ISP filter trial company stands by test results

Sure Tett, we believe you...

So why were the following completely ignored in the trial?

* IPv6
* High traffic sites
* Testing for security vulnerabilities
* Scalability - not detailed in the report
* Blind testing
* DNSSec
* Testing how blacklists are updated

And finally:

* The names of the censorware used were made anonymous

How on earth do they expect us to believe them that the technologies 'worked' if they won't even release the names?

Enex and Matt Tett seem really keen to further damage their already badly damaged credibility.

The trial was horribly flawed, and they know it (no mandatory load testing, no testing against IPv6, no testing on speeds higher than 8Mbps, no testing to see what happens to networks if filter fails, etc).

There's also circumstanial evidence that suggests the report that was released is an edited version rather than a full, unedited version.

More dishonesty from Enex

Statistics experts such as Dr Daniel Johnson at QUT and Professor Ron Hyndman at Monash University have correctly called out this report as being unscientific and extremely flawed.

http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/312845/statistics_experts_label_isp_filtering_trials_unscientific

Enex should be taken to court along with Conroy and the Rudd Government for misleading the public and attempting to violate the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (specifically article 19).

Sidetracking !

Internet Filtering

Technically feasible = maybe

Easily Bypassed = certainly

Ethically = questionable

Content and Intent = need clear definition

Accountibility & Transparency for classification = missing

Don't get sidetracked !

Anti Filtering

The replies by emotionally pissed off people regarding the filter (and lets face it, who shouldn't be against it) just sums up why the Anti-Filter crowd is destined to fail.
Full of half truths and blatant speculation bordering on delusional.
It also becomes more and more obvious that people are not actually reading the large report. Please stop spewing the same rubbish people and stand up against this filter united as one!

Too many holes

There is way to many unanswered questions about the report.
Our tax money is going to waste for such a stupid idea.

Its like many of other Labors policies they have failed big time.

Enex must be enjoying their cash that they have gotten from us tax payers just to have Conroy and other pro filter Luddites to fudge the figures of the report.

Garbage

“The number of participants isn’t necessarily relevant. The load is not relevant, absolutely not. The number of people who are on the filter itself, the number of people on the system and whether they’re being filtered or not, is irrelevant,” This statement is absolute garbage. Not considering bandwidth or systems load is irrelevant? Matt Tett is not someone to be trusted.

Guesses not based on verifiable evidence

From the article:

"Tett also claimed Enex’s results proved a system was technically feasible and relatively simple to put into place."

*Proved*

So when there are a large number of things they did *not* test, that is definitely not proof that it is 'feasible', and without even mentioning how the systems are put in place in the report, they can also neither claim that it is easy to do. Tett is commenting on the trial conducted, and making extrapolations which are not even mentioned in the trial. That is what raises substantial questions.

Our point is that an organisation which conducts a test which specifically does not test things that critics have been pointing out for years, then that brings the entire trial into question.

So it works well for a thousand URLs and on a tiny ISP called Tech2U. That proves nothing of how it will work for Bigpond, nor in an NBN environment.

Dear Roddy, have you ever read ISO standards for QA

Dear Roddy,

To achieve accreditation in Quality Assurance, which Enex has, requires the company to create documents which describe in detail their operations and how to perform them. Included in this is how to create reports and track them. Ever heard of controlled and uncontrolled documents.

Well the report that the government supplied purported to be that of Enex origin does not contain marking required by QA standards.

This is one major reason to doubt its authenticity and/or editing by a third party and thus no longer the report Enex supplied, no matter how minor the change. Enex are required to keep the QA tags on reports if it to keep their QA certification.

On another note, you tell people to put up or shut up for criticising a company then you proceed to criticise others (justified or not) without knowing their qualifications. Can they then say to you "Put up or Shutup Roddy".

If the report is as good as you claim then no need to justify it, and the critics will be silenced in time. Your use of "put up or shut up" seems to indicate that you yourself are unsure of its quality or accuracy.

OK guys. I admit it.
I work

OK guys. I admit it.

I work for the DBCDE.

Fair's fair, I should at least acknowledge that I guess. lol

I still disagree with you about filtering. Will post more refutations later.

Work for DBCDE?

If you worked for the DBCDE you should know that telling people to put up or shut up shows into your profession in your job right?.

Although if you knew that putting comments as put up or shut up goes against your work place I seriously doubt that you work for DBCDE at all.

Will the real Roddy please stand up... (and be shot....) >;))

Gotta love that spoof, well done "Roddy"...

