Mandatory ISP filtering

**cs123** · 15-12-2009, 06:56 PM

Conroy has rammed this through.
http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/med...eases/2009/115

Don't know how he expects it to be effective.

Romulus · 15-12-2009, 08:00 PM

I believe China already has this (internet censorship), and it's obviously impressed our manchurian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.

balthazarr · 15-12-2009, 09:06 PM

Spin, spin, SPIN!

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/funding_and_...sked_questions

jonk · 15-12-2009, 09:33 PM

It's opt out on the ISP side. Nothing to panic about. Torrents have been closed down, now you've got the option of 'parent filtering' from your ISP.

So, what you do, is learn about DNS. And that's how they're doing it. You only need your ISP for fee stuff on your router, such as iView etc but hard stuff you need goes through another DNS provider.

It's just DNS filtering on the ISP side.

Big BLAH !!!!

**cs123** · 15-12-2009, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonk

It's opt out on the ISP side. Nothing to panic about. Torrents have been closed down, now you've got the option of 'parent filtering' from your ISP.

So, what you do, is learn about DNS. And that's how they're doing it. You only need your ISP for fee stuff on your router, such as iView etc but hard stuff you need goes through another DNS provider.

It's just DNS filtering on the ISP side.

Big BLAH !!!!

Can you point us to the reference where it is opt out and where it's bypassed by a different DNS.

RSgerry · 15-12-2009, 10:22 PM

this is the thin edge of a very dangerous edge. no matter how they dress it up and what spin theyput on it, this is censorship, pure and simple. and with the list of blocked sites being kept secret, how do we know free speech sites arent benig blocked?

chairman kev's love of all things chinese has gone too far.

snappy · 15-12-2009, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSgerry

this is the thin edge of a very dangerous edge. no matter how they dress it up and what spin theyput on it, this is censorship, pure and simple. and with the list of blocked sites being kept secret, how do we know free speech sites arent benig blocked?

chairman kev's love of all things chinese has gone too far.

Exactly what i was thinking i was about to ask will we know when there blocking a site or will it jut not show up on a google search or something.
Im all for people not being able to look at kiddie porn sites and such but i would much prefer them to prosecute the people setting up the sites and removing them that way.

Riksta · 16-12-2009, 05:20 PM

I really don't think that this is the answer at all.

The previous Government had a scheme with software you could install on your home machine to help "protect your children" from seeing things they shouldn't, I can't remember the exact number but from memory there were only like TWO THOUSAND (yes, 2000) people that actually used it and went for it.

Numerous polls have been conducted on news sites, technology sites and the like asking if people support this, to which an overwhelming percentage usually responded "NO".

So basically, they've come in, said "well, people don't want it, but we're going to do it anyway".

The way it has also been pushed to the public by the politicians is wrong as well. Its almost coming across like "If you don't want the filter, you support kiddie porn". Its not about that at all, its the fact that once a block is in place like this, it probably won't be too hard to get sites blacklisted. I already see groups like the RIAA lobbying the government to get certain torrent sites blocked in Australia for example, hey if we've already got the filter what's one more site?

Also, I see forum sites like this one (and I actually do have a lot of respect for AFF so please don't take this the wrong way, just using it as an example) toughening their rules right up with a lot more zero tolerance to what's posted, because a few of the wrong things on a forum and hello blacklist.

In a country where net speeds are already pretty rubbish, we're now going to get a filter that most experts predict WILL slow down our connections. I read one report of by up to 10%. Now, I'm only on 2mbps where I am, a 10% slowdown will be pretty significant to me. I can only imagine how small businesses and home offices who rely on decent connections must feel.

I don't know if there's much we as the public can do now, however I plan on writing to my local MP (a proper letter, not an email) and making sure they understand this is not the right way to go about things. The more of those letters they get, hopefully, just maybe, they'll listen.

And if you want to see the wonderful Senator Conroy in action try and explain stuff, here's how that dentist's website got blocked in that blacklist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyK5c1fmq0 (and yes, he's serious)

:

:

But all in all, don't blame me, I voted Liberal.

Bucknaked · 16-12-2009, 05:32 PM

Governments should govern and leave important issues such as parenting to parents. We don't need to be told what our children and can't see. Lets hope this filtering is the death of the Krudd dictatorship.

BA Baracus · 16-12-2009, 07:38 PM

A side concern I can see with this is that if you have your business website hacked adding questionable content (and subsequently reported) you could be blacklisted. This would be a brilliant way for unethical companies, disgruntled customers or general troublemakers to knock you out of competition/trade. With the list being secretive you'll have no idea what's even going on. There can't be a call center operator to state your case to and have the URL restored because the domain details of the list are not for public disclosure or discussion. Perhaps with sufficient proof of ownership of the domain you could get your case heard (?) but how does one begin to prove content on their website was published by an outside entity when they can't access the site themselves and don't even know what the content/breach in their security actually involved?

bdave351 · 16-12-2009, 08:02 PM

So dissapointed to see our country go down a route only taken by the worlds worst governments.

