Net filter circumvention: it's completely legal

 

Unmonitored, unreported and completely legal.

The Federal Government's $23.8m ISP-level internet filtering initiative will not block encrypted content or web applications and can be circumvented legally, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has admitted.

In an official response to parliamentary questions on notice released yesterday, Senator Conroy said he had attended an hour-long demonstration of filter circumvention on 5 June 2009.

He was shown how to get around the ISP-level filter using free proxy network TOR and Virtual Private Network (VPN) techniques at the Enex TestLab in Victoria.

Although Enex expected "technically competent" users to be able to circumvent the filter, Conroy said monitoring circumvention attempts would not be required by the Government.

"ISPs will not be required to block circumvention attempts by their customers or end users," he said.

While he said it would be "irresponsible" of the Government to publish circumvention techniques, the Government took no measures to prevent other organisations from doing so.

Euthanasia advocacy group Exit International held a "hacking masterclass" for senior citizens last month, and Electronic Frontiers Australia planned to make public as much information about the filter as possible.

When asked if an ISP would be held responsible for knowingly allowing customers to bypass the filter, Conroy reiterated that ISPs would not be required to block circumvention attempts.

He said the same to whether ISPs would be allowed to offer a service or product that enabled circumvention.

"The capacity of filters to detect and provide warnings on circumvention was not tested during the pilot as none of the filtering solutions provided such granular controls including monitoring and alerting, and it is not a requirement of the Government's policy," he said.

Internet Industry Association (IIA) CEO Peter Coroneos was sceptical of the filter's effectiveness.

"While we support many of the Government's efforts in the online security sphere, we aren't convinced that it [the filter] will have anything more than symbolic value," he told iTnews.

While the IIA did not believe that the internet should be "unregulated and unrestricted in all ways", Coroneos said the filter would only give families a false belief that their children could not access unsavoury material.

"It remains our concern that much of the worst of the worst content will escape the filter and people are given a false sense of security," he said.

"The reality is, access to this content remains unaddressed and really could only be addressed by the families themselves."

Last week, Conroy's Department for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said filter legislation would not be introduced to parliament until "later this year".

Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, whose questions on notice prompted Conroy's current response, urged the Government to abandon its net filter plan completely.

"The Government needs to clearly indicate that it's going to scrap the idea completely and work on a new policy in collaboration with all stakeholders," Ludlam said in a statement last Thursday.

"Opposition against the internet filter is widespread because it will do precisely nothing to curb the distribution of illegal material online, while establishing the architecture for greater government censorship in the future."


Net filter circumvention: it's completely legal
"Waste of money, ineffective, etc. are not the areas in which to combat this filtering proposal because it leads to this future scenario: Conroy: "We have been taken to task by you, the public, ..."
By BlastedUser
 
 
 
Comments: 19
harrywwc
May 4, 2010 2:20 PM
Ohhhkaaayy...

so, there is proposed a "mandatory filter" that we all must use, except that we can bypass it with impunity and without fear of repercussions.

what is the freaking point?!

A law that is legal to bypass is no law at all - at best it is asinine.

a joke that is a complete waste of time, money and effort.

I just thought - perhaps this is a plot by the big 'T' to put all the smaller competitor ISPs out of business by lumping with all the costs of the 'mandatory internet filter'?

.h
definitely voting "under-the-line" for the Senate and putting this clown (and Fielding) last and second-last
Dalryk
May 4, 2010 6:37 PM
It's worse than that.

"He said...ISPs would be allowed to offer a service or product that enabled circumvention."

They can do the circumventing for you. But they aren't allowed to offer a product that doesn't have the filter in the first place. That is just complete insanity.
BlastedUser
May 4, 2010 7:58 PM
If you consider that the ulterior motive is to create the infrastructure for ACTA, then the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the decoy is of no consequence.
Jimmeh
May 4, 2010 8:39 PM
This is just getting more and more ridiculous every day.

"ISPs will not be required to block circumvention attempts by their customers or end users,"

I learnt how to use proxies and get around firewalls when i was 14 years old at school to get to game websites. Every one of my friends learnt the same, even the most incompetent students worked it out. And they expect this to stop children getting onto pages the government doesnt approve of? anyone with two braincells to rub together can work this out for themselves.

