5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• Is Internet filtering inevitable? (0 comments)
• “Let’s just write that down…” (1 comments)
• Did the PM’s office edit out “Captain Smirk”? (0 comments)
• Top story on Internet filtering (0 comments)
• Crikey: Internet filters a success, if success = failure (10 comments)

[This week journalists arriving in Beijing for the Olympic Games discovered that the IOC had cut a deal with the Chinese government so that their Internet connection was censored. Crikey commissioned this article, which was first published yesterday. I've added further linkage at the end.]

China’s “Great Firewall” (GFW), officially the Golden Shield Project (金盾工程) of the Ministry of Public Security, is both clever and stupid, subtle and blunt.

As with any Internet filtering system, there’s only two methods to block bad stuff: keep a list of “bad sites” and prevent access, or look at the content live and figure out whether it’s good or bad on the fly. GFW uses both.

Al Gore was mocked for calling the Internet the “Information Superhighway”, but the analogy works. Like the road network, a maze of suburban streets leads to relatively few freeways, all administered by a myriad of local authorities.

When your computer requests a website, imagine a truck driving out your front gate. The driver knows the site’s name but not how to get there. Normally, you’ll get directions.

“Amnesty International? Sure, that’s 78.136.0.19,” says the domain name system (DNS).

“78.136.0.19? Go via Telstra, ask again once you’re in San Jose,” says your ISP’s router. In SJ, you’re told to go to New York and so on to Amnesty’s London office.

In China, though, your driver only gets blank looks.

“Amnesty? Never heard of it.”

“78.136.0.19? No, no such place.”

With relatively few links connecting China to the world, 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 only Amnesty, but everyone in that office tower.

The GFW also looks at content, and here’s the true subtlety.

Researchers at the ConceptDoppler project have found that it can disrupt Internet traffic within China that even mentions touchy subjects. Imagine your truck encountering random checkpoints. If it contains banned concepts like “news blackout” (新闻封) or “gerontocracy” (老人政治) your delivery is simply burned, never to be seen again.

ConceptDoppler says the banned words still get through 28% of the time, and the blocking can’t keep up with heavy Internet traffic. But even partial blocking encourages self-censorship through the perception that you’re being watched. Perhaps that’s even more effective because it discourages offline conversation too.

Getting around GFW is easy enough for geeks — though perhaps beyond the skills of average Internet users like sports journalists. Wikipedia lists the techniques, and Reporters Without Borders has a handbook.

Using proxies is like first sending your truck to a benign destination so it gets those helpful directions. Once there, the package is opened and the secret instructions inside forward your message to the real destination. To avoid content filtering, just speak in code. Learn to say “duck-breeding club”” rather than “student dissident meeting”.

Further Reading

I gathered these links during my research for this story:

1. The Connection Has Been Reset: China’s Great Firewall is crude, slapdash, and surprisingly easy to breach (Atlantic Monthly).
2. China’s All-Seeing Eye, Naomi Klein (Rolling Stone).
3. Empirical Analysis of Internet Filtering in China, from Harvard Law School.
4. Real-time test to see if your website is currently being blocked by the Great Firewall of China.
5. Behind the Great Firewall, Net Nannies work overtime for companies, suggests self-censorship more the norm.
6. fuzheado’s ongoing Great Firewall coverage on Twitter.

And a Crikey commenter called Justin added these, none of which I’ve checked out personally.

1. HOWTO bypass Internet Censorship, a tutorial on getting around filters and blocked ports
2. Proxy.org — The Proxy Authority
3. Vtunnel.com is here to help you beat internet filtering!
4. Ninja Proxy | Fast, free, anonymous web browsing with NinjaProxy.com
5. Your Freedom
6. Free Proxies: Freeproxies.org hosts the best cgi proxy servers on the web, for free.
7. Free Anonymous Surfing, Free Surfing through a Proxy (thefreecountry.com)
8. Stunnel.org

