Video: Watchdog says ISP-level filtering works

By Ben Grubb, Munir Kotadia on Dec 14, 2009 2:49 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

MD of net filtering company confident field test will deliver a green light.

The managing director of Watchdog International claims that the firm's filtering product, tested in the Federal Government's ISP-level filtering pilot, will be shown to have had no adverse impact on internet performance.

In an interview with iTnews [see video below], Watchdog managing director Peter Mancer claimed that his company's filtering product did not impact the performance of the internet in tests conducted in conjunction with Enex TestLab and internet service providers Tech2U, Ommniconnect and Nelson Bay Online.

"We heard various things spoken in the media about how filters may slow the internet down or how they might over-block," Mancer said. "And we were happy to show ... those issues did not occur.

"We did not have over-blocking and we did not have a slow down of the internet."

But Mancer added that some of the other technologies Enex TestLab tested "did have an affect" on performance.

Video: Watchdog says ISP-level filtering works

22 comments in this discussion

"GeordieGuy wrote: "not man dating cars full of pee to fix climate change" Fixed Oops now its RC."

By Mark D

Tags

watchdog, isp, filtering, government, mandatory

Conroy abandons mandatory ISP filtering

Aussie ISPs still seeing users with Zeus infections

QLD Transport to replace 'cumbersome' data search

Govt crackdown to expose mobile roaming margins

Breaking Stories

Vodafone still losing Australian customers

AWS bags US federal government certification

Intel chief kicks off company restructure

Apple's Cook backs tax reform

Microsoft bets big with Xbox One

Comments: 22

Mordd Dec 14, 2009 3:17 PM	Peter Mancers full statement with the "filtering" removed so we can see what he is really saying: "We heard various things spoken in the media about how [speed signs] may slow the [roads] down or how they might [make drivers angry]," Mancer said. "And we were happy to show ... those issues did no[t] occur. .... [In fact, we found that the more we made illegal, the more willing users were to break the law, guess we'll just have to lock up everyone, pron is bad, mm-hmmm!!]" Sorry for the bad car anaolgy, it was the best I could think of off the top of my head, im sure someone can come up with a better analogy.
GeordieGuy Dec 14, 2009 3:21 PM	That's cute. I saw that earlier in the year (july?) scientists have built a car that runs on urine. It extracts hydrogen from the waste product and uses it to fuel the vehicle. That's another example of a thing which is technically feasible, but isn't likely to be suitable as a mainstream good idea that solves any real problems. What Australia needs is a government that supports a range of personal choices around broadband and individuals' values, not mandating cars full of pee to fix climate change.
Maxxi Dec 14, 2009 3:54 PM	Mancer's last two sentences are the critical sentences for most folks to take note of. He clearly states that he sees filtering as a part of an overall strategy and only one part of that overall strategy. And he is right. As his product does not perform well
anonymous Dec 14, 2009 3:56 PM	It would be easy to dismiss Mancer's comments as just talking his book, but then he probably was. Some participants in this debate (though not in this thread yet) seem to have locked onto support for secret filter censorship because they are true believers in some ism or other, or simply because they perceive the filter implementation may offer them a career path. These don't seem very good reasons to agree that a future government should be given the means to secretly control all the information that we are allowed to access.
umbria Dec 14, 2009 4:21 PM	@anonymous, I see you've censored your identity. Perhaps you have a commercial interest in illegal content. Mr Mancer makes a claim that is startling if true, if nayasyers of ISP-level filtering are to be believed. He claims that "We did not have over-blocking and we did not have a slow down of the internet." Either he is lying, which will not get him any software sales, or he is telling the truth. Those who either peddle, consume or don't care about protecting the vulnerable from child porn and other illegal content have abdicated their right to a view on this matter. I have long argued that if a good part of such illegal content, especially high-resolution video, were blocked at its point of entry into Australia, it would lighten the traffic at downstream nodes, offsetting to some extent any slowdown caused by ISP-level filtering of the remaining legitimate traffic. If it now transpires that a clean feed can be produced with no performance impact, the last technical argument against it falls down, leaving ideological opinions aside.
