The Inquisitr - Latest Comments in The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Duster — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:54:17 -0000

ISP filtering won’t filter content in social networking sites. MySpace removed 7,000 members from its community last year and they were only the offenders who used their real names and had been convicted. I think it’s an alarming figure – common sense tells me the majority of sex offenders, especially with a prior conviction would not use their true identity.

This is part of a message sent by Sgt. Robyn Maceachern, youth issues co-ordinator for the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), during a seminar at Ontario Association of Police Services Boards Zone 1 semi-annual meeting held towards the end of January, 2009.

“This past May, all of the names of registered sex offenders in the U.S. were run against the 150 million profiles on “MySpace”—and 7,000 registered sex offenders were confirmed and removed from that community, noted Sgt. Maceachern, who works hand-in-hand with the OPP’s electronic crime lab (or as she called them, “the CSI of computers)” and the OPP’s child sexual exploitation unit.
“Those were only the ones who used their real names, those were only the ones convicted of a sexual offence,” she stressed.
“It is a playground online,” she warned. “I don’t need to show you that within two seconds, if I go online as a young 13-year-old girl, there would be a predator asking me to do things on a webcam.” ”

http://fftimes.com/node/219231

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Scottc — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:21:22 -0000

"Of course ISPs don't want to invest in anything that doesn't make a return, that is a standard business practice."

True. The other point worth noting here, if there was enough people wanting filtered internet, there'd be a buisness case for an ISP creating voluntarily filtered accounts. It would offer them differentiation from unfiltered ISP accounts and a very competititve edge amongst users wanting a filtered connection.

Since the market has not taken this opportunity (which they're no doubt aware of), there is either minimal demand or significant costs (upfront costs or severe deterioration of service).

If filtering by a section of the community and they're prepared to pay for it, then the services will be available. Why force it on all and make all pay for a service wanted by few? Clearly the few want it not just for themselves!

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Me — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:52:26 -0000

Please correct "Paul Puddle" to "Paul Budde". (-:

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

designer — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 07:56:01 -0000

A system that has no set governing rules or body or agency to protect uers cannot continue to grow , governments worldwide know this. Its not there to control the masses, its there to protect them. You're confusing Australia with China. In the future there needs to be a body that is adequate enough to police communications. It may seem all well and good now, but as the system grows, it becomes more complexed, and there will be greater and more sophicated ways to commit cyber crime. The net will grow exponentially. Telstra which traditionally just provide a data pipe is now moving into ecommerce, media, advertising, market research, I wouldnt be surprised if the future telcos will be information and service providers. Internet applications are virtually limitless, you just have to look at MS's idea of 'cloud' computing as an example. Traditional ways of doing things are becoming virtualised, eventually we would even telecommute. So what does it all mean? It means that the Net Filter is just the beginning, you could count of a commonewealth department of cyberspace in time to come.

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

n/a — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 06:32:11 -0000

Typical strawman arguments no logic. Sounds like logic but doesn't hold up to critical thought.

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

n/a — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 06:10:09 -0000

Designer another ideology follower like a devout christian devoted to the bible in an obsessive like manner comparable to a metal that is unbreakable meaning it has no flexibility or possibillity of conceding any other than its own unfounded theories and repetitive dogmas.

Anyways the NBN is a stupid idea simply because international capacity links cant cope with the traffic. The NBN cites 10mbps speeds this is slow ADSL2 already does 20mbps depending on line conditions not distance. The NBN is not superior it is silly because the international links don't have the capacity to handle it. Also basically everything you are saying is smoke and mirrors just like another fucking politician expletive offend you? Great i'm glad it did. Theres a difference between authoritive and authority. You clearly don't understand at all. Using the internet and economy of a way of justifying net censorship when clearly it has nothing to do with that. Your mud doesn't clog my filters. I get sick of liers like you who do not know and spout some ideology. Quote some stuff from various texts but have no real thoughts of their own in effect you are either just a puppet or in bed with someone else unknowingly or willingly. Your text wreaks of full-steam ahead continue bullshit even though its completely wrong.