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• BitTorrent vs the Supreme Court of Victoria (6 comments)
• Budget explains Internet censorship plan, a bit (7 comments)
• Twitter flattened by China earthquake, indirectly (not) (0 comments)
• Petitions to parliament drove ALP’s Internet filtering policy (3 comments)
• Covering the Federal Budget for Crikey (5 comments)

• Empirical Analysis of Internet Filtering in China | Harvard Law School: An analysis of China's Great Firewall which concludes that the blocking systems are becoming more refined even as they are likely more labor- and technology-intensive to maintain than cruder predecessors.
• Handbook for bloggers and cyber-dissidents | Reporters sans frontières: Tips and technical advice on how to to remain anonymous and to get round censorship, by choosing the most suitable method for each situation.
• Journalism.me - The journalism blogosphere: An aggregation of journalists who blog (mostly) about journalism.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• Defining “citizen journalism” (18 comments)
• Internet filters hit test stage (1 comments)
• No evidence that porn causes harm (6 comments)
• Top story on Internet filtering (0 comments)
• China: Giant Contradictions (2 comments)

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• US newspapers pull “offensive” cartoon (0 comments)
• Exhausted by the Future of Media (0 comments)
• Stilgherrian Live Alpha: episode 1 tonight! (3 comments)
• How clean is Labor’s “clean feed” Internet? (5 comments)
• Note to “old media” journalists: adapt, or stfu! (41 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

• 2 Web Crew podcast finally online (0 comments)
• Conroy has the Internet filtering report… do we? (3 comments)
• Immobilised by Apple’s MobileMe (3 comments)
• Australia bans another video game (0 comments)
• Links for 22 June 2008 through 24 June 2008 (0 comments)

A spokesman for the minister, Senator Stephen Conroy, confirmed that saying, “I can confirm that the Australian Communications and Media Authority has provided the Minister with a report on its trial of internet filtering technologies. The Government will consider the report and comment in due course.”

So, will the report be released?

Yesterday I suggested, “It’s a govt report. If results are what’s needed politically, we’ll get a summary. If not, we’ll never hear anything again… This is called responsible government, and what Kevin Rudd thinks is a new era of transparency and evidence-based policy. Bah!”

That is all… for now.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• The Golden Age of the Iced Vovo (12 comments)
• Corey Delaney’s Other Party (1 comments)
• The Perils of Smoking (1 comments)
• Angry geeks: “Don’t waste money on internet filters” (8 comments)
• Australia 2020: The Disillusionment (1 comments)

• Social networking comes of age, sort of | MISaustralia.com: Renai LeMay’s article for the Australian Financial Review, based on material gathered at PubCamp.
• IT List | Skippy’s List: “42 Things That I Am No Longer Allowed To Do in IT”, beginning with “1 Not allowed to randomly rickroll users upon login to the application”. Somewhat amusing.
• Seven dirty words | Wikipedia: The seven English words comedian George Carlin listed in his monologue “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television”, and a history of the furore this routine started.
• 7 things you can’t say on the Internet | evolvingWe: Following comedian George Carlin’s death, Josh Legard compiled this list. Read it, digest it, help prevent groupthink.
• La Boheme - Restaurant Reviews | smh.com.au: I’m told we should go to this restaurant some time. Gotta love a review which starts, “Those of us who fancy a bit of porcine action…”.
• Direct Note Access :: celemony_: Peter Neubäcker’s new Melodyne version 2 software can identify and edit individual notes within polyphonic audio material. This is extremely cool, and extremely important.
• Top 500 supercomputers: Welcome to the petaflop generation | NetworkWorld.com Community: Welcome to the petaflop generation. The new most powerful supercomputer in the world is IBM’s US$100 million Roadrunner system at the Department of Energy’s Los Alamos National Laboratory.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• Oh, I’m a heavy user of Twitter (1 comments)
• Sweet, sweet sarcasm (0 comments)
• Those magick child porn filters… (6 comments)
• Govt Internet filtering plan “quarter-baked, at best” (0 comments)
• Impromptu Stilgherrian Live Alpha (0 comments)

As Michael Meloni says over at Somebody Think of the Children:

When you consider people like Anthony Pillion, manager of filtered Australian ISP Webshield, and Child Wise CEO Bernadette McMenamin are on board, the odds of mandatory filtering being found a good solution are disappointingly high.

