Technical Specs Released For Aussie Net Filtering 231
smallkathryn writes "Technical specifications have just been released for the Australian net filtering trial. The trial, which aims to prove that ISP-level filtering is a viable way to stop 'unwanted content' from reaching users, will go live on 24 December. The trial will involve ISPs choosing a commercially available hardware filter from an internet content filter (ICF) vendor, adding it to their networks, then loading the blacklist of unwanted sites. Still no indication of how peer-to-peer information will be addressed."
technical ramifications of network filtering (Score:5, Informative)
Putting aside the question of whether filtering is desirable in the first place ("think of the children!"), or issues regarding the potential for future abuse (e.g., censorship of unpopular speech, and who determines what needs to be filtered in the first place) at the technical level any halfway-reliable filtering technology that peeks into the transport layer [wikipedia.org] is going to add a huge amount of overhead that will increase costs and degrade performance. Good for the equipment companies, but bad for everyone who would prefer their Internet connection as dumb and fast as possible.
OTOH, OpenDNS [opendns.com] provides a free, opt-in filtering service [opendns.com] available to anyone who wants it. It's very easy to deploy, why not just use that?
Re:Dangerous (Score:5, Informative)
They're already adding otherwise legal sites to the blacklist. From the second link:
One of the more recent concerns over the blacklist is its extension from 1,300 sites to 11,300 sites containing "objectionable material", the content of which has not been made clear. The only details that have been divulged about them is that pro-euthanasia and pro-anorexia sites will be included on the blacklist.
Re:Voluntary (Score:5, Informative)
Only the *testing* is voluntary.
When (if, hopefully) the real thing goes live, "Filtering will be mandatory in all homes and schools across the country".
See: http://nocleanfeed.com
Re:Dangerous (Score:3, Informative)
You say this like it's a new thing. The Classification Board [classification.gov.au] has been censoring stuff for decades.
Re:Unethical (Score:4, Informative)
Re:URL based to start with (Score:1, Informative)
That will most likely land you on the default 'It works' page in the docroot for the default VirtualHost.
Re:URL based to start with (Score:3, Informative)
The paper says that the filtering will be URL based (to start with, possibly moving to other methods later). With that in mind, I present my (patented..?) two step method to bypassing the filter:
Step 1: Get IP address of blocked site
Step 2: Enter that IP address
easier, one time version:
go to internet settings under DNS
enter non-aussie or independent DNS
Re:URL based to start with (Score:4, Informative)
You can use 4.2.2.1 through 4.2.2.5
If I recall correctly, they're provided by various tier-1 carriers and telecoms (Level 3, Verizon, etc.).
Re:Unwanted? (Score:3, Informative)
Reasonable Australians don't want to see hard core porn (X-18+), yet the only two places where it can be legally sold is ACT (home of the federal government) and NT.
Re:Voluntary (Score:5, Informative)
Australia already has that law. Free NetNanny for everyone that wants a "clean" connection.
Now ask me how many people have taken up this offer...
Re:URL based to start with (Score:5, Informative)
That won't work on the vast majority of sites out there which either use name-based virtual hosting or complicated load balancers, both of which depend on the correct hostname being in the URL.
In the old days, a common trick to get around URL filters was to put a '.' at the end of the TLD as in:
http://www.example.com./ [www.example.com]
The '.' is the root of the DNS hierarchy. It's optional when specifying an Internet hostname but all software which handles domain names is required to handle it properly. Programmers of early web filters didn't know this so if they put the following URL into their block list:
http://www.example.com/* [example.com]
Adding the dot meant the URL wouldn't match the entry in the blocklist. All the vendors patched this pretty quickly though and then the next workaround discovered was encoding the domain name as its hex equivalent. Took longer for the vendors to patch that, but they finally did. Most of the web filters out there have had plenty of time to come up to speed on all the workarounds by this point, though.
Re:Voluntary (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Unethical (Score:2, Informative)
Not only have you Godwinned this discussion, you have done it with a made up quote. Hitler did not write that.
The first clause, "the state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people," appears in Mein Kampf, where Hitler is referring to the importance of eugenics.
Re:Unwanted? (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately that couldn't be further from the truth.
First of all, the filter's scope is definitely beyond illegal material. See here [defendingscoundrels.com] for a legal explanation of the terms - most RC and prohibited content is actually perfectly legal to possess.
