• Annual Report 2007–08 | ACMA: The Australian Communications and Media Authority’s annual report for the financial year ended… four months ago. Trying to understand the emerging world by looking at documents like this is like trying to steer a fast car by reading traffic statistics from last week’s newspaper.
• ISP-level Filtering Discussion part 2 | Whirlpool Broadband Forums: A women — a Christian and a mother — explains why she is against Internet censorship.
• The perplexing Internet debate | On Line Opinion: Mark Newton, the network engineer who Senator Conroy’s office tried to bully into silence, has only become more vocal. Here he lists in clear bullet-point form the arguments the government has to counter.
• ISP-level content filtering won’t work | ZDNet Australia: Three of Australia’s largest ISPs take a stand against the government’s plans to censor the Internet.
• Clean feeds | ABC Unleashed: Mark Pesce’s piece about the Internet censorship debacle steps back and looks at how the last fortnight has been affected by what he calls “hyperpolitics”.
• Keep Your Filter Off Our Internet | AWIA: “As the professional body representing people working across a broad spectrum of the web industry, the Australian Web Industry Association (AWIA) objects to the Government’s plans to trial ISP filtering, with a view to introducing it nationally.”
• Have Your Bunny Repeatedly: Crikey cartoonist First Dog on the Moon’s contribution to the campaign against Internet censorship in Australia.
• Twitter Goes Mainstream | WSJ.com: When a major mainstream newspaper says something is mainstream then it must be mainstream.
• Copyright Infringement as Stealing: Pfft! | Brendan Scott’s Weblog: One important part of any propaganda campaign is framing the discussion to benefit your side’s arguments. Major copyright-holders are keen to frame their bad guys as :”thieves” and “pirates”. This post is a well-reasoned piece explaining why “theft” is an inappropriate and disrespectful use of language.
• Eee PC 1000H HackBook | Flickr: Photo of Stephen Collins’ HackBook, an Asus Eee PC 1000H running OS X. Includes shopping list.
• Why follow @Stilgherrian on Twitter? | Matt’s Musings: One smart person’s musings on why he chooses to follow people on Twitter. I’ll write a response some time this week. It’s amusing to be called “the Rove [McManus] of the Streaming Web”.
• Sarah Palin Wardrobe Challenge: Kathryn Builds ENTIRE Wardrobe for the Candidate for Less Than $2500 | The Budget Fashionista: Just what it says. How to look just like the world’s most glamorous moose-killer without her $150k budget.
• Multicolr Search Lab | Idée Inc.: Punch in a selection of up to 10 colours, and this’ll search through more than 10 million Creative Commons-licensed images on Flickr and show you those which match. Very cool and, I suspect, very useful.
• 50 office-speak phrases you love to hate | BBC News: A nice collection of 50 examples of annoying business-speak. It’s from June, but it’s still valid.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• BitTorrent vs the Supreme Court of Victoria (6 comments)
• Links for 10 November 2008 through 13 November 2008 (0 comments)
• Thoughts on Twitter (11 comments)
• Clever forged videos, please ignore (0 comments)
• So let’s just start our own telco, eh? (6 comments)

[This article was first published in Crikey yesterday. I've added some follow-up comments at the end.]

Let’s sing along with Senator Conroy! You’ve got to accentuate the positive / Eliminate the negative / Latch on to the affirmative…

[On Monday] our Minister for Broadband was “encouraged” that lab tests of ISP-level Internet filters showed “significant progress” since 2005, and The Australian had him declaring the trial a success. But if you actually dig into the full report [2.8MB PDF] things aren’t so rosy.

Yes, on average filters might be more accurate than three years ago and have less impact on Internet speeds — well, at least for the six filters actually tested of the 26 put forward. But it’s about them being not quite as crap as before.

The report pre-judges the results, saying filters show “high levels of successful blocking”. But even with “most” filters achieving over 92% success, that still means 1 in 13 naughty sites are not blocked.

Similarly, the “low levels” of overblocking (incorrectly blocking legitimate content) are, at best, still 1%. With more than a million registered domain names in Australia (a loose measure of “sites”) even a 1% false positive rate means 10,000 perfectly acceptable websites are blocked. That’s with the best product. Under ideal lab conditions. The least successful of the products tested was eight times worse.

One product only degraded Internet speeds by 2%, maybe, but it was 22% to 30% for three products, and more than 75% for two of them. That’s up to 75% off your internet speed, or your ISP having to build 75% more capacity — with the cost passed on to you.

This was, remember, in a test lab. Filters were tested against a pre-compiled list of fewer than 4000 web pages (URLs). How they handle the massive, rapidly-changing real Internet, and how that affects performance of a real ISP, are different questions.

As the report notes, ACMA wasn’t asked to look at the balance of costs and benefits for ISP-level filtering, or the implications for customers, or how easy it is to circumvent the filters (”Very easy,” some reckon).

