Reseller throws filter hacking masterclass

 

Senior Australians learn to circumvent filter.

A Newcastle-based computer help desk business has become one of the first organisations in Australia to host a masterclass on how to "hack" the Federal Government's planned internet filter.

The class was held last Thursday by David Campbell of Newcastle-based service provider Clear Computers on behalf of euthanasia advocacy group Exit International. Campbell told around 70 senior citizens about the filter and how to get around it.

The hacking class is not illegal. While the controversial filter will block material that is 'Refused Classification' (RC), including illegal content like child pornography, it is not illegal to circumvent the filter per se.

"The independent report on the ISP-level filtering pilot trial found that technically competent people could circumvent filtering technologies," a spokesperson for the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy told iTnews. (PDF, Page 2)

"Under the Government's policy it will not be an offence to circumvent the filtering measures or to show someone how to circumvent," she said.

Electronic Frontiers Australia's (EFA) vice chair Colin Jacobs said that while the Government might one day criminalise circumvention of its filter, a blanket ban would be a serious imposition on the practices of many businesses and individuals.

Lessons on circumventing filtering were likely to be legal, he said, as long as they covered everyday tools for re-routing internet traffic, and not 'hacking' by interfering with third-party systems.

"Of course, it's possible that the Government might criminalise circumvention of its filter," Jacobs told iTnews.

"Such an offence would be almost useless, as it is trivial to circumvent filtering and very often necessary to do so; [for example], using international VPNs to connect to private networks or to encrypt sensitive communications."

Jacobs expected a "plethora" of tools and instructions to be available to show Australians how to get around the filter, should it be implemented.

"Once the filter is in place, EFA will definitely look at providing as much information as possible on how the filter works," he told iTnews. "This might include circumvention information."

Exit International hoped its 'Hacking Masterclass' would enable seniors to access suicide information, should euthanasia websites be blocked by the Government's Clean Feed policy.

The organisation's founder Philip Nitschke expected the class to enable attendees who were "not likely to be knowledgeable with computer skills" to circumvent the filter.

"I reckon I can [get around the filter] ... my IT background is self-taught," Nitschke told iTnews following Campbell's hour-long class.

Nitschke planned to incorporate Campbell's filter circumvention presentation into Exit International's voluntary euthanasia workshops, which would reach an estimated 1000 people during the next month.

"They've got a lot of intelligence, a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of time," he said of the organisation's members, who had an average age of 75.

Campbell said he was impressed by 'Hacking Masterclass' attendees' attentiveness and by their questions about privacy and trust issues.

He began with a basic explanation of the concept of a filter -- "kind of like putting a lollypop person on a zebra crossing, and then everyone could just jaywalk around anyway" -- before demonstrating how proxies and encrypted VPNs would circumvent filters and firewalls.

"It was quite an experience to see people slowly grasp exactly what the internet is and how it operates," he told iTnews.


Reseller throws filter hacking masterclass
"@tallguy: Thank you for the correction, however, you seem to have misunderstood me. I did not advocate for absolving parents of their responsibilities. The point I was trying to make is that there ..."
By Creationist
 
 
 
Comments: 35
Ace
Apr 7, 2010 12:54 AM
Brilliant. It should be taken further with free published instructions from ISPs and media on how to 'opt-out' of the filter should it ever occur. And the sooner, the better. It might have the effect of defeating the filter before it's even implemented, and making it a little more difficult for Conroy to remove the egg from his face.
scooter
Apr 7, 2010 8:25 AM
It's been said before but I'll say it again. The only thing this will do is make money for overseas proxy servers. Then ALL content will come from overseas. Imagine the impact on traffic then. Stupid unworkable and unenforcable idea. Let's hear three cheers for the religious right. One more idealogically driven WOFTAM.
utedog
Apr 7, 2010 10:08 AM
I fail to see how someone can run a masterclass on something that has not been implemented. Until there is actually legislation in place and it's up and running, Conjob may well change his mind about how it is implemented anyway.
Bazwalt
Apr 7, 2010 10:16 AM
Firstly, I agree with Utedog - you can't teach someone to circumvent something that hasn't been released yet. Even if the government released recent specifications on the filter ...we still don't know what the end system will be/look like.

Secondly, What is the point of the government making the filter mandatory if they are not going to ban anyone who is circumventing the filter? It seems to me like the effort and money being put into the project far exceeds the necessity and requirements.

It's like buying buying juice, grains, wheat and fruit when you're only making spaghetti bolognaise...all the extras being done are just a waste.

