Government Content Filtering Trial

Open discussion regarding technological or telecommunication issues
jokiin
Volunteer Site Admin
Posts: 2970
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Government Content Filtering Trial

Post by jokiin » Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:53 am

LordS wrote:
jok11n wrote:
CrackerJak wrote: Think of how many people are going to reduce their plans as a result of the filter.
Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate?
Pretty simple really.

Exetel is an ISP who survives by taking on large downloaders (as you's offer great quota for $)

If people become paranoid of whats being monitored they'll drop back their plans to lower ones or swap to ISP's that offer lower plans cheaper.
I think you'll find the large downloaders represent a small segment of users

LordS
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Government Content Filtering Trial

Post by LordS » Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:58 am

anyone that uses the 48GB of available off peak has questionable usage.

I myself have a big family and unfortunately they are fond of youtube and myspace video =/

AFACT could just as easily start the same case against Exetel based upon 'The ISP may not benefit financially from piracy.'

If users no longer feel safe online they either

A) Stop pirating (therefore reducing their plans or swapping ISP's)
B) Swap to encrypted paid for service ( If they're on a budget they wont be able to afford their current usage plan + the service and will no doubt reduce plans/swap ISP's anyway)

CoreyPlover
Volunteer Site Admin
Posts: 5922
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:24 pm
Location: Melbourne, VIC

Re: Government Content Filtering Trial

Post by CoreyPlover » Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:43 am

LordS wrote:Exetel is an ISP who survives by taking on large downloaders (as you's offer great quota for $)

If people become paranoid of whats being monitored they'll drop back their plans to lower ones or swap to ISP's that offer lower plans cheaper.
I think your logic is flawed LordS.

1. In the majority, Exetel's users are not heavy downloaders and do not approach the 48Gb of off-peak quota
2. The Government Content Filtering has nothing to do with monitoring. It has to do with preventing access to web sites that the Government nominate. It does not even attempt to curb or monitor actual traffic, whether that be bittorrent, Usenet, etc.

LordS
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Government Content Filtering Trial

Post by LordS » Mon Nov 24, 2008 11:54 am

$5 says 3/4 of publicly known torrent sites will be part of this block list.

vk3xem
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:45 pm
Location: HEALESVILLE
Contact:

Re: Government Content Filtering Trial

Post by vk3xem » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:28 pm

LordS wrote:$5 says 3/4 of publicly known torrent sites will be part of this block list.
What would that have to do with 'monitoring' traffic? Many of those publicly known torrent sites probably should be blocked because of the viruses and malware they infect their user base with. My guess is they are the likely culprits that that turn many computers into botnets that spew out spam or enable DOS attacks.

I not a big fan of mandatory filtering either, I can't even see how it can be effectively implemented or maintained but I trust Exetel to attempt to do the best for it's customers in this matter. I would prefer the Government sort out the National Broadband Network first, but it appears they don't have the balls to stand up to Tel$tra, Sol and his Mexican !@#$ bandits so I doubt that will happen.
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM

CrackerJak
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:03 am
Location: NSW

Re: Government Content Filtering Trial

Post by CrackerJak » Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:51 am

jok11n wrote:
CrackerJak wrote: Think of how many people are going to reduce their plans as a result of the filter.
Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate?
Blocking access to torrent trackers and news group servers will be essential if the government is serious about content filtering, it might not happen at first but there are quite a few countries now blocking access to sites like the pirate bay.

Without the ability to download and share via p2p or newsgroups large quota plans will be useless to people unwilling to pay extra costs to avoid censorship.

How could you censor p2p and newsgroups without completely blocking off access?

LordS
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Government Content Filtering Trial

Post by LordS » Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:05 am

CrackerJak wrote:
jok11n wrote:
CrackerJak wrote: Think of how many people are going to reduce their plans as a result of the filter.
Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate?
Blocking access to torrent trackers and news group servers will be essential if the government is serious about content filtering, it might not happen at first but there are quite a few countries now blocking access to sites like the pirate bay.

