The Great Australian Firewall

[JamesK]

I know this is a Skyline Forum but if you're an internet user and Australian this applies to you:

I don't know how many people are aware of this but the Rudd Government is trying to introduce what has now been coined as "The Great Australian Firewall" being an IT student I've been following the development of this proposal from the very beginning. At first I felt it was like a joke there was no way the Australian people would allow for something like this to happen but the plan is making significant progress and trial runs maybe already running on YOUR ISP. Let me explain this to you if you're kind of thinking to yourself what the hell are you on about? The Great Australian Firewall is a virtual wall which filters all information being sent you computer which you're on right now to the outside world. This means all content you view, articles your read, videos you watch must be pre-approved by the Government before you can actually view it. You might be thinking GREAT finally were putting a stop to those sick bastards who are uploading unacceptable content to the web what's your problem? Well my problem is (and so is most of anyone who knows how these things works) is that it's not perfect; actually to be honest it's far from it.

The pro's of the filter:

1. Stops SOME unacceptable content from being viewed

2. ....it actually ends there

The con's of the filter:

1. It's easily bypassed, most methods which will bypass the firewall are already being used by the people who do these sorts of things anyway (Methods such as, proxies, Virtual Personal Networks, and P2P, which is completely unregulated and is where the majority of "unacceptable" content is being shared)

2. It WILL slow the internet down. The speed of your internet is subjective to many factors, a few being the distance between you and your destination, you don't realize how far a single request packet has to travel before it will reach the destination you intended it too. If you want a very basic example then open your command prompt and type "Tracert www.google.com" this will tell you how many servers your request packet will travel through before it reaches Google's server to send you their homepage. You might be thinking 3 maybe 4 servers? Your exchange, your ISP, then to Google right? Well at my current setup (which is in Hong Kong and is considered to have "Fast Internet") I have a minimum of 8 hops, you might be thinking so what's 1 more? The problem with adding the filter is that ALL content going in and out of computer in Australia will be going through that 1 hop (the filter) any IT knowledgeable user will tell you that the amount of requests that the server will have to handle is horrendous and has the potential to slow the internet down to a crawl...and think about it...what happens if that filter fails?....no internet....

3. Initial costs are estimated around $50 Million...where did you think that money came from? That's YOUR money...and that's not including the millions that it's going to take to sustain the program

4. It doesn't block everything & it already has a list of 10,000 websites one of which is UK's Internet Watch Foundation, a charity foundation which have the same goals as The Great Australian Firewall...okkk

Look I know this post is biased an might be removed by a MOD but if this goes through it effects you directly I don't intend for this to start a moral argument on these forums, your position on this matter is completely your own personal opinion and some of this is mine, but if you want to share it I am willing to read it. I'd love a filter which would properly stop unacceptable content and deter people from abusing the internet in that manner, however I do feel that the internet is one of the last places which is regulated almost solely by it's users, I believe of freedom of speech. I just wanted to make everyone aware of what going on if you haven't heard about it already and spread awareness on the subject

I recommend watching this video

I just found this video it is very cynical but actually address the points very well

[madbung]

Sadly James we the "people" don't make or pass policies, the people that were voted in by the masses do.

Yay democracy...

if we had a say on every issue nothing would get done.

Yes it's a crap idea and a waste of money so are so many other even more expensive farces from the past, present and without a doubt future.

Another liberty, not removed but controlled. Being a recognised part of today's media this is a big deal (control) to any government.

Mmmmm the sweet smell of propaganda and lies.

You could always write to your local M.P...result??

A jaded idealist.

[bluejeans]

yeah

whoever thought a government would f**k us over?!

[MYRB30]

This Rudd gov't makes me furious. I know I shouldn't be plitical like this, but K.Rudd has taxed us on booze, blown the budget (no more tax cuts for many years people) and various other issues.

KNOW, LISTEN UP! Remember all the hoo haa about the Chinese governement controlling access to the internet during the Olympics??????

OUR hypocritcal government is planning to do the same!!! AFAIK it is being trialled by some ISP's now.

As the first post stated this WILL AFFECT YOU, with slower net speeds, cost (ISP's gotta pay and comply with this rot) and potentially block you from sites you may need.

The idea has merit, but is impossible to implement properly and fairly.

[some_cs_student]

Professional associations such as the ACS will lobby against this policy, most likely APESMA will assist, and there are various other IT professionals who think the entire scheme is a big joke.

It will unfortunately take the government a while to work this out, I'd be very disappointed if it actually got beyond the trial stage.

