“Most people from what I can see are against mandatory ISP filtering. The arguments are both ideological and technical…” - Liam Tung, ZDNet

Akin to Tech Talk Radio’s “Website of the Week” and “Gadget of the Week”, I now present Dr Ron’s inaugural Joke of the Month.

This “net filter” fiasco is really starting to get out-of-hand.  In fact, I can’t believe that it’s progressed as far as it has.

In a nutshell, the Government wants to introduce internet content filtering in the network for all Australians. “In the network” means that the filtering is done by your Internet Service Provider, as opposed to a client-based filtering package like Net Nanny for example.

Furthermore, the Government intends to decide what is, and isn’t, appropriate for us to be viewing, downloading, storing, streaming and listening to.

I have no problem whatsoever with the Government blocking illegal content.  Illegal content is already blocked on television, in bookstores, video libraries, newspapers and all other forms of mass media.  What is, and isn’t, illegal content is defined by the Commonwealth Classification Board, the Classification Review Board and the Attorney-General’s Department.  I have no issue with content such as child pornography or animal bestiality being prohibited in Australia.

Problem #1 – definition of “unwanted” content.

But the proposal goes beyond blocking prohibited content.  Senator The Honourable Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Digital Communications and the Economy, now wants to ban unwanted content.  Two weeks ago Senator Conroy indicated his intention to expand on the ACMA’s current blacklist of 1,300 websites, to block an additional 10,000 online gambling sites, adult-content sites and sites, for example, discussing euthanasia and anorexia. (Source: IT News.)

But what if I’m over 18 years old, and want to view adult-content websites? What if I’m a psychiatrist who’s researching Anorexia Nervosa? Or a journalist traveling to Indonesia who Googles the phrase “Jemaah Islamiyah”?

Having published such phrases and sentiments in as little as three lines in a blog post, will Dr Ron’s Surgery, in future, be blocked to Australian internet users?

Mr Conroy told parliament: “While the ACMA blacklist is currently around 1,300 URLs, the pilot will test against this list as well as filtering for a range of URLs to around 10,000 so that the impacts on network performance of a larger blacklist can be examined.”

A URL blacklist will do nothing to stop sites hosting illegal content, which change their URLs and IP addresses minute-by-minute.  Illegal content is frequently made available on distributed peer-to-peer file networks which will be entirely impervious to an ISP-based Net Filter.

Unless, of course, the Government decides to block all IP addresses from the United States, as well as China, Korea, India, the United Kingdom and the Middle East.  And especially Russia.  This would make as much sense as any other part of Mr Conroy’s proposal.

The result will be a myriad of false positives whereby legitimate websites, blogs, chat services and media streaming will be unnecessarily blocked from Australian internet users.

Problem #2 – technical realities.

Having established what is and isn’t permissible content, the Government will then legislate for all Internet Service Providers to monitor content and internet usage and actively filter internet traffic before it arrives at our computers.

This is one of the silliest, ill-informed, unworkable and ineffective proposals that most of us in the IT industry have ever heard of.

While the Government has committed to fund a National Broadband Network to provide high-speed internet to Australians, the Net Filter system will significantly slow internet traffic as ISPs become legally obliged to monitor URLs and IP addresses, match these against a blacklist provided by the ACMA, and only allow traffic to and from “acceptable” servers.

A report tendered by the ACMA to Mr Conroy showed that the implementation of such a system will slow internet speeds from anywhere between 2% and 87% (source: Herald Sun).  Any reduction in internet speed is bad.  We should be aiming for faster internet access, not introducing technology which is guaranteed to slow down our internet access.

Introducing an ISP-based net filter reduces internet efficiency; creates increased technical workload for ISPs; diminishes the ability for parents to choose what type of content is and isn’t permissible for their children; and costs huge amounts of taxpayer money to implement, regulate and police.

Problem #3 – What comes next?

I agree with Graeme Callaghan (Australian IT industry expert – panelist on Tech Talk Radio) that the next logical progression following Government-mandated net filtering will be the prohibition of encryption.

The Government will soon realise that filtering doesn’t work, especially when internet traffic is encrypted.

This is analogous to the absurd situation in Australia in the 1990s when the introduction of Telstra ISDN products and the implementation of GSM phone networks were delayed, until such time that Australia’s intelligence agencies were satisfied that the encryption being used was not so strong that communications couldn’t be intercepted.

The difference then was that the Australian Government was able to regulate the carriers by passing legislation.  In the present scenario, while the Australian Government can’t regulate the operation of the internet outside of Australia, it will try to control content within Australia which is sent and received here on our telecommunications networks.

When the Government realises that the content of encrypted emails, and SSL-encrypted web traffic, can’t be monitored or intercepted, it will need to save face by banning encryption technologies altogether.

The option of legislating a minimum encryption level will be unworkable.  As the Net Filter could slow normal internet traffic by up to 87%, imagine the effect that a Net Filter would have if it needed to crack, decrypt and analyze secure communications as well.  The result would be a completely unusable network.

Where to from here?

The real problem lies in complacency.  It will be too easy for a mandatory Net Filter to be implemented, if we sit on our hands and pretend there’s nothing we can do.

We need to educate the majority of people who say, “Oh, stopping children from seeing pornography in schools… that’s a good idea.”  There are right ways to do this; but there’s also a very, very wrong way.

Write to your local MP. Inform and educate.  Support the Electronic Frontiers Association.  Do not sit idly by as Australia becomes an international laughing-stock, and second-only to China for its draconian Government-regulated internet.

Interesting Links

Senator Stephen Conroy’s responses to questions from viewers of Channel 7’s Sunrise programme.

Adam Turner is a freelance technology journalist.  He is also a proponent of the Clean Australian Internet, and raises some important points in his IT Wire blog entry, “Bypass Australia’s internet filters for free“.

Recent IT News article: Senator Conroy expands reach of Net Filters to “unwanted content”.

Slashdot talks about Australian ISP iiNet trialling the Government’s Net Filter proposal… just to expose it’s flaws.

The ABC’s Mark Newton says that Filter Advocates need to Check their Facts.

On this week’s TTR, The Panel speaks with Colin Jacobs from the Electronic Frontiers Association.

Also, you should follow the EFA on Twitter.

No tags