"They can do the circumventing for you. But they aren't allowed to offer a product that doesn't have the filter in the first place. That is just complete insanity."
@Dalryk - I completely agree with you. Why cant they just make this a opt-in blocking service and actually inform parents about the kinds of options they have to prevent their kids from accessing inappropriate web content rather than making the decisions for everyone.
Ace
May 4, 2010 10:37 PM
Well there goes your defacto 'opt-out' option. If ISPs are allowed to offer a service or product that enabled circumvention, that's simply an opt-out, and probably what many people have been asking for as a minimum.
Mordd
May 5, 2010 1:11 AM
Fantastic, im calling iiNet now to find out what they will call their anti-filter product and how much it will cost!!
Sams
May 5, 2010 8:24 AM
"Although Enex expected "technically competent" users to be able to circumvent the filter"

It doesn't require much technical competence to click on a link to install an anti-filter plugin into your browser - which is exactly the sort of thing that will happen if the filter become reality. It is subterfuge to give the impression that circumvention will continue to only be available to the technically elite - such people will quickly build things that others can easily use.
hoooter
May 5, 2010 8:38 AM
I would like to apologize now, for voting for the idiot, Sen Conroy.
Rastaman
May 5, 2010 8:44 AM
Technically competent users like school children who have been using remote anonymizing proxies since the dawn of filters you mean?
anonymous
May 5, 2010 9:59 AM

Conboy before the last election: The filter will be opt-in.

Conboy before this election: There will be no penalty for by-passing the filter.

Conboy after this election: Following a secret meeting with ACL and advice from the Chinese Ministry for Truth and Citizen Participation, we will now protect all the children by jailing for ten years anyone who dares to interfere with mein filter.
SteveThePirate
May 5, 2010 11:27 AM
Was he also shown the much easier circumvention methods, like clicking "cached" on a Google search?
It's so easy to do it requires no technical competence whatsoever!
shaynem
May 5, 2010 12:03 PM
There is already companies setting sites up to circumvent this!

http://vpnsecure.me

It's no secrete they directly target the Australian Internet filter. heh.
jt70
May 5, 2010 5:54 PM
Is this a Monty Python sketch? A mandatory filter that's perfectly legal to bypass? Huh?
Does Conroy dress and feed himself or is there some specialist ministry staff that do it for him?
grumpybug
May 5, 2010 7:56 PM
Sorry but I thought we had finished with the April Fool's stories for the year.

I would start laughing if this wasn't just so utterly bizarre.
Umslopogaas
May 6, 2010 7:27 AM
Scott Ludlum explained in the article "establishing the architecture for greater government censorship in the future." The whole purpose of the exercise is to get the infrastructure in place, the blocking of whatever it is they wish to block will be established by stealth later.
Cheyne
May 7, 2010 11:53 AM
There is also new sites popping up that detail in easy terms how to bypass the filter. Such as http://www.whatfilter.com.au
crysis
May 10, 2010 9:28 AM
Those that want to access the sites that this will make 'inaccessible' are the very people who will bypass it, so therefore the damn thing is only directed at people who don't need it.
This is a reaction to all the backlash against it, and they are trying to save face. They haven't noticed the egg yet.
What a royal waste of money.
anonymous
May 10, 2010 10:49 AM

Yes, a royal waste of money, but it seems that Emperor Conboy the Barbarian hasn't woken up yet that his royal robes are nowhere to be seen, and all his machinations are exposed.
BlastedUser
May 11, 2010 1:24 AM
Waste of money, ineffective, etc. are not the areas in which to combat this filtering proposal because it leads to this future scenario:
Conroy: "We have been taken to task by you, the public, that our solution to protecting children from the nasties of the internet have been ineffective. So in response to your demand, we are beefing up the capabilities of the filtering system. We have removed the 10,000 URL limit now that filtering system is so optimised that any delay is negligible. Also, we will now also monitor P2P traffic, IRC servers and FTP sites as these are the areas where child pornography may be transmitted. Of course, VPN traffic will still be off-limits to us because that is the nature of VPN, so it will still be easy to bypass our filter. However, I do believe that the improvements we have made to the filtering system will be highly appreciated by the Australian community as they have been very vocal in us lifting our game and making this filter as effective as can be. Thank you."

The ineffectiveness of the filter is not the issue as that is something that can be fixed in time. The issue is that this legislation will enable the government to install machines at the ISPs that will monitor our use of the internet. In the end, we, the public, will end up monitoring ourselves as we use the net so that we will not "trip" the sentinels and bring their attention down on us. If, in the future, the country is in a grip of terror similar to what happened on 9/11, it would be so easy for the government of that time to issue a decree that the internet filtering system will be used for Homeland Security and any voice of dissent detected will be grounds for suspicion. Then we will ask, how did this tool for protecting our children become a tool to silence us?
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
  94%
 
No
  6%
TOTAL VOTES: 33

Vote