My analogy probably sucks but it's the best way I can explain my perspective.
Ace
Apr 7, 2010 11:27 AM
@utedog, Conroy can't change the only technology that exists. And the only technology that exists cannot defeat overseas proxies, unless they are added to the Refused Classification list and blocked. But Conroy says they will only block URLs, not complete hosts.

I'm am currently investing in NZ based anonymous web browsing proxies. You should too.
Bourkie
Apr 7, 2010 1:58 PM
@Bazwalt and utedog:

ISPs can use whatever hardware and firmware they like to filter - the government is only dictating _what_ is to be censored (not how).

There is no such thing as 'the filter' as you claim; there will be hundreds of different filters used by our hundreds of ISPs.

What they will all have in common is that they will all be cheap, slow, and extremely easy to circumvent.
RDEFCON1
Apr 7, 2010 2:01 PM
Just goes to show that even though someone has what sounds like a good idea/goal, it is more important to understand whether achieving the goal is worth the time and money.

Conroy's record on the filter makes me REALLY nervous about the $42,000,000,000 of taxpayer money he's planning to spend on NBN. Another good idea in theory... but putting it into practice is a whole other thing.
Sams
Apr 7, 2010 2:39 PM
Any masterclass in some form of strongly-encrypted proxying to an foreign host will be fine. Australian networks can't filter what they can't see.
anonymous
Apr 7, 2010 3:36 PM

Hope nobody tells comrade Conboy about this. He's likely to declare it a state secret and throw us all in jail, just like his Chinese mentors do with their citizens.
Creationist
Apr 8, 2010 6:02 AM
On the verge of sounding too cynical, but nevertheless - do you think that 'Hacking Masterclass' and 'suicide/euthanasia' used in one sentence are telling too much about both the organisers and the attendees?
Those seeking advise on how to end their life already luck the moral core. Why wait? Get in (or out?) before the 'terrible' filter is introduced, do not push, have you paid for your ticket?
This hysteria around the filter is getting far enough to show what kind of 'knowledge' those that are crying loudest are after.
arcanedevice
Apr 8, 2010 7:49 AM
@Creationist - where does the article suggest that the people looking for this information are wanting to actually take the steps. It has already been demonstrated that the list is flawed, so there is every chance that general discussion / debate on suicide or euthanasia will be blocked by Conboy & Co.
As to suggest that people searching for advice on such topics already lack moral code - that's a tough call given that many of these people are highly intelligent but sadly suffer from a cruel terminal illness that is degrading their quality of life.
Sams
Apr 8, 2010 9:35 AM
"This hysteria around the filter is getting far enough to show what kind of 'knowledge' those that are crying loudest are after."

I haven't seen or heard of any hysteria. All I see is a lot of far more articulate people making arguments based on rational thought, not mindless religious dogma.
btone
Apr 8, 2010 12:04 PM
@Creationist: Pity the Papa and his bejewelled minions are not crying a little louder about the abuse of youth by 'holy' boyos lucking (sic) the moral core.

Still, you reap what you sow, eh? A little dictatorial censorship never did any harm, eh?
Creationist
Apr 9, 2010 11:12 AM
@arcanedevice: Are you serious? "where does the article suggest that the people looking for this information are wanting to actually take the steps"? So it is just a coincidence that this "masterclass" was targeted at elderly people and not freedom-fighters, or anti-filter youngsters? So is this ok now to run masterclasses on "How to build a bomb" or "How to rob a bank" 'cause nowhere it says that anyone attending is going to actually do that? And another point is - intelligence has a very weak correlation with morality. High intelligence could be put to better use looking for ways to cure the illness rather than seeking an easy exit.

@btone: While your argument ("Look at yourself") is valid, it has added no value to this discussion, nor did it offer any solution to the problem, eh?

@Sams: "Hysteria - Behaviour exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic". So far "more articulate people" using their "rational thought" offered three options:
1) "We don't need no filta" which is not a solution to the problems raised, but a mere opinion.
2) "Make parents responsible" - fine in theory but lucks recognition of the simple fact that parents are part of the problem rather than solution.
3) "Give the money to police" - again, why not RAF so they could bomb any datacentre anywhere in the world in case RC materials are hosted there?
Not a single viable solution from "highly intelligent, rational and articulate people". What can I say? Well done, folks.
Sams
Apr 9, 2010 2:04 PM
Creationist: "So is this ok now to run masterclasses on "How to build a bomb" or "How to rob a bank" 'cause nowhere it says that anyone attending is going to actually do that?"