Nice one... lol

*ping!*

As for Anonymous, haven't we had censorship in Australia for decades? The gov has been making those decisions for generations of Australians, and this country is still the best turf on the planet to live in... lol

actually the current "censorship" as you call it is open to public scrutiny. the ACMA lists all forms of media that has passed through its door whether its G or RC or X18+.

the difference here is the ACMA list for web filtering is NOT open to public scrutiny citing that there is CP sites listed.

so no its not the same "censorship" as you call it, i doubt there would be much of an issue if the ACMA list was available for public viewing since we would know what sites are listed. oh wait the CP, if the filters there then the technically absent people couldnt access it anyway. and those that could get around the filter can access it anyway, there is NO reason not to allow public scrutiny of the material.

cant trust labor or liberals

Used to always vote Labor but I am becoming wiser. Liberals cant be trusted and neither can Labor. Both are pretty much the same thing in the end. There is noo such thing as an election but rather a selection. There is no real choice! Both parties have a few puppets who serve the same masters higher up the chain. They will both strip us of our freedoms, liberties and our wealth.

vote labor and this is what you get,we are owned by china now the government wants to follow their lead,i thought we were a dimocracy and not a dictatorship!

Everybody loves Roddy....

Hey guys, I am honoured by all the responses, thanks.

Need some time to read through them all properly and understand what each of you is wanting to communicate, however I will get back to you.

"Geordie Guy" (if it is the one I know of...), I understand far more than many folks here assume, that they are frustrated. That though does not mean that I can agree with their rationale on what causes the frustration, and I certainly under no circumstances can accept that most of the unjustified, unsubstantiated and character assasination style attacks on ENEX and Tett are either acceptable or indeed accurate at all.

Tett has invited appropriate auditing of his testing methodologies and results.

That is a clear statement and invitation. So, if attackers are convinced of the failings, lack of ethics, unprofessional work, lying, subtefuge, fraud and whatever else they have accused ENEX of without any clear proof, then now is really the time to (as Aussies put it) **put up or shut up**.

Initiate and pay for an audit, challenge the testing methodologies, challenge the results and their authentivity.

If the attackers are not ready to ""put up"" and initiate the audit, then they should cordially follow the advice in the second part of the phrase.

I am almost bemused by the reaction to that challenge and the context it was presented. Pretty straightforward.

Lashings of snide remarks and attacks, but no follow-up to substantiate the accusations when invited to audit, is a form of editorial cowardice.

Now that one is off my chest, I look forward to the antifilter activists supporting and pursuing that audit invitation, and the results that ensue. That way, if the audit finds that they misrepresented and changed results, if their testing methods were unprofessional, fraudulent or faulty, if they indeed changed data to suit the government, then ENEX can be roundly attacked and criticised with justification...

I will also get back to you on your example, it has gotten late here again.

Mr1979, you didn't **really** fall for that excellent spoofer who claimed I worked for the DBCDE??? Come on mate, you gotta do better than that??

Now that would have been a dream come true for several people I have significantly put off-side over the past month... >;))

Mate, if I was working for the DBCDE, I would not be advertising the fact here on the esteemed ARN website, where many ISP filter thread posters from WP are known to frequent... lol

*political & job suicide 101....*

*Professor* : Well here is some QA for you to execute, while we are on the subject:

I would refer you to a magnificent word and concept of the English language called "context". You may be familiar with that concept and for what it is used.

May I cordially request that you apply the concept of context to the "Put up or shut up" passage that you have referred to Professor.

Could you enlighten us as to the context that I used when this contentious line was used, and to which aspect of the discussion it referred?

You may then, applying the erudition of a Professor, discover that the actual context was not the criticisms of ENEX, but to the fact that ENEX had invited audit of their methodologies and results.

As I mentioned in the aforementioned paragraphs, if the invitation is there from ENEX to audit, then intitiate the audit or cease forthwith to attack them.

Pretty straightforward.

Oh, and I would like to thank the Hon Senator Stephen Conroy for checking up and coming to my defense. See you on Sunday for golf Stevie??

@Roddy

Roddy, you had a big dig at "Professor" without addressing anything he raised.

I have worked at two ISO accredited companies at the past. The ISO auditor got really narky about document control and the way documents were marked and released. (even for minor documents, let alone documents of this significance)

The Enex report is pretty odd in that regard. Maybe there's a simple explanation for it but since you didn't offer any I think you're just stirring the pot.

You also avoided the very specific points that people have raised.

List of CP sites

One problem with the filter is that once it is place it will be very easy to derive the list from the filter itself (by a process of elimination).

The "list of CP sites*" will then be published. I'd give it a week...