block Dec 14, 2009 4:31 PM	Really?!?!?! Just how much HD video do you think is being downloaded that would be considered inscope of this internet filtering solution? Are you a fan of the "block kiddy porn" or "block refused classification"? Those are two completely different topics. The blocking of kiddy porn is one thing, howerver I SERIOUSLY doubt that it contributes much to the traffic traversing undersea cables to Japan/Singapore etc. And yes, you can have near zero impact on internet speeds (there will still be some, I don't care what they say, it will add latency) however the hardware infrastructure to support this would be prohibitive.
rollerdoor Dec 14, 2009 4:44 PM	It seems he's branched out from fried chicken and changed his name too. Probably should have stuck with the chicken.
Mordd Dec 14, 2009 4:55 PM	@ umbria - anonymous is the username of the poster, just like my username is Mordd, you nitwit. Just because he/she was clever to register anon as username doesn't mean he/she is trying to hide anything, just means they are clever enough to grab that username, im jealous personally. You are a complete twit though umbria lol.
cw Dec 14, 2009 5:02 PM	@umbria The definition of overblocking in the trial is an arbitrary one, the term as Mancer used it relates to whether his product blocked a site that was not on the blacklist as provided. What is overlooked by many that are keen to see this introduced is whether or not a URL should be on the list in the first place. The dentist that was on the blacklist would have been blocked during the trial if the blacklist hadn't been leaked forcing the ACMA to undertake an embarrassing cleanup. Which they should have already been doing regularly. The anti-abortion site that was added to the blacklist was initially guessed to be RC by the ACMA, it wasn't until it was referred to the Classification Board that it was rated less. If the filter was RC only that would result in overblocking. A Bill Henson fan site was incorrectly added to the blacklist due to a "caching error" which was only rectified after the blacklist leaked. This would be overblocking. You can not look at the technology in isolation, the idea needs to be evaluated in its entirety.
Private Citizen Dec 14, 2009 5:09 PM	Umbria's mindset is thing that scares me. Those who do X dont have any rights. So lets get all of that nasty due process out of way and just lock them up because I have pointed at them and named them. "If you oppose us you must be with them" gee whiz that has worked in the past. It seems a waste to open the internet to everybody when many are ignorant of the important human steps and lessons that made the technology possible. Internet was born of inquiry not inquisition. In opposing mandatory filtering we are not supporting evil, we are supporting principles extolled by significant human events such as the Magna carte, U.S. Declaration of Independence, U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. We recognise history that has shown us repeatedly that censorship is double edged sword allowing govt to persecute, hide the truths or to allow one philosophy to overrule the wishes of the citizenry. We are trying to stop a limited few from using this technology to stifle the freedom of expression of those they dislike. I do not intend to give up my liberties so trolls can fool themselves in false feelings of security. The price of liberty is vigilance, some want to become so vigilant that there will be no liberty.
Gav Dec 14, 2009 5:09 PM	@umbria: If the material in question is genuinely illegal, then blocking access to it is irresponsible and cowardly. If it's on the web, it can easily be taken offline at the source, or tracked down using simple tools available to the general public (including law enforcement agencies). And if it's on some protocol other than the web, then the discussion is entirely moot, because neither Senator Conroy's proposal, nor Peter Mancer's products, will have any effect on it whatsoever.
Maxxi Dec 14, 2009 5:11 PM	Whoops... did not finish that last sentence in my last post.... As his product does not perform well with high traffic sites such as YouTube etc, there are naturally limits to it's scalability, but he has always been upfront about that. His comments are honest and he has not tried to hide those aspects...
Maxxi Dec 14, 2009 5:15 PM	OK Gav, off you go and get all the illegal stuff off the web at the source. Have fun and good luck... cw made a good point: "You can not look at the technology in isolation, the idea needs to be evaluated in its entirety." Listen to Mancer's statements till the end, he also clarifies that filtering is but a part of an overall solution to this problem, and the tracking and removing of illegal content from the web is a part of all that already. So where are you all having your issues???
Gav Dec 14, 2009 5:21 PM	Maxxi, that is what we pay OCSET for. The issue is that, if the material is already being tracked and removed, why do we need blocking? If you know where it is to block it, you know where it is to remove it. Complaining to ACMA about child pornography is akin to complaining to the RTA about seeing a child abducted in the street.