Actually yes it is, and I'm confident that having a more informed public would do more to prevent bombings and robbings. Any person with a malicious intent can easily find out how to build a bomb, or rob a bank, so you are not actually losing anything by informing people. Instead they might for example recognize an out-of-place stock pile of ammonium nitrate fertiliser for what it is.

Creationist: ""We don't need no filta" which is not a solution to the problems raised, but a mere opinion."

A trivial failure in logic. Heh, you are saying that showing the problem doesn't exist doesn't solve the problem (that doesn't exist). Besides that, are you saying your opinions are fact and other people opinions are just 'mere' opinions. Sounds like religion to me.

"the simple fact that parents are part of the problem rather than solution"

Simple facts are for simpletons.

"why not RAF so they could bomb any datacentre anywhere in the world in case RC materials are hosted there"

Your moralistic veneer belies a little terrorist in the making I see.
btone
Apr 9, 2010 2:21 PM
@Creationist:

@btone: While your argument ("Look at yourself") is valid, it has added no value to this discussion, nor did it offer any solution to the problem, eh?

I see no need to 'add value' to a 'discussion' responding to erroneous generalisation.

I see no problem.

anonymous
Apr 9, 2010 4:40 PM

@Sams & @btone, you can't argue with creation 'cos it's in the bible.

And it seems you can't argue with Creationist 'cos s/he seems to think they are also in the bible, in a starring role.

It is a pity that Creationist seems unable to comprehend that secret government censorship will do nothing to stop the really bad stuff, but will give a future government the ability to politically control any information on the Net.
Digger11
Apr 9, 2010 4:46 PM
It's a bit like that if you don't like the 60kmh speed limit you drive at 90kmh everywhere.
Disagree with red lights ? just drive through them.

Don't like Indian immigration and think violence is the soultions? then start beating people up.

Let's all hope this [edited] from Clear Computers gets what he deserves.

Edited for defamatory language.

Edited by BrettWinterford: 14/4/2010 04:26:55 PM
Sams
Apr 9, 2010 7:22 PM
Sometime when personal morals conflict with laws, people break laws. Often laws have been changed for the better that way. Unless you want a society full of amoral robots following laws to the letter like mindless sheep, I suggest you be careful what you wish for.

"Let's all hope this [person] from Clear Computers gets what he deserves."

He is getting accolades, which is what we are all hoping for, so your wish has come true!
btone
Apr 10, 2010 9:52 AM
Let's all hope this [edited] from Clear Computers gets what he deserves.

Ah the aronists of the web forums won't even steer clear of euthenasia for their mind masturbatory fixes . Maybe a peaceful pill for internet trolls should be prescribed for some of the worst transgressors, criticism of the frail and afflicted attempting to alleviate their 'god given punishments?' is scraping the barrel for even the worst bottom feeding web trash.

ED - [Sorry to edit your post btone, I understand you were only making reference to the Troll.]

Edited by BrettWinterford: 14/4/2010 04:29:03 PM
Ace
Apr 10, 2010 11:09 PM
It is not against the law to bypass the Conroy filter, and as far as I am aware there is not intention to introduce legislation that would ban end-users from using anonymous web surfing proxies.

Going 90 kmh in a 60kmh zone clearly breaks a law. Avoiding Conroys filter is clearly not breaking a law.
Rhino
Apr 12, 2010 8:26 AM
@Creationist: "run masterclasses on "How to build a bomb" or "How to rob a bank" 'cause nowhere it says that anyone attending is going to actually do that?" That's true, but using a bomb or robbing a bank are illegal in this country, taking your own life isn't.

"intelligence has a very weak correlation with morality" No it doesn't. I know plenty of highly intelligent people on this planet that have a very good moral compass.

So by your rational, you either are:
A) highly intelligent but lack a moral compass...OR
B) stupid but highly moral.

Which is it?
Sams
Apr 12, 2010 8:55 AM
Rhino "I know plenty of highly intelligent people on this planet that have a very good moral compass."

You forget that some people here measure morality of a person by how often they go to church. If that's the measure, then yes, most of the intelligent people on Earth would not be "moral" by their definition.
Rhino
Apr 12, 2010 11:58 AM
@Sams....mmmm I see your point.