And here’s the killer. None of the products could effectively filter instant messaging, streaming video, peer-to-peer file sharing like BitTorrent, newsgroups or newly-invented Internet protocols except by blocking them entirely. Let’s count them again. None.

As the report notes, “Where such protocols are used to carry legitimate traffic and are widely used by children for study and social interaction, ACMA regards the absence of a more targeted capability as a deficiency.” Vendors mentioned development efforts but, writes ACMA, “Such capabilities may become available in the next few years.” Yeah, maybe. Until then, kids, go for it.

Hit it, Bing! You’ve got to accentuate the positive…

And beyond Crikey…

One Crikey commenter noted that my analysis was fairly restrained. Perhaps. But I’ve written plenty about this. Filters simply will not solve the problem because they’re so easy to circumvent.

In particular, in Angry geeks: “Don’t waste money on Internet filters” six months ago I wrote:

Real-world experience in everything from spam filters to the record industry’s futile attempts to stop copyright violations always shows that filters only block casual users. Professionals, the desperate or the persistent will always get through.

However if a politician demands a filter, pretty soon a shiny-suited salesman will appear, ready to sell him a box with “filter” written on the front. It’ll work — well enough for the demo, anyway.

“Look, Minister! Nice Minister. Watch the screen. See? Filter off, bad website is visible. Filter on, bad website gone. Filter off. Child in danger. Filter on. Child happy and safe. Filter off. Voter afraid and angry. Filter on. Voter relaxed and comfortable. Cheque now please.”

It is obscene that further taxpayer’s money is being spent on the next trial when this report already shows — clearly shows — that the filters are simply not up for the job. Their false positive rate is unacceptably high. They’re useless for anything other than standard web traffic — yet non-web traffic is precisely where material of real concern is likely to be distributed.

The only people who think filters are the answer to the actual question of “keeping children safe” are those who know nothing about how the Internet works, and who want the government to do their babysitting for them.

Of course the real question the filters answer is “What do we do with Family First Senator Steve Fielding?” But that’s another story…

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• Haneef interview transcript (0 comments)
• Computerworld: Why Internet filtering will fail (0 comments)
• Will Conroy be “Cnut of the Week” yet again? (16 comments)
• Links for 28 November 2008 (1 comments)
• Australia bans another video game (0 comments)

• Dissociative Identity Disorder | Wikipedia: This is what used to be called Multiple Personality Disorder. I'm reading about it because a friend was recently so diagnosed.
• End Of Speculation: The Real Twitter Usage Numbers | TechCrunch: Michael Arrington's article begins: “Speculation about Twitter’s new round of financing is leading everyone to speculate on Twitter’s actual penetration into the “mainstream”, or lack thereof.
• Upside Down Text Generator: A silly utility for turning text upside down. Fun for all the family. ??u??p ?s?l ???? p?? ???? ?ou plno?s ?ll??? ? [OK, so it doesn't work in this cross-feed.]
• ACMA Communications Report 2006-07: The Australian communications & Media Authority's annual report to parliament. The numbers aren't as recent as they could be, but still lots of good data.
• A Visit to Beijing's Exclusive Penis Restaurant | Spiegel Online: A specialist restaurant serves painstakingly decorated gourmet meals made only from the naughty bits.
• Learning to Live Like an Early Bird | WSJ.com: Tips for turning a night person into a morning person. I'm already a morning person, but I know people who could use this…

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• Tub wan solves all world problems (0 comments)
• @KevinRuddPM isn’t really Kevin (12 comments)
• Lost control of the prices (0 comments)
• Jason Calacanis and the Evil Cult of the Internet Start-up (21 comments)
• How clean is Labor’s “clean feed” Internet? (5 comments)

The ALP’s grand vision of a “clean feed” Internet safe for Aussie kids is meant to filter out — what, exactly? Labor’s pre-election policy [PDF file] seemed to give the proposed ISP-level filters wide scope indeed, blocking content “inappropriate” or “harmful” for children — however that’s defined. But evidence given to Senate estimates last night suggests it’s little more than what’s already in place.

As I’ve written in Crikey before [1, 2] debate is clouded because sometimes people talk about Internet filtering in terms of child pornography and other very-illegal “prohibited content”, and other times it’s about material as wide-ranging as websites promoting anorexia as a lifestyle choice.

Communications minister Stephen Conroy hasn’t helped by labelling free speech advocates watchers of kiddie porn.

Last night Senator Conroy confirmed that the trial of ISP-level filtering is on schedule. The contract has been issued; the report’s due back on 30 June. But what’s actually being filtered, beyond ACMA’s existing blacklist of about 800 URLs of “prohibited content”? No-one knows. A Ms O’Loughlin from ACMA told us they “haven’t completed discussions” with the Minister’s office about that.

When repeatedly questioned by SA Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham about the scope, another ACMA staffer admitted that they’re looking at expanding the existing list to perhaps 1500 URLs.