Res Dec 14, 2009 5:25 PM	"We did not have over-blocking and we did not have a slow down of the internet." This is absolutely true, I agree with it, well, based upon the tiny number of people involved in the trial, you could have run them through a DSL router with badsite filtering like netgears have and they would not have got a slow down, I note it wasn't used on primus or optus, you know, the ISP's who actually have customers, and not some ma 'n pa type of backyard operation that they can use to stack up some numbers on their side, but hey, since when has a government or a company who has a monetary interest in seeing this passed, ever let the truth or actual facts get in their way. If the trials were serious, they would have used only decent sized ISP's, AND the trial would have been mandatory and not a opt-in/out, after all we wont have that option if it ever gets into legislation, so how they can claim it was a real world trial is beyond me, or anyone with even 1/5th of brain.
MoralPanic Dec 14, 2009 5:52 PM	Watchdog WINS!... I'm sure that's the sort of headlines Mancer would like to see. The thing is though, during an Exetel trial Mancer confirmed that Netclean couldn't deal with urls on high volume sites like youtube (confirmed in Watchdog's own report now on wikileaks). 8e6? Won't scale to any of our larger ISPs. Nice attempt at getting in on the gold rush though :)
MoralPanic Dec 14, 2009 5:57 PM	Forgot the most relevant part of my comment..... the government's blacklist has youtube URLs on it that have been given Refused Classification by the ACB. Does Mancer think he can get the government to back down from Refused Classification?
btone Dec 14, 2009 6:44 PM	"Video: Watchdog says ISP-level filtering works" A more accurate and honest byline would have read: Video: The managing director of 'Watchdog', a commercial internet filtering provider with a vested interest in having its product utilised by the federal government in blocking access to yet to be clearly defined internet content, has not impacted on internet performance when utilised in partnership with 3 tiny, irrelevant and prviously generally unknown 'isps' using unknown parameters and secret techniques. A trifle long as a byline but also a trifle more accurate.
KJ Dec 14, 2009 11:22 PM	to quote someone somewhere... "well he would wouldn't he" lol @ btone - spot on.
crysis Dec 15, 2009 9:40 AM	They tested it with some obscure isp's i've never heard of and which probably don't have that many users. The REAL test is when it is put into place with the major providers such as Optus and Telstra. Then tell us if there is a slowdown. Just what we need in rural areas - our net is slow enough now!
Maxxi Jan 9, 2010 2:52 PM	Private Citizen, the UN Charter, Article 19, has a different view to your's. But then again who are they to argue with you? Check this out: (thanks to ARNnet forum for this) Article 19 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: I. For respect of the rights or reputations of others; II. For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. Please note that the UN Articles needs to be read and understood in their ENTIRETY, and not just single sentences. As such you probably want to read Point 3, sub-points 1 & 2. Link: http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html I would also be very interested, as wouyld all supporters of democracy, in links and references to the locations in the documents that you listed, where "freedom of speech or expression opinion" is unlimited in scope and does not take into account the potential damage to others? From my knowledge of laws and consitutions, including the Australian Constitution, these "freedoms" are not unlimited in scope and are restricted when damage to others is either promoted, facilitated or results from the expression. This includes the internet Private Citizen. I am also sure that the guys and gals writing the Magna carte, U.S. Declaration of Independence & the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights were not formulating protections for people or entities wanting to disseminate what is today RC in Australia... Explain to me again, concrete and definitively, which liberties you will lose when a 10,000 URL RC content filter is applied to our internet here in Australia. Save me your speculations about what might happen. Save me your speculations about what could be done with it. Save me your assertions and assumptions about what evils governments in China, Korea and Iran do with their filters... Give me definitive answers on what liberties that the Magna carte, U.S. Declaration of Independence, U.N. Declaration of Human Rights had foreseen, that YOU will lose with the proposed filter. Please be ready to back that up with facts PC, proven precedence, realities from Australian examples and references how Australian censorship in the past 90 years has been used in the same manner. Thanks and have a great weekend...
Mark D Jan 15, 2010 4:16 PM	GeordieGuy wrote: "not man dating cars full of pee to fix climate change" Fixed Oops now its RC.