* However in the previously leaked list there did not seem to be any active CP sites - by the time a referral makes it's way through the ACMA beauracracy (many weeks) the relevant authorities have taken any CP sites down (hours/days).

Read the 2nd paragraph of my post folks...

"Need some time to read through them all properly and understand what each of you is wanting to communicate, however I will get back to you."

So how about you all just take a half a step back and refrain from trying to bombard me with demands.."?

Thanks guys, I knew that deep down you are all actually reasonable foilks. >;))

Asmo, initiate a public demand for an audit of the testing, it has been offered.

No intellectual dishonesty at all. Folks can make all the claims they like about holes in the report, it is all assertions and accusations, and unsubstantiated, until you pursue the audit and investigation facilitated.

Until someone takes up their offer, it is all empty words.

1. People accuse.
2. The accused say "come in an audit, see for yourselves"
3. People continue to accuse without seriously seeking an audit.
4. Empty accusations, character assasinations ensue.
5. ""Audit our methods"" response
6. Accusations continue, no serious audit initiative
7. Hmmmm.... Accusations without substantiation

There are assumptions Asmo, assertions, speculation about the testing. Loads of it.

But no proof. 2,574 people can have their opinions, but until someone qualified and independant goes in their and audits the methodology against the trial criteria, they are just whistling in the wind...

BTW: Read my last post if you could, just the beginning will do, where I addressed the aspect of responding to the many responses? I do not demand when you guys need to respond, and I expect the same courtesy.

Asmo, mate, could you expand on your last line about the trolling? I am genuinely not sure if I understood what you are saying.

Of interest and no specific reference, from Wikipedia:

""Troll (Internet), an internet term for a person who willfully, through obscene, offensive or hateful actions (a.k.a. "trolling"), attempts to disrupt a community or garner reactions, attention and controversy.""

Try reading the actual post, all of it...

@neil_mc: Please reread the post... I referred to when I can and would respond, not if I would...

R e a d t h e w o r d s . . .

Again read the post and I would appreciate you not making assertions of what my intentions are, when I have clearly stated what they are.

OK? Try that mate.

In the meantime, I was advocating further investigation with all my posts, or are you having an attack of subjective text blindness...?

It is there in black and white.

lol, I am self-employed Neil, how about you? Tell me who you work for?

Comments are a time waster if the poster cannot at least refer to what was actually written... tnx mate.

The proof is in the pudding, not in the speculation...

The request to "Put up or shut up" was made once Asmodai, then listed in responses by others and myself.

It was meant to challenge those who wanted to continue attacking ENEX without undertaking serious efforts to address the audit issue.

Looks like I hit a raw nerve there with some...

There is no *proof* in the report until you have audited the results and methodology, in order to prove whether results were fixed, changed, fraudulent, wrong etc.

As for addressing points Asmodai, may I invite you to audit how many points and questions I have addressed in the past 4-6 weeks here on the ARN forum?

Bit of an empty and baseless exercise to speak of trolling with someone who, and whether you like the responses or not, addressed myriad points in question.

Unfortunately, for several or even many of the posters here, simply not agreeing with their views or comments is already *inflammatory*. I am not in a position to stop commenting and asking questions because they find it disconcerting, inflammatory, uncomfortable, wrong or a novelty... >;))

I applaud your efforts to facilitate an audit, and would welcome more folks either taking serious steps to facilitating the proffered audit, or else to accept the results.

If the criteria and instructions given to ENEX were not suitable for the intended tests, then go for the instruction issuers. Does anyone commenting here have definitive proof on this? Assertions and assumptions unfortunately do not qualify as proof.

As for human rights, well that is a lofty level to take the debate. Remember, you have to at least table cases in precedence from the parties involved in order to bring a human rights complaint. Pointing to China and their human rights abuses, then pointing to Conroy and claiming he is about to do the same, although there is no precedence at all, will last about 2 seconds in any court...

Human rights cases need the actual human right transgression defined and validated first of all, then you have to prove transgression occured.

As censorship is a precedence in Australia, democratically accepted and used for over 90 years, you will have to prove that this existing censorship is already a human rights transgression.

Asmodai, I will buy you a beer and dinner in New York if you win that one.

In any case, baseless attacks on the persons, character and reputations of the ENEX guys (or anyone for that matter), without proof, is nothing short of cowardice and capricious self-indulgence. (not referring to you here, but the issue in context Asmodai)

Roddy... Why didn't you say so?

Isn't this getting just a little silly?

I'm glad that you're happy for the ISO thing to be looked at.