I did try to put words together about the recent (and long time) abuses by religious organisations, and all it achieved was sending me cross-eyed and concluded they were neither moral or intelligent. But thats a debate for another forum :)

I need to have a lie down LOL.
Ace
Apr 13, 2010 10:43 AM
Oddly, you're confused @Digger. Avoiding the filter is not against the law. Accessing to access child porn is against the law. I realise this difference may be a little subtle for you, but it's worth having a think about.
Creationist
Apr 13, 2010 8:20 PM
Sams, btone, anonymous, Rhino - you guys were hilarious if it was not for the logic, that you never cease to refer back to. In fact, it is not your strong suite, but you get credits for trying :) And thanks for attacking me - that clearly shows you have nothing else to say.

"Actually yes it is, and I'm confident that having a more informed public would do more to prevent bombings and robbings."
Informed public and public, proficient in making bombs are two very different "publics". Let us continue the list of what public should be informed of in details in order to make our lives safer: how to drive dangerously; how to murder; how to sabotage government buildings... the list might go on and on. When do you stop, Sams?

"A trivial failure in logic. Heh, you are saying that showing the problem doesn't exist doesn't solve the problem (that doesn't exist). Besides that, are you saying your opinions are fact and other people opinions are just 'mere' opinions. Sounds like religion to me."

Spectacular pile of... logic :) Let me try and explain it to you once more: people, that are saying "We do not need your filter" are not offering anything in place of it. THEY do not see a problem, therefore, THEY do not see a need for a solution, thus making their stance opinionated, since that is where their rhetoric ends.

"Simple facts are for simpletons"
So much for "intelligent and articulated", right, Sams? Have nothing to say?

"Sometime when personal morals conflict with laws, people break laws. Often laws have been changed for the better that way. Unless you want a society full of amoral robots following laws to the letter like mindless sheep, I suggest you be careful what you wish for."

Hmmm... a lot of words and virtually no sense. Are you saying that current laws are making you to steal against your moral values, and therefore you are breaking these laws by NOT stealing in hope of changing them to the better? Or is it the other way around - you steal and hope you'll get arrested and when you will make a big impact by leading a movement to change the laws in a way that would allow stealing?
And what that was about "amoral robots" and "mindless sheep"? Are you saying that you prefer "moral robots NOT following laws" and "mindful sheep that scatters across"? :)


anonymous, ever cared to provide ANY substantiation for your claims of some "secret" government? What is that "really bad stuff" you spoke of?
You guys are so “articulate”, so much ado about virtually nothing - no links, no elaboration.


Rhino, "...using a bomb or robbing a bank are illegal in this country, taking your own life isn't"
It certainly is not as law sees it, since (I am guessing here) you cannot arrest, trail and charge a corpse, however it is still technically a murder - it just happens that a murderer and a victim there are one and the same person.
Another side to this story is this: "Aiding or abetting a suicide or an attempted suicide is a crime in all states" (US)
[http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Suicide]
I wonder if this so called "reseller" used "the filter" issue as cover for "aiding or abetting a suicide or an attempted suicide"

'"intelligence has a very weak correlation with morality" No it doesn't. I know plenty of highly intelligent people on this planet that have a very good moral compass. So by your rational, you either are:
A) highly intelligent but lack a moral compass...OR
B) stupid but highly moral'

Let me help you out of your own confusion here: intelligence and morality have a very weak link between them, meaning you can have intelligent and moral people as well as intelligent and immoral. The same goes for not-so-intelligent. Is this clearer now? One does not have to have a PhD in order to be honest. Just as not all school drop-outs end up in prison for various crimes.

And if you and Sams consider yourselves intelligent then I'll ask you to entertain a thought on how secular "reasoning" could lead one to morality as a concept. Have fun.
Ace
Apr 13, 2010 11:24 PM
I feel somewhat left out of that rant...:(
tallguy
Apr 14, 2010 1:52 AM
@Creationist: On the point of your objection to "Make parents responsible", I have to strongly disagree that this is a bad idea. In fact, parents are already responsible, nobody needs to make them so.

I am a parent, and there is a truckload of stuff on the internet that I don't want my kids to see (violence, porn, etc). There is a huge amount of this stuff out there that is eligible for classification, but in 18+ restricted categories. The great filter will do NOTHING to stop my kids from seeing this stuff. Only good parenting can play a role here.

We have too many people in this country saying "its not my fault" or "I'm not responsible". Grow up and take some personal responsibility.

Oh, BTW, it is "lacks", not "lucks"!!!
anonymous
Apr 14, 2010 1:31 PM

@Creationist, welcome back from your maxximum holiday.

