then that is strange to say the least...
Anyway, I need to get over there and read your responses.
Hey, how about the filter announcement? Now that is interesting....
Anonymous
Don't think this is the start of a dictatorship?
Clearly you need to donate to research for curing blindness then.
On the surface, we're expected to believe that this is a noble cause. Look deeper and you might just come to the realisation that if knowledge is power, then that power that should belong to the people is being taken away from the people.
Remind me to thank you naysayers when the proverbial poop hits the fan and we're dumbed down like the Chinese have been by their fascist government. The only difference will be that it happened to us in a sneakier fashion.
Roddy
Are you suggesting that the Australian public will simply accept a fascist government? Is that your opinion of the Australian nation?
Are you one of those people that believe that the Australian people will just roll over and accept the death of democracy, that we would accept a Chinese style, communist, despotic government?
This is how you view us here in Australia?
And even better, you truly believe that this internet filter will cause all of this?
How many of you out there truly believe that the broader Australian public, this nation, will simply roll over and let a filter on the internet cause Australia to become a corrupted, communist, fascist nation?
Hands up please those that rate our democracy and national social fabric as that weak? Be honest now folks:
Is this ISP filter the end of democracy and freedom in Australia as we know it? Sydney today, Bejing tomorrow?
hmmmmmm.... Interesting view of the strength and weakness of the Australian nation...
But please, do post any pics of army tanks rolling over folks in Federation Square just after the laws are passed, with amusing quips as always.
Tnx and rgds
R
Anonymous
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both - Benjamin Franklin.
Roddy
The actual Franklin quote was....
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Takes us into a whole new context, when we take the actual statement....
Essential liberty...
Temporary safety...
Deserve neither...
Another Anonymous
We've been down this road before...
Internet filtering is modern day book burning. Free thinkers are no longer witches, blasphemers and heretics but gays, sex offenders & terrorists. The language has changed, but the ideology hasn't. Keep the people ignorant, fearful & obedient and hand over all your cash.
Roddy
Gays, sex offenders and terrorists are the free thinkers...?
Are you saying that gays, sex ofenders and terrorists are the free thinkers of today? Or that you believe that free thinkers are being called the gays, sex offenders and terrorists?
Either way I really cannot follow that logic, nor do we see any examples that support that.
Australia has expanded the rights of gays over a longer period, but chooses to draw a line at explicit, under-age gay sexual depictions online.
Is that book burning Another Anonymous?
Australia rejects any materials online that support or depict the explicit and/or extremist activities of sex offenders or terrorists Another Anoymous.
Is that book burning as well?
It is so easy just to throw around emotioanlly loaded accusations about book buring et al, it is tougher to relate those to facts and actual happenings.
Simone
Giving him media time strengthens the case of the other side
Now Gregory is trying to reframe the debate to suggest we need to make more reforms at the ever increasing financial cost to the vastly law abiding internet using community. But at least he is finally saying that this mess of a policy will do little to stop “hardcore addicts” from accessing illicit material. It’s great that “experts” are now finally admitting that this costly filter will do little-to-nothing to protect children. But this just again raises the same question: what is it about the very few certain IT “experts” that makes them so determined to filter what other people see?
Through this debate we’re going to hear statements like “we just want the internet to conform with already existing local laws” from the people who want more control. But if this was the case, they’d argue for more money to go to the police for enforcement, not more money for few people to have more control over more poeple.
The whacky right is now admitting that this filter will not do much to help children. When will they admit that this is about their view of morality and lust for moral control over others rather than promoting the rule of democratic law?
Roddy
To control or not to control, that is the question...
Governments must continually enact laws that affect all citizens, due to the illegal acts of a minority. That is the legal structure of democracies, and is the "cost" of having open and free societies Simone.
It has always been that way and it will conrinue to be that way.
We have speed limits and road humps to restrict the speeding of minorities, yet affects us all.
We have intrusive tax laws and statutes that affect and cost us all to restrict the illegal and tax exasive practices of a minority, this affects us all.