As a refresher:

Professor:
http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/331423/isp_filter_trial_company_stands_by_test_results#comment-7230

You:
http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/331423/isp_filter_trial_company_stands_by_test_results#comment-7245

(para 17 onwards)

You didn't seem to accepting of the professor's suggestion at all. I guess I read it wrong?

My apologies, I thought I had. Just catching up...

Thanks HSSC, I just simply ran out of time to respond to all the points raised on that day, and wanted to look more closely into the actual ISO question details before responding to that aspect of the Professors post.

He had also raised several points. I did though take the liberty of referring him back to a *QA* process of his own in reference to the context of the PUOSU lines.

By then it was just about 'nuff said for that post.

I also did not question his right to doubt, or anyone's right to doubt. What I challenge and question seriousloy are the presumptions of guilt and the attacks posted based on the doubt.

Tett was *hung from the old oak tree* based on doubts...

Naturally anyone who has doubts has the right to pursue clarification, but to accuse folks of fraudulent actions based on unclarified doubts is simply not justified, irrespective of what people think of the related players in govt.

If a conspiracy to defraud the Australian people is uncovered, then a great service has been rendered thereby. If none is discovered, then some serious apologising from various folks would be in order.

Character assasinations on the internet are like down feathers being thrown into the air on a windy afternoon: A day later you will never be able to retrieve them...

Resolving confusion can be a form of art... >;))

*sigh* Neil... Look mate, I did not challenge Professor on that question of calling fraud, please have a read again, and plz check my previous post.

Many others did though call fraud, and as Professor rightly stated that there were doubts. (not proof)

I was addressing the general attacking and hanging posters, of which there have been many, who had accused ENEX of fraud, whereas there was in reality only unclarified doubt.

I understand where you are coming from however you have misaligned responses and context.

Hope that clarifies the confusion....

Great Aussie tradition: PUOSU... they all die sometime...

Thanks for your response Anonymous, it is always good to have various points of view...

""Like hell we will put up or shut up about it Roddy!
My tax money is getting wasted on this so I will not put up or shut up!""

I am not certain if you understood the context of the PUOSU challenge Anon? How did you understand that?

""We need answers and damn good ones too.""

That was the essence of the PUOSU challenge... An invitation to audit has been tabled, go for it. Otherwise please refrain from any attacks on those good folks...

""The whole thing is a complete mess and a joke to our country.""

Then take up the proffered audit invitation and substantiate the accusations, otherwise it would be best if you withdraw the assertions.

""Telling us to shut up is just your way trying to censor us.""

You were not told to shut up Anonymous, the challenge was to take up the proffered audit invitation and prove one way or the other whether the ENEX report was a fraud, or drop the unfounded accusations.
In colloquial terms, where I come from, that is oftem termed in simple Aussie: ""Put up or shut up...""

""Forget it we will not put up or shut up!""

Many Australians would perceive that response as a refusal to back up your claims Anonymous.... When my mates challenged me to PUOSU, and I did not "put up", I was expected to drop the subject and "shut up" about it forthwith.

UN Charter link...

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html

twisting....

@Roddy

Re put up or shut up..... (your words). Yes Enex have welcomed an audit. There's no need for everyone to just sit quite at your beconing until that happens.

You rightly point out:

"Lastly, the core question when considering ENEX, is whether they tested in accordance with the EOI and the stipulations of the testing contract they received. Finally, have they offered to undergo testing methods and results audit?"

That is a core question. It's not the only one though. If we look at your core question though....

The report isn't above critical comment until an audit despite your "put up or shut up".

eg According to an article in the Australian earlier this year Enex said "A scalability assessment will also be undertaken to assess the impact of the filtering solution on internet access speeds with higher levels of traffic and customers"

Yet scaleability isn't addressed in the report itself. When the Senator was questioned on it and why it wasn't in the report, he said that Enex assured him that it was okay. Why wasn't it in the report?

We have an assurance from Matt above that they used an artificial load generator at one point. What was the testing methodology and under what different scenarios? Why wasn't it detailed in the report?

On the attributing blame for Enex not covering things outside the EOI.... That's not it. It's where the report lacks scientific detail and where Matt declares that the technology is absolutely good to go as evidenced by their results.

If Matt is prepared to say "good to go" rather than "we addressed all of the criteria of the EOI satisfactorily" then of course people are right to point out the complete lack of testing in critical areas.

It's not like Enex wouldn't have been aware of these comments on the EOI before they started. Concerns over the weak EOI were put to the government and discussed widely in the tech media. It's not like people only just though this stuff up today.....

To be fair or not to be fair, that is the question...