Without the ability to download and share via p2p or newsgroups large quota plans will be useless to people unwilling to pay extra costs to avoid censorship.

How could you censor p2p and newsgroups without completely blocking off access?
I'm glad someone can say exactly what I was tihnking in a logical and smart manner :P

karLos
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:28 pm
Location: Stanmore, NSW
Contact:

Re: Government Content Filtering Trial

Post by karLos » Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:14 am

CoreyPlover wrote: 2. The Government Content Filtering has nothing to do with monitoring....
small mercies, perhaps. it's still a step in the wrong direction, imo.
CrackerJak wrote: How could you censor p2p and newsgroups without completely blocking off access?
you can't. however i don't think the government is worried about actually doing it properly or effectively. the aspirational idiots that buy into the government's half baked idiotplan aren't big users of either p2p, usenet, or perhaps even the internet. since governments are only interested in *appearing* to be addressing problems, i doubt if this comes into effect it will block much. it's the idea of the government imposing itself on everyone's interwebs to target an unbelievably microscopic minority of users that gets me.

flak
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:17 am

Re: Government Content Filtering Trial

Post by flak » Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:25 pm

karLos wrote:it's the idea of the government imposing itself on everyone's interwebs to target an unbelievably microscopic minority of users that gets me.
Unfortunately so many things in today's society are driven by either the vocal minority or the lowest common denominator. Everyone must suffer so that:

1. a few moralistic do-gooders can go to bed feeling they have saved us from ourselves
2. people who don't know the difference between right and wrong are deprived of one avenue of satisfaction, they will soon find a replacement though.

Instead of blocking illegal sites, why doesn't the government focus on monitoring and infiltrating them? This would enable them to take the bad people down, rather than pushing them underground.

With regards to the optional filtering of adult material, what ever happened to parental responsibility? I remember the last time my wife's uncle invited us over for a BBQ lunch (this only happens when he has a computer problem). His 19 year old son was using the family's PC to access p0rn, resulting in rather explicit pop-ups coming up when the 8 and 5 year old daughters were browsing the Dora the Explorer site. He asked me how he could prevent this happening. My answer was to move the PC into a public area and advise his son that he shouldn't be accessing p0rn on the family computer. If he wanted to access p0rn, he could buy his own PC (he was an adult after all). This was not acceptable, as it involved some form of parental responsibility.

We haven't been invited over since, but we do have a Christmas Day invite this year, I wonder what's wrong now?

jabez
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:24 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Government Content Filtering Trial

Post by jabez » Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:30 pm

ForumAdmin wrote:Alternatively we won't participate if there is any cost or we believe any traffic will be slowed down.

Hi, I know that the government has 'postponed' the trial, but has Exetel been invited to take part or decided to take part?

Many Thanks

CoreyPlover
Volunteer Site Admin
Posts: 5922
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:24 pm
Location: Melbourne, VIC

Re: Government Content Filtering Trial

Post by CoreyPlover » Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:13 pm

jabez wrote:Hi, I know that the government has 'postponed' the trial, but has Exetel been invited to take part or decided to take part?
To my knowledge it was an open invitation to ISPs to participate but Exetel has not committed to the live trials in the same manner that, say, iiNet and Optus, have.

Previous posts by ForumAdmin (http://forum.exetel.com.au/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p226180 & http://forum.exetel.com.au/viewtopic.ph ... 22#p226322) indicated that Exetel's involvement would be limited to demonstrate an alternative filtering technique outlined in http://steve.blogs.exetel.com.au/index. ... ntent.html. Such a demonstration would achieve a blacklist ban on nominated web sites without any notable slow down to end users.

Edit: Additional post by Steve can be found here: http://steve.blogs.exetel.com.au/index. ... speak.html.:
Here is the germane part of my response to the pilot request. My goals being twofold:
1. Point out the waste of the whole exercise
2. Should the whole waste of time exercise go ahead, demonstrate that it can be done (pointless as it is) at minimal cost.

Post Reply