Even more so when senior ministers of the Rudd govt face the public and continue to lie and say its a list full of kiddies stuff when it was already hacked and found to have a more gambling sites, dentists and tour operators, you tube videos of graffitti and euthanasia (peaceful pill) than the grand total of zero kiddie stuff. Clearly that stuff doesnt live on the http stuff this looks at.

Even if it did - why stick your head in the sand or pull the blind and leave it there but say its fine now, we cant see it..............give the money to the AFP and actually go after the people doing it. Seems so simple....

jonk · 16-12-2009, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cs123

Can you point us to the reference where it is opt out and where it's bypassed by a different DNS.

It's optional because, men only household's don't need filtering. Adults.

DNS stuff... look it up.

**cs123** · 16-12-2009, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonk

It's optional because, men only household's don't need filtering. Adults.

DNS stuff... look it up.

I work in IT so know a fair bit about about it.

The filtering will be done at the ISP and it is not optional according to Conroy.

Are you confusing DNS with proxy or VPN?

jonk · 16-12-2009, 10:39 PM

OK, so basically here's the drum.

Google will pull search spider's from Oz site's... as punishment.

We are the only country in the 'free world' that this applies to. Google will challenge that. It will be the power of a search giant, challenging a true 1st world government's 'jurisdiction'. The filter will be implemted but it will cut off many Australian 'sellers/websites"... Google is going to fight it after it's implemented. To show that,... gov't can't run the net. How do I know ?... talk. The G doesn't want to be hampered.

jonk · 16-12-2009, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cs123

I work in IT so know a fair bit about about it.

The filtering will be done at the ISP and it is not optional according to Conroy.

Are you confusing DNS with proxy or VPN?

Simple. It's about DNS. Forget proxy or VPN.

**cs123** · 16-12-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonk

Simple. It's about DNS. Forget proxy or VPN.

Initial filtering happens at layer 3 and is IP based. It doesn't matter what DNS server you use, you still have to traverse the router that is providing the filtering. If it has a hit on the IP then it performs an additional inspection on the URL and blocks or allows the request.

This is from the report on filtering.

jonk · 16-12-2009, 11:07 PM

Layer 3 is not IP based for, IP checking. It's ISP dependent.(dependent that you use your ISP for extra services) It isn't a filtering tool. Layer 3 is for larger ISP's. It's for entertainment channels... for now.

**cs123** · 16-12-2009, 11:28 PM

Bloody hell, for the TCP/IP stack

Layer 1 - Physical Layer (Ethernet)
Layer 2 - Media Access Control (MAC)
Layer 3 - Internet Protocol (IP)
Layer 4 - Transaction Control Protocol (TCP)

This has nothing to do with the size of the ISP, it is how the internet works. It is how your home network works.

The IP address (LAYER 3) forms the initial check in the hybrid system that was tested.

Franco Cozzo · 16-12-2009, 11:42 PM

Couldn't you just buy some dedicated server space in the USA and tunnel all your web data through that? All the porn you could ever want, I'm guessing to the ISP it'd just look like information coming from another computer in the USA.

DJL351 · 17-12-2009, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cs123

Bloody hell, for the TCP/IP stack

Layer 1 - Physical Layer (Ethernet)
Layer 2 - Media Access Control (MAC)
Layer 3 - Internet Protocol (IP)
Layer 4 - Transaction Control Protocol (TCP)

This has nothing to do with the size of the ISP, it is how the internet works. It is how your home network works.

The IP address (LAYER 3) forms the initial check in the hybrid system that was tested.

You are on the money.

From what I've seen and read, Peer to Peer and VPN can not be blocked by these ISP filters.

Now, if you were doing something illegal, would you not choose to do it in the safest way you can??? - like b-boards, p2p and vpn clients?

So, if the illegal stuff goes further underground, who is suffreing... those that are doing the right thing.
(I have a family friend studying Human Bi at the moment - reproduction etc... there is a strong chance that some of the sites she might visit will be blocked under this BS plan)

7:30 Report

**cs123** · 17-12-2009, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XCPWSF

Couldn't you just buy some dedicated server space in the USA and tunnel all your web data through that? All the porn you could ever want, I'm guessing to the ISP it'd just look like information coming from another computer in the USA.

Sure can. But you don't need to go to the effort. There are plenty of companies that supply VPN services. These services are a SSL tunnel and will by-pass IP based filtering.

You may even be able to bypass by configuring a proxy that is located off shore but I cannot confirm that

sgt_doofey · 17-12-2009, 08:40 AM

<Using my best Warren Brown from TGA voice>
A mandatory internet filter that is basically ineffective as it can be so easily bypassed? What were they thinking?

