[LINK] Green light for internet filter plans

[rene]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:36:47 +0100, Kim Holburn wrote:
>>Testing was also undertaken against a list of content, prepared by
>> Enex, considered to
>> be innocuous and which should not be blocked by a filter. All
>> participants experienced
>> some level of over-blocking in this test (i.e. blocking of some
>> legitimate URLs). All
>> filters blocked less than 3.4 percent of such content.
>>
> page 3

Just, btw, there is a question about what "all filters" means in the above 
regard.

If the claims reportedly made by Marshall8e6 filter vendor in this article 
today:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/330034/isp-level_filter_trial_vendo
r_happy_results
are correct, then it means that all 6 of the ISPs that trialled blocking of 
innocuous content were using the Marshall8e6 censorware product - in which 
case 'all filters' blocking less than 3.4% means all ISP implementations of  
Marshalle86 blocked less than 3.4%. In the previous ACMA/Enex test, which 
reportedly did not include Marshall8e6, blocking of innocuous content 
ranged from 1.3% to 7.8%. Also in those previous tests, underblocking of 
content that should be blocked ranged from 2% to 13%, whereas in the most 
recent trial underblocking ranged from 15.35% to 21.2%. 

As has long been known to people closely following this issue, and as Enex 
said in its report:  "the higher the accuracy [of blocking content that  
should be blocked] the higher the over-blocking".

Irene