Re: 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: Content Filtering Trial

Post by jokiin » Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:34 pm

WhitePhoenix wrote:Personally feel disgusted that this trial is being carried out without users being given the option to opt out. I oppose the internet filter for ethical reasons more than technical ones. When I move house in the next few months, Exetel's participation in the trial will weigh heavily on my decision as to whether or not I change service provider.
are you aware that Exetel are not participating in a trial, they have been strongly against filtering from the outset, this is a proof of concept technical test so that they have some real data to work with in case the government do decide to force filtering on us all, if they don't run this test and the government force us into filtering when do you propose they work out the options?

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

Re: Content Filtering Trial

Post by vk3xem » Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:07 pm

jokiin wrote:
WhitePhoenix wrote:Personally feel disgusted that this trial is being carried out without users being given the option to opt out. I oppose the internet filter for ethical reasons more than technical ones. When I move house in the next few months, Exetel's participation in the trial will weigh heavily on my decision as to whether or not I change service provider.
are you aware that Exetel are not participating in a trial, they have been strongly against filtering from the outset, this is a proof of concept technical test so that they have some real data to work with in case the government do decide to force filtering on us all, if they don't run this test and the government force us into filtering when do you propose they work out the options?
I totally agree with jokiin, having real life data to argue against a filter is very important. Also if that arguement is ultimately lost and the Government does force filtering Extel will also have valuable experience to enable a filter, with much less financial burnden if they hadn't taken this experiment.

Extel have been very vocal against Internet Filtering, they have also stated numerous times they will comply with what ever laws of the land are.

I am also totally against an Internet Filter, but I believe that Exetel is going down the right track. Firstly they are continuing to argue against this Government proposal and gathering is valid data is a prudent measure, secondly if the Government does enforce filtering then Exetel will have practical experience to not only implement it technically but save money in the process by being aware of some potential problems.
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM

ronald
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:36 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Content Filtering Trial

Post by ronald » Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:28 pm

I am ambivalent about this "no opt-out" filter trial but can see why Exetel are doing it.

From a technical point of view, I am not sure how a trial with 198 IP addresses will tell you anything about the technical feasibility of the solution for what we can expect to come. To be hit at all, or with any relevant frequency, these 198 IP addresses will have to be fairly popular ones. If nobody tries to access them at all, what insights can you gain from the trial?
Will it scale for what we can expect to come if the filtering goes ahead and the lists keep being extended? How big can your routing tables get before you run into performance issues? Will it handle tens of thousands of entries? Hundreds of thousands?

The other problem I see with the two-stage filtering is that firstly there's round-robin - that has been mentioned but how do you solve that with big server farms (Akamai has also been mentioned) where servers may be added or removed at any time? Would you have to run continuous domain lookups in the background in order to keep the IPs and routing tables current?
A similar yet different problem is how to handle servers hosted on dynamic IPs.

If that's all being catered for with the current list of 198 IPs then I really commend you, but as you have said that you don't expect anyone to actually hit any of those, I wonder how you're going to test for these cases. Or, if this one completes as what you consider a success, will there be another, bigger, test?

I found the earlier remark interesting that the license for the filtering boxes really only allows them to be used for filtering child porn. If that's the case, you would be in violation of those terms as soon as you use them with any list containing anything else than child porn. Like for example the list the government wants to introduce. Perhaps even the list you're using right now, for all we know about it. One can wonder about the point of trialling a technical solution to meet a legal obligation, that cannot legally be used in practice. Or even tested.

As for the whole idea of filtering all Internet access to "protect the children", I think it's a scam. Isn't it amazing that the same governments that claim not to be able to shut down child porn websites because the governments in charge are "not cooperative", are all involved in an international cooperation to shut down any sites that are found serving music files without permission of the copyright holders? The same problems don't seem to apply there, I wonder why that is. Why would the government think it better to blindfold all citizens than going after the perpetrators?
I also sometimes wonder about what people are willing to believe. Anyway, that's for a different discussion, just mentioning it because the issue has been raised.

tojara
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:07 am
Location: Central Coast

Re: Content Filtering Trial

Post by tojara » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:33 pm

I love how everyone is crying about this filter, yet i bet no one has hit a blocked page yet or had a slow down related to the filter, and at the same time if anyone has hit a blocked page your probably a sicko that shouldn't be aloud to have internet.
Beast Laptop ~ Sager NP8690 | Core i7 Q820M | 4GB DDR3 | Geforce GTX 280M | Windows 7 x64
Macbook ~ Macbook Unibody White | Core 2 Duo P7750 | 4GB DDR3 | Geforce 9400M | Mac OSX 10.6.2

Dazzled
Volunteer Site Admin
Posts: 6003
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:16 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Content Filtering Trial

Post by Dazzled » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:37 pm

It's not hard to think up 200 exceedingly unlikely URLs that aren't in the least objectionable, or even of public interest, to test with. A large part of the internet is not even Google-able, and these URL's users are more likely to be people doing their jobs than sickos.