Pillion has a business interest and for McMenamin the gesture alone of protecting children is better then doing nothing, even if it has no chance of working. Here’s part of her letter to Stilgherrian:

If filtering of child pornography cannot work then why is there so much anger, fear and resentment to any attempt to block child pornography and other illegal sites?

[...]

Thankfully, the group does contain at least two people opposed to mandatory filtering: Sue Hutley from the Australian Library and Information Association (who asked Conroy questions about his plan that we all want answered and is opposed to filtering in public libraries) and Peter Coroneos from the IIA.

I’ve written plenty about censorship before. so while I’m busy at CeBIT’s Transaction 2.0 today, feel free to discuss this amongst yourselves. Play nice. I’ll ponder it in more detail later.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• Budget explains Internet censorship plan, a bit (7 comments)
• Petitions to parliament drove ALP’s Internet filtering policy (3 comments)
• Internet filters hit test stage (1 comments)
• Computerworld: Why Internet filtering will fail (0 comments)
• Bernadette McMenamin’s logical fallacies (0 comments)

Internet lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) has expressed “disappointment” at the government’s decision to fund the “clean feed” Internet plan in this week’s budget. They’ve also launched a campaign website at nocleanfeed.com.

“At a time when the Government is cutting services to fight inflation, it’s bewildering that they would decide to spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on a filter before feasibility trials are even complete,” said EFA spokesman Colin Jacobs…

“Australians are very uncomfortable with the idea of having the Government decide what’s appropriate for them and their families,” said Jacobs. “In fact, in a survey of 18,000 Internet users, only 13% agreed
with the policy. That’s why we feel it is a shame, when the Government has identified real needs for better education and policing, that their approach to Internet policy is so skewed towards the filter initiative. There are greater risks to Australian children online, and real steps can be taken to mitigate these risks. That’s where the funding should be going.”

Unfortunately EFA made a fundamental mistake which could allow critics to dismiss their arguments. They talk about the Cyber-safety Plan costing $24.3m this financial year and rising to $51.4m next. However only part of this is for Internet filtering. There’s also things which critics could say EFA would support: AFP investigations and plenty of education programs.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• NetAlert faces Senate Estimates Committee today (3 comments)
• Mark Pesce on Internet filtering (3 comments)
• No evidence that porn causes harm (6 comments)
• Silly Internet filtering (3 comments)
• Those magick child porn filters… (6 comments)

Budget Paper No. 2 says there’ll be “a range of initiatives to combat online threats and protect children from inappropriate material on the internet.” There will be ISP-level filtering of “an expanded Australian Communications and Media Authority blacklist” — which presumably means the already-illegal material such as child pornography — plus an “examination of options to allow families to exclude other unwanted content”.

To me, this implies that families will be in control of their Internet filtering, and it’ll be opt-in. As it should be. Presumably this will become clearer once the “options” are “examined”.

The plan includes other measures “such as”:

• an education program for teachers and the community
• a Youth Advisory Group to assist the Government to formulate age-appropriate measures to
  protect children
• an expanded Consultative Working Group focussed on cyber-safety issues,
• a dedicated website for children
• research projects on cyber-safety issues

ISPs will get a one-off subsidy in 2009-10 to install the filters, with funding in following years only for new providers. The Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions continue to get their funding to combat child sexual exploitation. Again, as they should.

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• Arrest of “teen party host” highlights stupidity of law (15 comments)
• Passive-aggressive bullshit (3 comments)
• US newspapers pull “offensive” cartoon (0 comments)
• Facebook bans breastfeeding photos (4 comments)
• Coonan vs Conroy: preparing for battle (8 comments)

Joy (I think). I’m part of Crikey’s commentary team for Australia’s 2008 Federal Budget to be announced tonight at 7.30pm Sydney time. It’s the first budget for Chairman Rudd’s Labor government, and the first for treasurer Wayne Swan, so it’s bound to interesting.