Secondly, the minister has actually confirmed that sites such as pro-euthanasia websites will be banned. Drug use is also enough to get material put on the list. We're consistently told that the worst material on the list is child pornography, but that's beside the point - we need to know what the least harmful material on the blacklist is to make an informed decision. But we won't - the list is a government secret, and you will be jailed for revealing it.
And these "lobby groups" trying to add whatever the fuck they want to the filter? They hold the balance of power in the senate... in fact it seems that a major motivation behind the Government's plan is to buy their votes. Those lobby groups want all pornography banned outright, others want gambling websites blocked. The filter will in no way stop at "illegal" material.
Re:Umm "The trial, which aims to prove..." (Score:3, Informative)
They made the election promise without investigating whether or not it was possible. So the only result they will accept is one that confirms their beliefs.
Well actually, the election promise was to "provide" filtering, but not "mandate" it, but a censor-happy government with the need to satisfy fundamentalist third-parties wasn't going to stop there once the technology exists.
They did some preliminary testing back in June - the results showed an average speed reduction of 30% between filters (5/6 were over 20% - one was 87%), overblocking was between 2% and 8% of the internet, underblocking was usually around 10%, p2p wasn't addressed, and every filter was trivial to break.
These trials were hailed as an overwhelming success by the government because they were a slight improvement on even more woeful tests a few years ago... hence the live trials.
No matter what the results are, they will be a "success".
Re:ISPs (Score:3, Informative)
Don't quote me on this, but as far as I'm aware, only iiNet and Optus are participating.
I wouldn't be in a rush to leave if you're with them, though. The head of iiNet said that Conroy was the worst Comms. minister in the 15 years the internet industry has existed, and is only participating because it's the only way to show the government how stupid it is.
If we don't show them how stupid it is, showing them exactly what sites are blocked by mistake, how much it will slow the internet, how easy it is to break, how much porn will get through anyway, etc... we'll be stuck with it. Labor isn't backing down, so the only option left is making sure the filter goes down in flames so spectacularly that no-one will even dare touch the issue again in the near future.
Re:Dangerous (Score:3, Informative)
MPAA ratings are purely voluntary, though.
Really? How do I show a film that I haven't had voluntarily classified?
if a video game is unsuitable for children it's banned outright (GTA, Fallout 3, F.E.A.R. 2, Silent Hill, Singles: Flirt Up Your Life, Manhunt have all been banned in Australia). Every state in Australia has all X-rated material on the RC list.
States, but not territories. There are efforts to allow R rated games, but these are being blocked by one state Attorney General.
Re:Unwanted? (Score:3, Informative)
Hard core porn is banned in the states. Canberra and the NT are territories.
Mind you, what passes for "hard core" in the Territories is nothing compared to what you can find with three seconds searching the net.
Even movies of consensual urophilia is banned in Oz. I heard. From an acquaintance. That I don't really know.
Re:Voluntary (Score:4, Informative)
Now, ISPs are usually international companies, few are still single country.
I don't know how it works in the US (or wherever you live) but the 2 of the top 3 ISPs in Australia (Telstra and iiNet) only serve within Australia, AFAIK. There headquarters are here too, meaning it would be difficult to move, especially since they own so much of the local infrastructure.
The reason for this is likely that Australia is geographically isolated from other countries, being a continent in its own right.
Most ISPs are either also in telco or cable TV, so let's shut down the ISP biz and concentrate on the rest.
Telstra is a telco, but iiNet is only an ISP. There's actually talk of them providing IPTV next year, but that would be over the internet.
Besides, at least one company will remain, and feel free to charge whatever they want (probably Telstra, due to their government given monopoly on the infrastructure). Isn't that the situation in the US - few people can choose an ISP other than Comcast?
Re:Voluntary (Score:1, Informative)
iiNet have said that NOBODY has EVER downloaded the free filtering software from their website.
I don't know anything about iiNet, but the American content filtering company I used to work for contracted in the latter part of 2007 with the Australian government (a division called the ACMA) to provide one of four different filtering options on netalert.gov.au. We alone had around ten thousand people (as of July 2008) download our software, and around half of those continued to use it month to month.
Ten thousand is far from none, but it's definitely not a lot. And yeah, the software is reeeeaaally easy to get around (if you aren't completely retarded).