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

asdfasf — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 01:02:40 -0000

1- as its impossible to block all spam, trojans etc. All ISPs have firewalls in place that already do this, otherwise the internet is already unusable. You just dont see it becuase most of it is already blocked by your ISP. So simply put, filtering works and has already elimated the bulk of harmful content from the net. Filter will futher ease the burden of ISPs to do this task individually.

2. Of course child porn is traded via website, in additional to any other means of transfering data. Blocking websites and newsgroups, ftp servers on the fly is a good measure to make it tough for these crims to sell their wares.

3. the filter will not stop technically capable people, but it will protect the vast majority of users, in addition make it difficult for those who want to commit crimes on the net in doing so.

4. parents should supervise, the netfilter will make the job easier. It will make it easier for schools to allow students use the internet knowing that it will be safe for them to do so.

5. Most do. See iiNet court case for example.

6. Your ISP accused you of downloading copyright material probably because that is what you did.

7. What is happening to iiNet is under debate, which is why they are in court?

8. How is it a fault of Telstra when for decades Optus owned the only monopolistic internet pipe , the SXC? Which most internet traffic to and from Australia.

9. Of course it will increase business and household use, when it is safe for businesses to do so. The filter doesnt affect you if you arent doing anything illegal.

10. The dynamic nature of the filter is a much better tool that what we have now, which is implemented at the discretion by the serivce provider, if at all.

11. For a long time Dodo did not have a firewall in the network, after a minute of connecting, pop ups began appearing, and a PC would have been secretly infected via flaws in XP and IE. Most computers that are connected to the net have infection of some sort, all the more need for protection for the average user.

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Designer — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:35:25 -0000

Put simply, without a proper regulation and protection agent in place,
1- the internet and information economy cannot grow into the future
2- negative social impact as a result of an anarchistic system will increasily have determinental effects on society.

Looking at ecosystems and socio-economic systems that thrive, you need to have freedom in combination with authority. Currently the internet is a system without a central law agency but with no police officers. It can only grow to an extent before the system begins to fall apart. Now what I am bringing this up is because the netfilter is designed for the future in mind, NBN and beyond. NBN anticipates rapid grown in information adoption and will fill every aspect of our lives. The arguments put forward by anti-filter groups fail to understand the importance of a governing and protecting body because they are only at in the present, and not with foresight. This is also coupled by testing and planning that is based on current technology and systems, which has been pointed out by some users here. The fact that technology expands exponentially every 5-10 years, and NBN being on the horizon of a superior suite of networking hardware currently being installed by providers (eg. DWDM, Media Servers, Gateways etc.) makes such a filter very possible.

We anticipate that Triple play will provide user customised individualised media, video and data sessions, and there is hardware already capable of this aplenty, I fail to see how a firewall which is by far much simplier cannot be purchased to meet the requirements of a universal net filter.

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

n/a — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:23:14 -0000

This is the most bogus argument ever, people who break the law aren't going to abide by it, so any new laws or regulations or censorship won't change anything the only real thing that can be done is to provide sufficient funding to the right police departments to prosecute and find paedophiles, paedophiles will sadly continue to exist just like most criminals do and the cycle of lawbreakers will continue, introducing new restrictions only affects the law-abiders it doesn't affect the unlawful because they do not practice the act of abiding by the rules set out by legislation. This whole censorship charade is the biggest waste of Australian tax payers money ever, and one of the biggest lies ever articulated by parliament, its not about protecting anyone thats a hitler strategy to say we are protecting the children meanwhile kevin rudd is probably being handed cash under the table from various media companies to implement this filter and control the information on the internet, the deliberately misleading and misinforming of the information desemminated from the government is clearly not telling the truth point in case of misleading the public by stating that later on after many articulations not indicated that they intended to block peer 2 peer exchange which has nothing to do with protecting children. If you want to protect the children educate and inform and use programs like the now non-existant free net-nanny like program the government previously offered which was taken off the shelf and it costs so much a year, I believe the amount of money they were spending on the program was outrageous anyway when it easily could have been done for $10-20 million per year with a software development team of say around 20 and 5 active site browsers to find inappropriate content for a client based browsing filter for parents children. Information should circulate freely on the internet without interference from the goverment as soon as censorship is implemented that means theres a control in place on information and that people can't speak out freely and this is truly what it is and always will be because it is absolute and anybody who can use logic will be able to see this.

