[LINK] Green light for internet filter plans

[Rick Welykochy]

Andy Farkas wrote:

>   <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/15/2772467.htm>
>
> "Our pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies,
> shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be
> delivered with 100 per cent accuracy,"

Does anyone know what level of detail is contained in the black list
that drives powers the filter?

If it includes IP addresses, the filter will not attain 100% accuracy.
IP addresses change all the time, in tune with the flux of the DNS.

If it includes just domains, as in "wired.com.au", then the filter
will overkill and block acceptable content.

If it includes complete URLs, as in "http://nasty.com/?page=1239823&SID=1234"
then it cannot possibly be accurate since dynamic pages as per such
a URL change all the time and often include things like SID (a session ID)
and other user-level identifying and modifying information. It is impossible
for the filter maintainers to know what all the parameters on a dynamic
URL are and what they are used for.

If the filter includes URLs will it support schemes other than http? For example,
ftp://nasty.com/restrictedcontent.txt or irc:blackhats.org:6667 or even
telnet:bbs.blackhats.org.

It has been presumed or even indicated with some certainty that other protocols
such as BitTorrent, Tor and tunneling schemes will not be filtered. Is this
actually true? And if so, then the filter cannot be delivered with 100%
accuracy if it can be demonstrated that banned content is being delivered
into Australia using those protocols.

If Conroy and his team do not understand the implications of the above
observations, it is evident that they do not understand the underlying
architecture of the Internet, or worse, that they are equating one
protocol (http) with the Internet.

To conclude, if it can be demonstrated that even one item of banned content
is delivered to an Australian consumer, then the filter is no 100% accurate.
Or if it can be demonstrated that the filter blocks legal content, beyond
being inaccurate it is a failure. In either case, in a democracy, the people
can and must demand that the filter either be repaired and returned to 100%
accuracy or taken down.

Aside: what happened to the idea of an opt-in filter, for those who really
do want a "clean feed", whatever that really means?


cheers
rickw




-- 
_________________________________
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services

38 is the last Roman numeral when written lexicographically.
      -- http://www2.stetson.edu/~efriedma/numbers.html