We have customs and airport security that costs us all time, effort and money to restrict the illegal practices of a minority, this affects us all as well.
We have health and safety regulations that apply to all entities, thus creating costs costs for all Australians, to restrict the illegal and/or dangerous practices of a minority.
All of these measures, and myriad more measures, decided and defined by governments in order to maintain community standards and rule of law for the majority and extend the rule of law to all within Australia. Ans when entities or people want to make something available within Australia from overseas, then this rule of law also applies.
That is an annoyance for some, uncomfortable, they will disagree and they have the right to protest.
Some folks will make many assertions and assumptions, such as:
' “we just want the internet to conform with already existing local laws” from the people who want more control'
Shock and horror Simone, applying controls is and has always been a central and core function of governments, that is actually one of the reasons we have them.
At every level. Councils, state, regional, federal governments are meant to apply controls. And that works pretty well, not perfectly naturally, but pretty well in functioning democracies...
Another wild surprise for those predicting the doom of Australian freedoms, we already have a strong and resilient democracy, that foresees many levels of government controls, and uses them daily today to ensure our continuing freedoms.
I just watched a great Hollywood movie this week, where some crazed religious group wanted world domination. The hero had this to say about them:
"When will they admit that this is about their view of morality and lust for moral control over others rather than promoting the rule of democratic law?"
Or was it a description of the Iranian mullahs, or Al Quaida? Just cannot remember.
How ridiculous would it be if someone had this to say about our democratic government here in 2009 Australia... lol
BTW, for all those who probably did not have a chance to read the whole gov program, Conroy has already committed additional resources and police for combatting the child abuse industry, as part of an overall strategy....
If police alone were the answer, all western democracies would have adopted that strategy long ago, but they have not. Many of them work directly with agencies that carry on online activities such as what Conroy has proposed.
Go figure who knows more about this subject, our "armchair experts" or those in the field?
Simone
Giving him media time strengthens the case of the other side
Now Gregory is trying to reframe the debate to suggest we need to make more reforms at the ever increasing financial cost to the vastly law abiding internet using community. But at least finally he is saying that this mess of a policy will do little to stop “hardcore addicts” of illicit material. It’s great that “experts” are now finally admitting that this costly filter will do little-to-nothing to protect children. But this just again raises the same question: what is it about the very few certain IT “experts” that makes them so determined to filter what other people see?
Through this debate we’re going to hear statements like “we just want the internet to conform with already existing local laws” from the people who want more control. But if this was the case they’d argue for more money to go to the police for enforcement, not more money for few people to have more control over more poeple.
The whacky right is now admitting that this filter will not do much to help children. When will they admit that this is about their view of morality and lust for moral control over others rather than promoting the rule of democratic law?
simonetyrannybuffer@y7mail.com
To Roddy
Roddy,
Thanks for your thoughts.
1. you know as well as I do that a huge number of people in the IT field (ie *"experts"*) do not support this policy.
2. if I'm an "armchair expert" what does this make you?
3. Yes, governments make laws to protect Roddy. Well done, would you like a gold star?. The point is that this is extremely expensive and the money can spent in better ways - you know, ways that work. No one is suggesting that the government stop making laws.
4. Also well done on the speeding car reference. You're quite the political scientist (perhaps two gold stars for that one) ;-/
5. I'll do you a favour and ignore your comments about Iranian mullahs etc...
6. Take a look at the people who want this policy: The Australian Christian lobby, for example. The point Roddy, is not that these moralists make up government, it's that the government is listening to minority viewpoints to enact a policy that impacts on all.
7. Roddy, this is what the pro filter side want, to dumb down the whole debate: "If you don't want the filter then you mustn't want speeding signs...".
Unfortunately Roddy, the world is not that simple and niether is stopping internet crime. But you did get three stars. Well done Roddy!
But on a serious note, I do think more debate is needed on this issue, so thank you.
Simone