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Bob — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:44:32 -0000

Yes negative in lab trials but still yet to be proven in real world circumstances so it is hearsay isn't it? and if your so clever why is not the same as adding a block list to existing fire walls because theoretically that is all that is required. I want to visit a site.. it goes through ISP, it gets checked against a block list and unless the block list is served from outside the isp then my guess it would pretty quick. Please stop me if im getting to technical for you? Now i don't know what the majority of O'S are used by most ISP's in OZ but if it was any flavor of a nix a few shell scripts and some ipchains/tables depending on your preference are all that are required.

Your obviously a much more intellegent than me when it comes to these matters so why dont you explain in detail for us simple minded folk just how things will work because so far im yet to see any concrete evidence?

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Scott — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 08:52:33 -0000

@asdfasf
1. the major cause of spam, identity theft, ect is Email and people giving out their details - old style confidence tricks modernized for the digital age - No filter will stop people being stupid.
2. Child porn is not traded by websites or bit torrent, but but other methods that will NOT be blocked by the proposed "filter". eg FTP (for example)
3. The last filter was broken by a 15year old in a matter of hours - why do you think this will be any different? no matter how good you are or think you are, there is always someone better who will provide others with a "solution"
4. Parents should be supervising their kids while on the net - if you don't know how, then find out and learn - not expect a government solution - i have three children and have a good idea what they are doing whilst on the net.
5. not all of us on high usage plans "use it primarily for downloading copyright material" I am a computer hardware technician, i use my monthly quota to download windows updates (because Microsoft won't give me support due to not selling enough copies of windows per month), patches, drivers and antivirus, adaware updates, specific tools to repair known problems, etc. i also play online games and download LEGAL movies, etc using bit torrent - check out nbc, eztv, etc - my usage is about 60 gig per month btw - no illegal material whatsoever.
6. This is also despite the fact that my ISP blocks bit torrent and has accused me of illegal activities - including when I was off-line for being reported as a source of spam. It is very hard for me to be doing anything in the three hours i was disconnected - no apology, no repercussions on the false allegations either! maybe we should be able to sue them and get a significant amount for tarnishing our good name and preventing my business?
7. the NZ approach seems to be fairer, but still needs to be slanted further against the RIAA, etc - what they are doing to IInet is illegal (I'm studying law at uni) but throw enough money around and you can win anyway.
8. I agree - ISP's don't want to invest in any infrastructure - sasktel anyone? we are now behind the world in internet speeds - even North Korea has a better telecommunications system - thanks to Telstra. An guess what - they have no limits, quotas or other crap to put up with.
9. Business confidence increase? encourage investment? reduce costs? How his is going to be achieved is beyond me - other than the obvious of business re-locating outside Australia. Even at the best, filter software has to be taught what to block - ever use voice recognition software? after about six months I gave up and learnt to type instead - even if just in this period business will be damaged and opportunity lost - enough opportunities lost and the business will fail - no question it will be too late for many good, competitive businesses and the baddies no worse off.
10. see above about how attacks occur - subscribe to Auscert and learn about what the threats actually are and how these people (lowlifes) operate.
11. i have sent a customer a hard drive with files on it through the mail. It had windows Xp, plus antivius, antispyware, plus other programs, but could just as easily have contained anything i liked - how will your filtering software stop this - if people really want files, they will get them. Typical politician - make it seem like you are doing something while not really doing anything and cost the taxpayers a fortune while doing it!

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Bruce Lyon — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:13:51 -0000

You forgot to include lost productity calculations. Assume 7.2 milllion users now spend additional 10% of their time if slower filtered internet at say $20 per hour average pay rate for computer users at work * 3 hours per day this equates to approx $11 Billion dollars per annum lost productivity!!!