[JamesK]

Professional associations such as the ACS will lobby against this policy, most likely APESMA will assist, and there are various other IT professionals who think the entire scheme is a big joke.

It will unfortunately take the government a while to work this out, I'd be very disappointed if it actually got beyond the trial stage.

Dude, I'm disappointed it got approved for trials, I'm even more dissapointed in the ISP's who are supporting the trials

[madbung]

If you want to play in telecommunications or broadcasting it's good business sense to have a good working relationship with whoever grants such licences.

Lobby groups will try and cry, but without solid legal rationale and a good liberal judge....

Can it be argued that the filter will limit our liberty-freedom of speech and expression? Well no if it's illegal ie: kiddy porn, hate sites racism ect the law already states you can't-shouldn't do it.

Cyber policing is hard to impossible, is this a lazy fat cyber cop and nothing else?

Reduced service? A lot content is pulled from local proxy servers anyway the rest may have a 100th or 2 increase in request time. Other than that down and up should be the same.

Mmm hasn't it already been limited in so many other ways using the law to do so?

Got leverage?

Federal Govt does.

[fuzzy_scuz]

So this will just block web content, they aren't even going to use it to block SPAM in email?

What waste, whate an half hearted attempt to fix a problem they have no idea about.

IInet is being taken to court for their users sharing MP3's and IInet was trialing this block/filter and the users know already how to get around it. where is the protection for the ISP and incentive to comply when you can be sued still?

[paulr33]

hello

having managed and worked in a large isp in australia and knowing how everything works i will say without a doubt, this is unlikely and will not occur

it is unfeasiable to filter the whole countries internet traffic and have it bulletproof. if you want to capture the average kid trying to view porn then yeah it might work

but if they want to get in/out they will via another network or another system etc. the typical systems that are shown on today tonight where some kid bypasses a content system

are typically local junk systems that usually just involve a reg key, file hack, system hack or some sort of local exploit to get around it. the blocks, if they wish to try them should be on the network layer and not local systems if they are serious about it.

the platform they use needs to do content level inspection not just looking at URLs or ip ranges

they change daily and spammers/scammers/porn etc all know this and change networks often to hide around lists, filters etc

but even content filters can't get %100 as they use different enconding, use garbled text for content and so on, so it would never be %100

installing big filter platforms i dont see as being useful, i think some ownus should come down to the parents supervision and how their children viewing the content. ie you wouldnt let your kids roam wild in the porn section of a dvd hire shop. points 1,2,3,4 are all rubbish points. if the government wants it, they will make it legislation and provide funding (they will have to). the notes about # of hops is pointless. the type of hardware and network switching is unlikely to slow it down but it will come at a big cost to the isps' which they wont be happy with

[some_cs_student]

Lobby groups will try and cry, but without solid legal rationale and a good liberal judge....

Can it be argued that the filter will limit our liberty-freedom of speech and expression? Well no if it's illegal ie: kiddy porn, hate sites racism ect the law already states you can't-shouldn't do it.

Child porn is wrong and I'd be happy to see it blocked, but its not feasible with current filtering technology, and those who are testing out this solution already have a few ways to work around the filters anyway.

Reduced service? A lot content is pulled from local proxy servers anyway the rest may have a 100th or 2 increase in request time. Other than that down and up should be the same.

Mmm hasn't it already been limited in so many other ways using the law to do so?

I disagree, content level filtering is *complex* they can't use a simpler content filtering software as they're too easy to work around, and anything that needs to scan every piece of data going through the ISP (or a large chunk of it) will cause a significant impact to traffic, and it will mean a lot of $$$ to be spent by your average ISP.

Anyway, I'd rather not argue on here, there is plenty of information online about this system and why it will not work.

paulr33, thanks for the interesting comments

Oh, professional groups have leverage, just not much

[Mayuri Krab]

The latest news from Stephen Conroy is that the live trial of the filter has being delayed to some time mid Jan next year (was suppose to start before Xmas).

Conroy also mentioned that they are thinking of putting p2p filtering into the filter.

The fact that Conroy suddenly mentioned p2p into the filter & he specifically mentioned Bit Torrent is a pretty good indication to me that one of the main master mind behind the filter idea is the media & copyright lobby groups. All that "Protecting the children" speech from Conroy was just for press release.

So far iinet & oputs have confirmed that they will be taking part in the live trials, if it ever gets started...

I've started a thread on this topic & have posted a bunch of links in relation to the issue.

thread link (check the last few pages for info regarding to the filter)

Edited December 30, 2008 by Mayuri Krab

[omega36]

This is the biggest joke ever. What a stupid thing to even attempt to implement. The overhead and cost and waste of time of is, is something that really pisses me off.