XWGT · 17-12-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonk

It's opt out on the ISP side. Nothing to panic about. Torrents have been closed down, now you've got the option of 'parent filtering' from your ISP.

So, what you do, is learn about DNS. And that's how they're doing it. You only need your ISP for fee stuff on your router, such as iView etc but hard stuff you need goes through another DNS provider.

It's just DNS filtering on the ISP side.

Big BLAH !!!!

I have re-read your post 3 times and its still making my head hurt

1) It is not opt out, for anyone
2) It can be bypassed, but by proxies and VPN......not DNS

Keepleft · 18-12-2009, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonk

It's opt out on the ISP side. Nothing to panic about. Torrents have been closed down, now you've got the option of 'parent filtering' from your ISP.

So, what you do, is learn about DNS. And that's how they're doing it. You only need your ISP for fee stuff on your router, such as iView etc but hard stuff you need goes through another DNS provider.

It's just DNS filtering on the ISP side.

Big BLAH !!!!

We shouldn't have to do a damn thing. As a parent I can control what kids watch, don't need daddy Rudd, idiot PM, to do that for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru-xQ...eature=related

Rue the day....

aye you · 19-12-2009, 02:27 PM

in soviet australia, Comrade Rudd and Comrade Conroy decide what you want

flappist · 19-12-2009, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cs123

Bloody hell, for the TCP/IP stack

Layer 1 - Physical Layer (Ethernet)
Layer 2 - Media Access Control (MAC)
Layer 3 - Internet Protocol (IP)
Layer 4 - Transaction Control Protocol (TCP)

This has nothing to do with the size of the ISP, it is how the internet works. It is how your home network works.

The IP address (LAYER 3) forms the initial check in the hybrid system that was tested.

1) is physical i.e things that have electricity
2) is datalink, where the bits get shoved into packets or frames (or cells or bundles or whatever the particular L2 protocol calls its data lumps). It also does some data control in some protocols e.g. FR or ATM etc. VC addressing lives here.
MAC is sort of 1.5 because it is partly physical.
3) is network., where all the routing etc lives. It is also where the L3 protocols (obviously

) live like TCP UDP ICMP ESP AH GRE etc. IP addressing is also at L3.
4) is transport. This glues all the lower stuff together and makes it autonomous and independent from whatever hosts are on the system. It also contains the protocol independent error checking etc. e.g. in a L3 UDP transfer over a L2 PPP stream on a L1 async serial connection there would be no error checking except at this layer. (TCP would check at L3).

The thing that will always bite Conroy on the bum is the basic design of the internet is to be extremely difficult to block or control. It was designed for military use therefore to keep evil enemies including politicians out of it.

Besides, he and comrade Kev are covering themselves in poo at a huge rate of knots and despite what is said in public banning porn is a vote loser.

The internet is a very accurate copy of the human mind.

Sex is the most common thing on everyones mind (we are programmed that way or would have become extinct millions of years ago) so therefore the internet is mostly sex.

Banning porn is one of the few things politically stupider than banning alcohol......

Rodp · 19-12-2009, 03:06 PM

Ridiculous that I'm being told by the government what I can and can't view on the Internet.

Thankfully, most of the data I download is through an encrypted SSL connection. Sorry Comrade Krudd. :(

atec77 · 19-12-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cs123

Conroy has rammed this through.
http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/med...eases/2009/115

Don't know how he expects it to be effective.

http://stephen-conroy.com/news.php
the filter is so simple to bypass
explain conroys lack of understanding and failure to take good advice

TURBOTAXI · 19-12-2009, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

The thing that will always bite Conroy on the bum is the basic design of the internet is to be extremely difficult to block or control. It was designed for military use therefore to keep evil enemies including politicians out of it.

Besides, he and comrade Kev are covering themselves in poo at a huge rate of knots and despite what is said in public banning porn is a vote loser.

The internet is a very accurate copy of the human mind.

Sex is the most common thing on everyones mind (we are programmed that way or would have become extinct millions of years ago) so therefore the internet is mostly sex.

Banning porn is one of the few things politically stupider than banning alcohol......

I often preach this concept - we are set up to evaluate passers by for reproduction - that is physical attraction, leading to reproduction and propogation of the species.

Have not seen anyone else articulate it before.

As for internet filtering..... no thanks, I like to access whatever I want to. This will be an election loser.

DJL351 · 19-12-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

The internet is a very accurate copy of the human mind.

Sex is the most common thing on everyones mind (we are programmed that way or would have become extinct millions of years ago) so therefore the internet is mostly sex.

Banning porn is one of the few things politically stupider than banning alcohol......

To quote Dr Cox (from Scrubs)

"If they were to remove all the porn from the internet; there would be only one website left..... and it would be called 'Bring back the porn'."

Youtube link