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

hai der — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:04:56 -0000

Finaly a decent reason for me to get a dedicated server up in europe and setup a SSH connection to it :D

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Greg — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:36:25 -0000

Good news Geoff, the filter will be incredibly easy to bypass! The only protocols that will be filtered will be HTTP and possibly BitTorrent so anything else, such as FTP, DCC over IRC, etc. will not be filtered. You can also set up an SSH tunnel to browse the Web without being affected by the filter. That's why so many people think this filter is a waste of time: those who want to bypass it will be able to do so easily. A better system would be requiring all ISPs to provide an opt-in "inappropriate content" filter which parents can choose to subscribe to if they cannot be bothered supervising their children whilst they browse the Internet.

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Greg — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:31:52 -0000

Bob, you seem to have as much idea of how computer networks operate as Stephen Conroy does. Implementing the proposed filters will not be as simple as adding one firewall server to the ISP's network.

As for proof of a speed decrease: did you miss the govermnent trials of various filter software? ALL of the tested filters had a negative impact on network performance.

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Geoff King — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:16:05 -0000

The first thing I will Google when these morons introduce the filter ,will be how to bypass the damn thing.So will thousands of others . What a waste of space Rudd and Conroy are .

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Bob — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:57:44 -0000

I hate the idea of censorship but yet im still yet to see actual proof of anything that results in a speed decrease and the blocking of legitimate business its all a bunch of *could happens, lab tests and hearsay happen. If the actual adsl2 consumption figures are correct and the fact that Australians did not embrace this technology whole heartedly at first is anything to go by this all might just be an elaborate rouse to slow down the Internet for the sake of getting the next gen network filled out. What would be a better way to fill out the quota than through forceful measures. Again another what if. Asdaf is correct and ISP;s do have firewalls in place already with the capacity to block in one from or another so increases in prices should be nominal but i guess that will be left up to the discretion of the ISP so im going to guess we are going to be bend over the couch by them as well.

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

NYOB — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:23:18 -0000

asdfas's comments sounds too close to the bone of ACL.

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Greg Alexander — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:22:41 -0000

I'm totally against the filter - firstly because of the emotional arguments and focus on "protecting the children" rather than on what is feasible and whether it is the right place to "draw a line".

Quick question :)
In what manner does the filter decrease download speeds?
I know it's not as simple as a 20% across the board reduction but I'm not sure of the impact.

Since the filter is at the ISP, I assume that a 1.5Mbps will still use the full 1.5Mbps - but that response times will decrease because a site won't start loading until the filter has permitted it. So for a "light" site with lots of small gifs etc our limit would cease to be our internet connection and instead become the filter speed. A 20Mbps connection and a 1.5Mbps, on this light site, might both become 1Mbps. A site with big graphics files might keep a higher speed as once authorised the data flow through. Or is it (against my logic) a bottleneck that reduces all sites to 6Mbps... thus only the faster users would notice it?

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

PDG — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:24:27 -0000

Do you really think that firewalling is anything like deep packet inspection? To be able to filter on the scale that the government is wanting will require huge investments in hardware, software and HR effort on the part of ISPs. Who do think will pay for this "investment"? This is not as simple as installing a single proxy server. ISPs will need to install farms of proxies. This is not a cheap exercise.

I'm curious who you work for "technology improvements in our next gen networks". You wouldn't happen to be in the ministers office would you?

My problem with the whole proposal is the fact that it will not meet its goals. There is no way to do what the Government wants. It will just end up costing joe average a lot of money that doesn't nothing to "protect the children"

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Greg — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 06:47:14 -0000

Ever hear of prohibition in the US? I suggest you read up on it and then revisit your opinions on the benefits of driving crime underground.

Your entire comment is so poorly reasoned it makes me want to wrap a cat5e crossover cable around your neck.