Articulation is not the key to wisdom Guy, but it does assist in being clearer and more precise when debating and discussing points and issues in question.

A first challenge we often have here is that some folks are so motivated to get a point across that they omit to put it into context, lose the relativity, apply their point across the board, often without a sense of measure, when the issue at hand may be very specific.

In other words, they often throw out the kid with the bathwater.

Many assumptions and speculations, or inaccuracies and exaggerations, are then transmitted as "fact" in the next forum or blog. An aspect that is relevant or in context for one instance, us simply adopted for other instances, as a default rule of thumb.

So, I am striving to be as specific as possible in aligning claims and issues with the actual context that applies to them.

If folks want to talk about freedom of speech and other rights here in Australia, then let's look at the Constitution, common law, precedence and legislative practices.

If folks want to discuss corruption in government, dictatorships, tyrannical practices etc and relate that to our current government and the proposed filters, then let's discuss the development, causation and circumstances that cause, create or allow dictatorships to evolve, and correlate that to the current, medium and long term history of Australia.

If folks want to talk technical standards, technology developments, available, unsuitable or suitable technologies and vendors, commercial contracts and practices, vested interests and various expertise levels that participants have, then let's look at existing product and technology standards globally (and not just what is known to the WP forum guys), existing implementations, current industry wide developments, telco and vendor expertise levels, typical and validated commercial contracts and legal precedence, etc.

If folks want to talk human rights and transgressions, and start to compare Australia to China, Iran, Nth Korea and wherever, then let's table some relativity and look at the real, everyday rights and freedoms of all these countries, history, current status, degrees of democracies and inherent national protective measures these various countries, including Australia, have or do not have in place.

If we want to talk Article 19 of the UN Charter, then let's talk the WHOLE Article 19 of the UN Charter...

If folks want to talk about majorities of the Australian public and what they want, and then claim that they only hear the voices of the filter opponents, then let's talk about who protests loudly: The people who do not want the measure, or the people who are not against it? They do not have to be loud or protest, the primarily see a minister of the gov doing something they agree with or "do not disagree with"...

So "Guy", I have no choice but to repeatedly call on the comment posters to clarify their posts and claims, to challenge their assumptions, assertions and "logic".

Just as they challenge mine.

And when they make myriad claims about a trial process where they do not have the facts but many doubts (and doubts can be well justified), and start asserting guilt and impinge on the character of the staff there, who have already offered to undergo an audit, then by good Aussie tradition Guy, it is indeed time for them to PUOSU...

Anmd that was in that context and in that example not only fair, but well justified.

In politics that demand is often made...

Now this post is once again long, so back to your specific example tomorrow... tnx.

I am an Australian and a father.

This discussion should not be about the technology, it should be about our rights and freedoms.

Censorship is abhorrent to me. A previous post stating that it has been happening for 90 years is not a justification that it should continue. I can counter argue that since the birth of the internet about 20 years ago we have had no censorship of the internet and it should continue.

It is a poor intellectual argument to state a fact and use the fact itself as justification.

We should have no censorship in a free and open society. We should have laws that protect people in the free and open society. That includes prosecuting people that commit violence, abuse children and so on.

It doesn't mean restricting my rights to information.

If someone publishes something that is illegal for whatever reason, they should be prosecuted. The perceived difficulties in catching these people is not sufficient reason to introduce mandatory censorship of the internet with secret lists.

We are a relatively free and open society and I don't think we should change our society because the government of the day is too lazy to catch the people posting illegal content and too lazy to develop better international police co-operation.

We have seen governments extend their powers once the are granted. The US government is a prime example in relation to terrorist laws. Their own citizens have been stripped of some fundamental rights in order to 'protect' themselves from a small number of extremists.

We are seeing the same trend here with new police powers in Victoria, watering down freedom of information requests, 'commercial-in-confidence' agreements on large projects.

We need to fight for our freedom, even from people within our society.

Evil and corruption flourishes in secrecy and while freedom does have risks, we should not attempt to lessen these risks at the even greater risk of introducing laws that allow powerful, evil and corrupt men to take advantage of them.

Protect our rights!!

Roddy your just a troll.
You dont have any idea on what your talking about. It seems to me like you want a internet filter. Your put up with it additude is totally unaustralian. How about you put up with a ridiculassly slowed down internet that filters legit sites such as breast cancer sites and pro-abortion and safe drug use. WTF are you on about. Maybe you should realize how flawed that test. I ask you this, why is every single major ISP in the country boycotting the filter and will not do trials? BECAUSE IT WONT WORK!