Comments on: Crikey: Internet filters a success, if success = failure

By: Stilgherrian · Conroy thoroughly tangled in his own Rabbit-Proof Firewall

Stilgherrian · Conroy thoroughly tangled in his own Rabbit-Proof Firewall — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:57:51 +0000

[...] Crikey has reported (Tuesday, 9 July 2008, Internet filters a success, if success = failure) [local copy], even the best filter has a false-positive rate of 3% under ideal lab conditions. That might not [...]

By: Stilgherrian · Completely inappropriate, Senator Conroy

Stilgherrian · Completely inappropriate, Senator Conroy — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:22:07 +0000

[...] “ISP filters that block prohibited content”. Conroy’s stuck with it. But the filters clearly don’t work. And he can’t be seen to back away from Internet filtering — in a trial program which, [...]

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:50:31 +0000

The link to Bing Crosby singing Accentuate the Positive is broken. “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by a third party,” says YouTube.

So, mysterious Third Party, where would you like me to point people if they want to listen to the song and get the joke? Or are the few dollars you make from “protecting” a poor digitisation of a scratchy print of a film showing a long-dead singer more important than being a living part of our culture?

Morons.

You really are afraid, aren’t you!

By: yewenyi

yewenyi — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:23:56 +0000

today in computer world: Filtered Internet to inflate access costs, slow speeds

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=1597671662&eid=-22

By: Nick Cowie » ACMA report into ISP level filtering

Nick Cowie » ACMA report into ISP level filtering — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:43:02 +0000

[...] censorship, mainly because others like Stilgherrian have been doing a good job of providing unbiaised information on the issues. Then I tried to read what was attempting to masquarade as a through scientific report, is was too [...]

By: Nick Cowie

Nick Cowie — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:20:17 +0000

A few other flaws in the report, testing methods and software:

PC level vs ISP level filtering table
At ISP level, you will be able to log into ISP Account and change your level of filtering so no different from Administrators password on PC

Tests where conducted in Tasmania, which because of high cost of traffic to mainland makes heavy use of caching and proxies. So this is not your typical mainland tier 3 ISP.

The best performing filter could not handle https, so either free for all or block everything.

“Strong M material” got moved from category 3, which should not be blocked to category 2 which should be blocked. So did the people conducting this test decided they they knew better than the Censorship Board? or did they move them to get better results? This was material classified as M and should in theory be available to all, being blocked because the testers didn’t like it or it was screwing with their results. If they moved 50 sites, the results are +/- 5% accuracy on both blocking success and false positives.

By: Internet filtering, censorship and stupidity of many varieties at sw’as

Internet filtering, censorship and stupidity of many varieties at sw’as — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 21:03:09 +0000

[...] it as ‘encouraging’. Get a more realistic analysis of the report courtesy of Crikey - Internet filters a success if success = failure. Turns out this post has an unfortunate lack of focus, but I just had to get that off my chest. The [...]

By: Media reaction to filtering report - Somebody Think Of The Children

Media reaction to filtering report - Somebody Think Of The Children — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:08:16 +0000

[...] Crikey, Stilgherrian points out that even though the report found ‘most’ filters achieved over [...]

By: Stilgherrian · The Great Firewall of China: how it works, how to bypass it

Stilgherrian · The Great Firewall of China: how it works, how to bypass it — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:14:35 +0000

[...] this block is easy. Unlike Senator Conroy’s porn filters, GFW doesn’t have to worry about collateral damage. It blindly blocks entire sites, as well every site sharing the same Internet address — not [...]

By: Wolf

Wolf — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:20:54 +0000

@yewenyi: My point was there are bigger issues with the infrastructure here in Australia than needing to slow it sown even more

I think even <1% false positives is not acceptable. Esp for say teenagers trying to work out all the crap that is going on in their bodies and not being able to reach out and find information online. I have search “delicate ” terms to find medical information, and I most certainly don’t want the site on breast cancer e.t.c blocked because the government decided that it might be bad.

By: No surprises: internet filtering test results show products block legitimate content at Hoyden About Town

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:57:16 +0000

[...] Despite a cheery press release from Communications Minister Stephen Conroy that all is going well, an analysis of the actual test results shows that the tested filters slow connection speeds significantly (which means ISPs would have to [...]

By: yewenyi

yewenyi — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:27:40 +0000

I have had the experience of my own web site being banned by the filter used at work as being a sex site. I had to write an angry email to my IT support staff to have it removed.

@wolf, would you be happy if one fo the false positives was Medicare? No one would be able to make a claim.

By: Wolf

Wolf — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:29:10 +0000

I will gladly accept the false positives and speed issues of an internet filtering system on 2 conditions:

True 20MB+ broadband across the nation both wired and wireless!
Decent data rates and no data caps for those plans.

When the government has that sorted out come back and talk to me about filtering then.