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Greg — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 06:42:03 -0000

1) The proposed filter aims to block "unwanted content", ie. child porn and the like. Things like fraud, spam and identity theft cannot be blocked or prevented by a content filter.

2) Does it make sense to increase network speed with the national broadband network, only to then reduce it with the filter? Yes, computer network technology is always getting faster and more reliable, but the filter will still slow down network speeds by as much as 75% - that means my 10Mbps connection will drop to 2.5Mbps.

3) ISPs also don't want the filter because it will be expensive to implement, maintain and administrate.

4) I'm not sure how business and consumer confidence can be increased by the content filter, and the cost to households to set up a client-side filter was zero thanks to the freely available filtering software provided by the Liberal government. "Businesses can safely expand into the internet without fear of attacks to both them and their customers." - how will the content filter prevent attacks? If you mean DDoS or the like then this filter will not do anything to prevent that. Schools already block inappropriate material with their own filters and it isn't difficult to monitor what your children do on the home computer.

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

asdfasf — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 06:14:07 -0000

I'm tired at people who claim the NET FILTER will be the end of internet and the economy. Looking at the responses its obviously that most people here are ignorant. Firstly can you tell me what manufacturers or models are current out there for such NETFILTER hardware? You're all just basing your arguments on hysterics and very biased views from companies with vested interests in not letting the filter go ahead.

The fact the the NET Filter will drive crime underground is a GOOD THING. Would you rather it be widespread and everywhere? Driving it underground makes it harder for criminals who make child porn, engage in Fraud and identity theft etc. at the same time making them easier by our authorities to catch. Its a way if isolating the source for those who engage in it on both ends.

The filter of course will be at Internet gateway POP isnt that obvious? PIPE will complete its a matter of who will do it. Telstras endeavour and SXC have Gb to Tb capaciities. Filters work at 10Gbps capacity. As I said, technology improvements in our next gen networks makes all these doubts about 'performance' merely lies themselves.

Of course it will reduce cost for business, YOU IDIOT. its obvious. stop your lame apologist arguments and get with the real and adult world and stop being a retarded net geek.

The cost to consumers, another myth , since most carriers already to have netfilters in place, they just dont filter the traffic in the manner planned, can you name me a carrier or ISP that doesnt not own firewall hardware at the POP?

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Rob — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:34:07 -0000

@ asdfasf.

Mate get your facts right, this has potential to ecconomically do damage to the industries which rely on the internet for communication and business dealings, e-mails ect.

You are obviously not well informed of the minimal impacts this filter WILL have on all Australians including you.
You may be raving support about it now.
But I don't think many people are going to tolerate this government trying to enforce mandatory censorship on all Australians and may be a big voting swing issue come next election.
At least we know with the Liberals what their stance is that it is not feasible yet, it needs to be worked on, so people who want it can opt-in to filtering.
There is no such option under this plan.
Steven Conroy, Bernadette McMenamin and Jm Wallace are fools, futhermore

Re: The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia

Guest — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:54:05 -0000

What foundation do you have to claim the filter will reduce cyber crime? Other articles have predicted it will just create a more covert criminal society, much like the prohibition did with alcohol, by forcing them to use encrypted (VPN) connections to a POP overseas. Now tell me how it will 'greatly' reduce crime when it will making it harder for Federal Police to monitor and track down cyber criminals?

What about the increase in crime when the ACMA blacklist is publicly leaked?

You should know that the filter will likely be applied before the POP and any speed improvements thereafter will still be diminished. Also PIPEs PPC-1 project has not been completed yet and it is only expected to reduce costs and not improve speeds.

Of course ISPs don't want to invest in anything that doesn't make a return, that is a standard business practice.

It will not reduce costs for households or business as they will be the ones wearing the costs of the filter, whether they want it or not. And I would imagine most businesses would continue to run transparent proxies or firewalls to prevent access to unproductive sites that would not be blocked by the filter - which would lead to a duplicate cost.

You seem to have a slight grasp of the networking industry but definitely lack any economic credentials - wouldn't happen to be someone studying for Cisco qualifications without any practical experience yet?