Conroy Lies about Internet filter (Also PM gets DDOSed)

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...005961,00.html

Quote:

---

"The campaign that they're mounting is erroneous and misinformed," he said.

"What the government is proposing is to filter refused classification content which includes imagery of child sexual abuse, rape and bestiality."

---

I just fucking love this.

Perhaps before assuming everyone in Australia is as arse-backwards fucking braindead when it comes to technology as he is, he should have done a quick google search to make sure that the proof of his outright lie was not widely available.

Of course that's assuming such is not beyond his obviously limited capabilities.

I don't condone the DDOS, but I can understand the frustration of these individuals. Ruddkipz has ignored the howls of protest from the Australian people over this filter, and shunned the emphatic advice from industry bodies, and is STILL pushing this thing through "Trials" (Although I'm buggered if I know who's doing it, even Telstra told him to GTFO) and is having the audacity to withold the results data from public viewing whilst claiming the trials as a 'success'.

Yeah, they're going to 'successfuly' see you and your whole useless party the fuck out of government, you whitewashing spin doctor fuckarse.

/rage

I wouldn't be too concerned. The trials have gone badly, and the whole idea of a filter of this size is not feasible in a society which mandates broadband. It will be gone within the year.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riek
I wouldn't be too concerned. The trials have gone badly, and the whole idea of a filter of this size is not feasible in a society which mandates broadband. It will be gone within the year.

---

Trials have gone badly? Trials are a success? Nobody has any definition of what success or failure of the trial actually is.

That aside, though, the definition of the allow/block list was always worded such that the government had the right to block things that (a) weren't on the original whatzitzname list, and (b) weren't even illegal. Whether or not it was to be exploited, the power was there to block a site just for being unpleasant to the government, and that is one thing that we should not - and will not - stand for.

I agree that we don't condone all-out war like this, but I totally agree with the guy's outrage. Just hope he doesn't get himself in trouble, going public over it like that.

Quote:

---

but I totally agree with the guy's outrage.

---

Oh dear Ros.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29

Just because AAP fails at research doesn't mean everybody elses google-fu must become weak.

The test is going badly because of the following:


*The filtering policy legistation has not yet been passed by the senate, with two minority senators holding the balance of power for the vote. One of these has publicly stated he will only support the filter policy if online casino type sites are included within the blacklists.

*iiNet pulled out of the trials, leaving only five small ISPs and Optus (who only offer a limited PoC testing regime for the trial).

*Six filters have been tested thus far. Only one of the six filters had an acceptable level of performance (a drop of 2%), the others causing drops in speed of between 21% and 86%. One of those filters even caused a 22% drop in speed when it was NOT turned on and performing filtering

*All filters tested had serious problems with over-blocking, wrongly blocking access to between 1.3% and 7.8% of the websites tested.

*Leaking of the blacklists on wikileaks showed legitimate business sites were to be filtered.


These points also ignore the fact there is no scope for the testing, nor criteria for success or failure. It is however going badly regardless of this due to the above.

Do you have dox for the above, Riek? Not saying I don't belive you, what you're saying sounds completely plausible, but I would LOVE some verifiable sauce to go with that win.

Also you wouldn't have the names of those 5 small ISPs would you? Would love to have EFA launch some 'poons at them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maelgrim
Oh dear Ros.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29

Just because AAP fails at research doesn't mean everybody elses google-fu must become weak.

---

Your point being? I don't get you. Somebody, who signed himself as "Anonymous", was annoyed enough at the policy to ddos the PM's web site. I think it's an errant gesture, but I still fully understand his reasons for doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riek
The test is going badly because of the following:

---

Thanks for the facts, although that wasn't actually what I meant. Perhaps I should have said "nobody IN CHARGE has any definition". When you embark upon a trial, you need to say beforehand how you'll know if it's successful or not. Sometimes it's implicit (success is defined, for instance, as "more people say this is a good idea than say it's a bad one", or as "extrapolation of the data suggests that this will make more money than it costs"), but in this instance, it's not really like that - or, if it is, then failure is guaranteed already, as anyone can see that this will be both unpopular and expensive.

IIRC, iinet originally was only joining the trials so they could prove that it was useless to try it - or was it Optus who said that?

Your conclusion is what I was trying to say:

Quote:

---

These points also ignore the fact there is no scope for the testing, nor criteria for success or failure.

---

Yep Maelgrim...


*Senators stuff
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolog...?page=fullpage

*ISPs involved
ISP's are: Primus, Tech 2U, Webshield, OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communi...p_in_Australia

*Filter test reults
http://www.efa.org.au/2008/07/31/efa...ial-a-failure/

*Wikileaks and news articles about innocent third parties being blocked.
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Au...%2C_6_Aug_2008
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...3-3102,00.html


As you can see, EFA is already involved. Another group getting involved is called GetUp, which has previously run campaigns around WorkChoices and David Hicks. A few articles about what they're doing are here:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technolog...?page=fullpage

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,24750766-2,00.html

Also, sign their petition here: http://www.censordyne.com.au/

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
IIRC, iinet originally was only joining the trials so they could prove that it was useless to try it - or was it Optus who said that?

---

It was iinet. Also, Optus are only taking part on the proviso their customers can 'opt out' eventually.

In other words, the government is running a dinky PoC with no scope or objectives, and their testing sample size is zero to none.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riek
I wouldn't be too concerned. The trials have gone badly, and the whole idea of a filter of this size is not feasible in a society which mandates broadband. It will be gone within the year.

---

see: china

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Leshrak
see: china

---

Also this.