Either way, it's something so easy to bypass anyway. Idiots

[madbung]

Child porn is wrong and I'd be happy to see it blocked, but its not feasible with current filtering technology, and those who are testing out this solution already have a few ways to work around the filters anyway.

I disagree, content level filtering is *complex* they can't use a simpler content filtering software as they're too easy to work around, and anything that needs to scan every piece of data going through the ISP (or a large chunk of it) will cause a significant impact to traffic, and it will mean a lot of $$$ to be spent by your average ISP.

Lol on both counts I was referring to the laws already in place and enforced, ie: you do it, you get caught, you pay the penalty...Nothing re: filters

Here I'm asking what would their legal argument be to stop said "wall of fire"? and hypothesis to a point I believe there is none.

Lobby groups will try and cry, but without solid legal rationale and a good liberal judge....

Can it be argued that the filter will limit our liberty-freedom of speech and expression? Well no if it's illegal ie: kiddy porn, hate sites racism ect the law already states you can't-shouldn't do it.

Reduced service? A lot content is pulled from local proxy servers anyway the rest may have a 100th or 2 increase in request time. Other than that down and up should be the same.

Mmm hasn't it already been limited in so many other ways using the law to do so?

Here I'm drawing on my own past knowledge as the M.D/owner of an isp who has also done several start-ups for other isp ranging from the days of dialup to broadband/satellite, I understand you think it's "complex" and that's ok.

Firewalls generally involve proxy servers running filtering software, this isn't just some software filter they're talking about, the proxy (firewall) should run in stage before it hit's the isp. In other words every data cable in the land goes to the proxy. With content being stored closer to home it may actually speed most things up.. I personally don't like the potential for govt based propaganda filtering, but other than that..meh

Go and have a crack at your local linux nuts firewall and see how you go.

Gareth, I don't mind discussing issues with whoever, but please do me the courtesy of reading through what I write a few times before responding, Cheers.

Edited December 30, 2008 by madbung

[paulr33]

yeah i guess there is a few angles from their main intentions

one i think is on content and the other is on piracy of copyrighted material

block out bad stuff

block out pirated stuff

block out material not suitable for kids

and when they talk about filtering content what extent do we go to?

should we start filtering the local sun newspaper as it contains photos of young models with their cans out (in the fashion section)

should we filter articles about murders and drug related incidents from kids

should we ban the humble photocopier at your libary as it allows you to "copy" a copyrighted document

these all, to me at least, come under supervision of your kids or "teenagers"

i mean, if you take your kids to the video shop (like i said before) you dont let them run wild in the porn section

you don't show them the picture magazines in the newsagency as you know they are offensive etc so you protect

it just seems its much easier to become lazy and blame the government when it comes to the internet

having seen and managed the network side everything and anything can be blocked / filtered

p2p, encrypted p2p, and so on

all they are asking can be done by the ISP, if they are forced to, but none will out of sheer kindness or for fun

it will cost them hefty $ bills and time / resources to set it up, manage it, support it etc so they wont accept it blindingly

[madbung]

Good post Paul, the supervision side of things is a bit contentious. If a crime has been committed by a minor who's to blame, who gets the punishment-penalty? A bad parent could do all sorts of illegal activity online and blame the child ect.

I can see the pirates going arrrrrgh!! over this, I see their point, but legally there is no point.

The country is full of inadequate parents, we also have some fairly sick individuals with no morals or self control.

Then there's fraud, phishers, bomb building sites ect

I'm undecided in many respects, but on the other hand as long as my rights as an individual are not affected....

Fact is some people need moral guidance, taking away certain temptation can only be a good thing.

I trust myself to do the right thing, you may also trust yourself...But can you trust everyone else?

Edited December 30, 2008 by madbung

[_Ryan_]

OSX has great parental controls, i dont know if windows does, but it isnt hard to turn it on.

[madbung]

I don't think the issue is parental control Ryan, that solves a small part of what they intend to tackle.

Kids are one thing but controlling the parents is a larger problem I think.

Not many perverse or criminal children around, most of what kids do is out of natural curiosity.

[_Ryan_]

I don't think the issue is parental control Ryan, that solves a small part of what they intend to tackle.

Kids are one thing but controlling the parents is a larger problem I think.

Not many perverse or criminal children around, most of what kids do is out of natural curiosity.

I shouldnt half-post when I have only just woken up haha. I still can't work out what i was trying to say

[DogKnight]

I disagree with the filter. Nuff said.

[Mayuri Krab]

Latest article on this issue (link), taken from whirlpool.

Some good points raised in there.