Sound secular reasoning leads straight to morality, ie encouragement of actions which are in the public and community interest. This will be clear to everybody except those who "measure morality of a person by how often they go to church."(@Sams)

And it's not a secret govt we are concerned about, but the imposition of a secret censorship regime which will provide the means for a future govt to secretly block anything they want, eg political opposing views. We won't know about it because it will all be secret, with heavy penalties for any disclosure.
scooter
Apr 14, 2010 3:13 PM
@Creationist & digger11, thanks for clearing up my misconception. The filtering technology will solve child porn, religious fundamentalist recruitment and all manner of evils on the internet just like traffic cameras have stopped speeding and intersection collisions.
This filter will not solve any problems. That is the point. There are existing laws for all of the issues you have raised. Crimes have been and will continue to be committed regardless of the filter. As you accuse others of not putting forward a solution so I accuse you. The filter is not a solution, it demonstratably will not work. Sadly those that want to access the very materials you want to restrict already have the means to bypass the measures you wish to implement.
Let's not waste the public's money on this. Education and enforcement would be a better target for the money involved.
Sams
Apr 14, 2010 3:29 PM
"Let me help you out of your own confusion here: intelligence and morality have a very weak link between them, meaning you can have intelligent and moral people as well as intelligent and immoral."

You probably need to read up on stats, and find out what 'correlation' actually means before you try using it in a sentence.

Obviously nobody here is going to waste their time following up the whole of that rant, because religion is based on immutable, a priori belief, not on the search for truth, so we might as well be taking to a brick wall: nobody is ever going to change creationist's mind because it is fixed (like concrete). For example, one may take from his nick that the whole evolution thing is beyond him. We have the same problem with Conroy. However, as usual, a debate is all about the observers, not the opponents.

However, this point is interesting, although OT:
"how secular "reasoning" could lead one to morality as a concept"

To bolster anonymous, I would add that the basis of morality is innate and instinctive. You don't see babies jumping out of the womb to go for the jugular. The more intelligent species such as chimps have a social order, despite having difficulty reading the bible. And beyond that at higher levels of intelligence we have an interest in fostering a good community, as mentioned. There are plenty atheists donating to charities, sponsoring Africa families, and so on. Kids brought up in a atheist environment turn out just fine (jn fact, less much prone to committing sex crimes for example).
arcanedevice
Apr 14, 2010 4:25 PM
@Creationist - I'm against the filter because the topic of this story demonstrates that it is actually a big waste of - assuming everyone on this forum pays them - our taxes, because as the story demonstrates there are already ways to get around it.
Although i'm against the filter, I will wholeheartedly support any effective measure that removes child pornography from anywhere (not just the net!), but this filter will do nothing.
There are laws in Australia that prohibit child porn, and we have law enforcement agencies across the nation that are equipped to enfore the law. If the Government really know where these sites are then they should know, or be able to know, who is accessing them and deal with them within the law and through our legal system(s). And once that process is completed, the correctional institution system will hopefully deal with them... Much more effective use of my taxes than a filter that doesn't achieve anything.
Of course, I'm more than happy for Mr ConBoy to demonstrate how the filter will enforce the existing legislation instead of the legal system...
Maxxi
Apr 15, 2010 5:28 PM
Soz to disappoint you anonymous, however I am not Creationist... Nor Digger11... Nor any other identity on this forum... Just good old Maxxi. Have a nice day.
anonymous
Apr 15, 2010 6:09 PM

@Maxxi, OMG you mean there are two (or more) of you with exactly the same level of fundamentalist verbose irrelevance? What a coincidence, who would have thought it was possible.
Creationist
Apr 22, 2010 7:39 PM
@tallguy: Thank you for the correction, however, you seem to have misunderstood me. I did not advocate for absolving parents of their responsibilities. The point I was trying to make is that there are plenty of parents who are not technically literate enough to implement an "in-house" filtering of any kind. There are also people who simply do not care. There is no sense in having laws that are not enforced in one way or another, which leads us to your next point of "the great filter [that] will do NOTHING to stop...". Well, it was not supposed to stop that that got you worried, was it? It was brought up as a measure to stop access to RC material on the Internet.
And yes, good parenting beats any filter hands down, or so I hope.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Telstra shifts BigPond email to Windows Live
All data to be migrated to Microsoft cloud.
 
Windows 8: Under the hood
Part One of iTnews' enterprise guide to Windows 8.
 
iTnews on tour: The Executive Summit Series
Join us in Sydney and Melbourne to meet Australia's tech leaders.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Would you be concerned about your business' email data being hosted offshore?

   |   View results
Yes
  88%
 
No
  12%
TOTAL VOTES: 84

Vote