[LINK] How filters work (was Re: Possible Letter to Conroy (the

[rene]

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 05:56:51 GMT, stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
[...]
> The above quote, regarding our government supplying a 'sealed' filter
> box, rather than just a software filter, is a direct quote from the
> UK Inquirer, apparently quoting:  www.banthisurl.com  For eg,
> "BanThisURL recently interviewed Matthew Strahan, a computer security
> professional with Securus Global, Examining Censorship in Australia".
>
> I wondered about it at the time. ONE filter box? It would hardly
> appear adequate for the job intended. Seems to me that one 'sealed'
> box, which will be automatically updated per ISP, would be impossible
> to implement

I'd strongly recommend completely ignoring the vast majority of claims in 
the media about what the govt intends to supply, or even do. The vast 
majority of media reporting is false in that it is speculative and/or 
misinformed commentary by people who have evidently not paid attention to 
what the government and/or Conroy have actually said. At no time has Conroy 
or the Govt said they would supply a 'sealed' box/filter, nor even that 
they would mandate what particular type of technology ISPs would have to 
use.
[...]
> However, thinking about this, a thousand sites blocked, out of
> millions (billions?) of websites is indeed silly. Hence, it seems to
> me that the current lists of filtered sites, might appear perhaps
> irrelevant to the government's real purpose.

Yes, blocking content on the ACMA list of ~1K URLs (incl. over 50% of which 
is legal for adults to view online and offline) is a completely pointless 
exercise and waste of taxpayers' money, whatever their claimed 
purpose/objective is (which varies from week to week/month to month, or did 
until the Minister commenced declining to respond to media enquiries 
several months ago).

Irene