MrJones
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:39 am
Location: NSW

Re: Content Filtering Trial

Post by MrJones » Fri May 01, 2009 12:18 pm

WikiLeaks is a good source of information on this subject. ie. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/A_Blacklist_f ... _Australia. The list is on one of the links. Although I am not sure but think the government wants to put wikiLeaks on the blocked list and it is not porn. I think Rudd :evil: the dud wants us to be like China, and we won't be able to google stuff like "Tiananmen Square" or "Eureka Stockade", but in saying that I agree with the filtering theory. The difficuty is in practice what should be filtered and who will pay for costs involved in the filtering, us or the govenment (us again in higher taxes or 1 less hospital).

samkelly
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 4:59 am

Re: Content Filtering Trial

Post by samkelly » Sun May 03, 2009 11:06 am

I am not a techo, just an ordinary web user at age 51, 2 things have happened since this trial started. I am not saying this trial is the result however both are new experiences.

1. page loading time has increased.

2. bookmarked previously working URL,s are not being found.

80% of unfound URL's are the result from a loading time, the rest is an immediate not found .

my mate does not have a problem, he is not with Exetel?

A problem I have

NetworkAdmin
Exetel Staff
Posts: 559
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:19 am
Contact:

Re: Content Filtering Trial

Post by NetworkAdmin » Sun May 03, 2009 11:44 am

samkelly wrote:I am not a techo, just an ordinary web user at age 51, 2 things have happened since this trial started. I am not saying this trial is the result however both are new experiences.

1. page loading time has increased.

2. bookmarked previously working URL,s are not being found.

80% of unfound URL's are the result from a loading time, the rest is an immediate not found .

my mate does not have a problem, he is not with Exetel?

A problem I have
Yes, you do. Your problem is that you are uploading about eight times more than you are downloading:

Code: Select all

Virtual-Access2.7186 is up, line protocol is up 
     118776 packets input, 95119735 bytes
     76823 packets output, 13849566 bytes
This is almost always related to a virus or trojan compromise on the end user PC. Alternatively, it can be caused by an 'unlimited' setting in P2P seeding/sharing. The very high upload rate is saturating your bandwidth and interfering with other Internet use.

Your mate probably doesn't have the same virus or P2P usage pattern.

NetworkAdmin
Exetel Staff
Posts: 559
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:19 am
Contact:

Re: Content Filtering Trial

Post by NetworkAdmin » Sun May 03, 2009 12:27 pm

The trial has ended at 12:15pm today. Please see http://forum.exetel.com.au/viewtopic.ph ... 29#p244129 for results.

Beaso
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:36 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Content Filtering Trial

Post by Beaso » Mon May 04, 2009 9:57 pm

NetworkAdmin wrote:The trial has ended at 12:15pm today. Please see http://forum.exetel.com.au/viewtopic.ph ... 29#p244129 for results.
From that thread...
NetworkAdmin wrote: 20,000 active hits against the filter list
SO 20,000 hits on...
NetworkAdmin wrote: The filter server can ONLY affect those IP addresses that are on the filter list and redirected to the filter - about 200 sites in total, and I can tell you NONE of them are any sort of mainstream website.
So when are the police going to be informed about the deviates apparently using Exetel??

ForumAdmin
Exetel Staff
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:31 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Content Filtering Trial

Post by ForumAdmin » Tue May 05, 2009 10:58 am

Beaso wrote:
So when are the police going to be informed about the deviates apparently using Exetel??
As we kept no records of which user IPs accessed the list we have no ability, even if we decided to act illegally which we would never do, to pass any information to anyone.

aussierod
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Qld

Re: Content Filtering Trial

Post by aussierod » Thu May 28, 2009 9:43 am

Hi. As of last night I haven't been able to see either my web site, or the hosting site.
Could someone please check from Qld if http://www.mdwebhosting.com.au is coming up alright please.

My site is on a shared ip 202.191.62.122 so if that could be checked to make sure its ok as well.

Using the proxy site https://morphium.info everything comes up ok.

JasonM

Re: Content Filtering Trial

Post by JasonM » Thu May 28, 2009 9:45 am

It works here (NSW).

The site being non accessible isn't related to the filtering trial (the trial ended already).

aussierod
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Qld

Re: Content Filtering Trial

Post by aussierod » Thu May 28, 2009 9:48 am

Ow good'o. Thanks.

Locked