[LINK] Exetel trial records 20,000 hits on filtered URLs

Rick Welykochy rick at praxis.com.au
Mon May 4 19:30:39 AEST 2009

Danny Yee wrote:

>> One of those is Melbourne search engine optimisation business, Stewart 
>> Media. Its founder and chief executive officer, Jim Stewart, indicated 
>> his intention to shift his customers away from Exetel. 
>> <http://stewartmedia.biz/myblog/Why-Im-leaving-Exetel/>
> I'm one of the other two.  I posted an application to Internode
> last week.

I don't understand why you would.  AFAICT, Exetel is shoring up its
systems in case they are forced to go to filtering by future legislation.

This enforcement would apply to Internode, to anywhere you run to. I would
rather use an ISP that has it's technical act together and understands
the impact mandatory filtering will have, even if I personally do not
agree with such legislation.

You may wish to cry foul that Exetel unilaterally used its entire
customer base for a five day trial. So what? Were you impacted in any way?

I am curious what happens if you attempt to access one of the 198 blocked
URLs. "404 not found"? DNS error? Other types of faked errors? No
response at all? Reset TCP connection? Techniques have already been document
on how to use the way the blockage occurs to assemble the block list from
scratch ... but I stray.

It's over now and we move on. And valuable realtime data of the impact of
a measly 198 blocked URLs has been gathered. Hopefully Exetel will publish
some decent extrapolations from this number to the magnitude of blockage that
the gummint wants to require by law. If the legislation ever passes.

Of course if mandatory filtering is imposed in this hitherto fine country,
those vigorously opposed can emigrate. There would be nowhere to run on this
continent to escape it.


Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services

Finster's Law: A closed mouth gathers no feet.

More information about the Link mailing list