As Senator Birmingham rightly noted, “1500 still sounds like an incredibly small number to me, given the scope of the ALP’s policy.” Indeed. It certainly doesn’t begin to cover what might be considered “inappropriate” or “harmful”.

And that’s about as deep as the probe was thrust. One has to wonder just how big an issue this really is when even Family First’s Senator Steve Fielding made only routine enquiries about the timing of the trial, and everyone else was more concerned about Telstra turning off the CDMA network.

If the (non-)reaction to the Howard government’s NetAlert program is anything to go by, perhaps no-one cares.

Conroy confirmed the weekend news that even after a $22M advertising blitz, only 144,088 taxpayer-funded filters were installed — nowhere near the target 1.4 million — and just 29,000 of them are still in use. A question from ALP Senator Ruth Webber elicited that the NetAlert call centre, still operating 8am to 10pm seven days a week, receives just 20 to 40 calls a day.

[Update 20 February 2008: This article was originally written for Crikey, who published it today under the title Labor's dream of kid-friendly internet is flawed.]

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• How to Filter the Internet in 6 Easy Steps (0 comments)
• The Marvel of Flight, at $3 a go (2 comments)
• Budget explains Internet censorship plan, a bit (7 comments)
• ABC expands on the Internet (2 comments)
• OMFG! Kevin Rudd tweeted again! (10 comments)

My observations — in between other work, so this isn’t representative:

• Senator Stephen Conroy’s little joke of re-reading the PM’s statement about pay restraint whenever anyone asked about executive salaries wore thin. Please, just have the spine to say, “No, I won’t be making a separate statement.”
• Senator Simon Birmingham wasted time asking the head of SBS questions whose answers could have easily been found on their website or in their annual report. Maybe you should organise a coffee with him or a staff member to catch up on these basics.
• Senator Eric Abetz had a detailed list of quite specific questions for Australia Post. It’s precisely this kind of forensic examination which gives Senate Estimates such importance to our democracy.
• Senator David Johnstone was… no, he gets more than a bullet point!

Senator Johnstone was angry that when the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) awarded two new community radio licenses in Perth last month, one long-running “aspirant” (license applicant) called Western Sports Media wasn’t a winner.

Apparently some cricket fans were upset. However Senator Johnstone tackled the ACMA representatives with what I thought was inappropriate aggression — particularly as he obviously wasn’t across the details. I therefore fired off an email…

Dear Senator Johnston,

I understand that it’s important for Senate committees to rigorously investigate how taxpayers’ money is spent. However I thought your tone and attitude this afternoon in questioning the ACMA representatives regarding the awarding of certain community radio licenses in WA was unnecessarily hostile — particularly as you seemed to be arguing from a position of ignorance regarding the laws and procedures for community radio licensing.

I’ve previously been Station Manager of a community radio station, and a board member of the Community Broadcasting Association of SA. I can therefore say with some confidence that this isn’t the first time that ACMA and its predecessors have faced the difficult task of choosing between a number of worthy aspirants when there’s only one permanent license to be had.

Nor is it the first time that one of the “losers” has been running test broadcasts for some time. In the early days of what was then the Australian Broadcasting Authority, some aspirants had been broadcasting on temporary licenses for years — but temporary they were.

I can also say that since I haven’t read the details of this decision, I have no idea what the strengths and weaknesses of the various applicants were. And neither do you.

The two “winners”, an indigenous broadcaster and one targeting the ageing population, seem valid enough in terms of the communities served. But, as I say, neither you nor I have actually read the decision.

I am appalled that you waved the word “cricket” as if such self-indulgent activities as sport are automatically deserving of the limited broadcast spectrum.

If, as you claim, there were 16 thousand letters of complaint from the cricket fans, then this would surely represent a commercially viable radio audience. Perhaps your noisy cricket fans who formerly listened to Western Sports Media’s temporary broadcasts could put their case to a commercial broadcaster, or one of the licensed community broadcasters — or even use the Internet to stream sound and vision of their favourite game, just as I’ve been watching your performance this afternoon.

If there was a fault in ACMA’s decision as a matter of law or procedure, then by all means go your hardest. I’d then congratulate you for doing what the Senate does best. But until you’ve established the facts of the case, I’d have thought that common decency and good manners would require you to treat ACMA’s representatives politely and with respect.

Regards,

Stilgherrian

Naturally I will publish any response I receive.

[Update: Here's a great example of how numbers get twisted. According to Western Sports Media's website, they received a total of 16,000 "emails and letters of support" across 6 weeks as part of their license application. While that certainly shows a significant level of community support, it's certainly not the same thing as "16 thousand complaints" at not winning.]

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• So many Cnuts to choose from! (8 comments)
• Links for 28 October 2008 through 31 October 2008 (0 comments)
• Internet filters hit test stage (1 comments)
• Appearing on 2SER’s “Diffusion” (1 comments)
• And this week’s Cnut is…? (10 comments)