My role — at least as I understand it, ‘cos I haven’t actually spoken with my editor yet — is to look at it from a geek perspective. That’ll include, I imagine, issues I’ve previously covered for Crikey: Internet censorship, the ABC’s move into Internet TV, social media, the national broadband network…

But what else should I look out for?

When I asked on the Link mailing list, here’s a partial list of the suggestions I got:

• Functional separation of Telstra into wholesale / retail / pay TV entities.
• The laptops for schools program — what hardware? networking? training? maintenance?
• Copyrights & patents, including government-funded enforcement of music copyrights — something the music industry has been lobbying for.
• Assistance for IT startups, both hardware and software.

I’m also wondering just how forward-looking the budget will be. The brain cells are already firing. What can you add to the list?

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• The Golden Age of the Iced Vovo (12 comments)
• Oops, there goes privacy! So now what? (2 comments)
• World Map of Social Networks (0 comments)
• Govt Internet filtering plan “quarter-baked, at best” (0 comments)
• Why the porn filter don’t work, by the guy what did it (2 comments)

What does “family friendly” mean? Merlin Mann, who writes at 43 Folders, explains it well: “I don’t mind people saying something is ‘not appropriate for kids,’ but declaring it’s not ‘family friendly’ is passive-aggressive bullshit. Almost anything can be ‘family friendly’ if your family is awesome and you’re not a normative dick.”

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• Silly Internet filtering (3 comments)
• Episode 7 online (1 comments)
• Links for 22 June 2008 through 24 June 2008 (0 comments)
• Australia bans another video game (0 comments)
• Petitions to parliament drove ALP’s Internet filtering policy (3 comments)

[T]he common stereotypes are wrong: unsurprisingly, given that pornography users make up about a third of Australian adults, they are fairly representative of the broader population, with the major exception being that fewer than one in five of the respondents were women…

Detailed analysis of the most popular Australian DVD titles shows that, even with broad definitions, fewer than 2% of scenes have any kind of violence. The total ban on violence in the Australian X-rated category seems to have worked. Another finding was that “pornography does not really objectify women more than men… On some measures, men are the more active sexual subjects… on others, it’s the women.” The Internet is a lot more diverse, but despite extensive efforts the authors managed to find not a single site with actual rape photographs, and only a handful of sites with faked ones.

There is no evidence that pornography causes harm to its users: the studies that suggest this have involved pushing pornography on non-users in artificial laboratory experiments. In contrast, there has been almost no attempts to study the beneficial effects of pornography, even though consumers overwhelmingly report positive effects…

Part 2 of the book covers issues such as censorship, and notes:

“Protecting the children” has been a rallying call for censorship for a long time. It turns out that actual child pornography — the police prefer to call it “child abuse material” — is extremely hard to find. And evidence-based education has to be central to protecting children from harm, whether from cyberstalking or contact with material they will find disturbing.

Essential reading, I’d have thought, for anyone wanting to discuss censorship of the Internet, eh Senator Conroy?

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• It’s still bestiality if the dog is dead (0 comments)
• Royal Navy’s first ever gay sex (23 comments)
• Internet filters hit test stage (1 comments)
• Big Strong Daddy pulls rabbit from hat (0 comments)
• Budget explains Internet censorship plan, a bit (7 comments)

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• NetAlert filter is crap, as expected (1 comments)
• The Great Firewall of China: how it works, how to bypass it (9 comments)
• No evidence that porn causes harm (6 comments)
• Conroy has the Internet filtering report… do we? (3 comments)
• Facebook bans breastfeeding photos (4 comments)

[Update 7 March: A video of The 7.30 Report story is now online courtesy of somebodythinkofthechildren.com.]

5 Random Semi-Related Posts

• EFA: money “wasted” on Internet filtering (1 comments)
• Conroy still not giving details of Internet filters (1 comments)
• Top story on Internet filtering (0 comments)
• Links for 26 May 2008 through 01 June 2008 (0 comments)
• NetAlert faces Senate Estimates Committee today (3 comments)