Conroy cries foul over 'dishonest' filter foes

By Mahesh Sharma on Jun 7, 2010 1:34 PM
Filed under Networking

Hopes to have legislation ready later in the year.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has lashed out at opposition to the Federal Government's bid to filter the internet, and labelled those promoting the dissent as "dishonest".

He described claims the internet speeds would be slowed by as much as 87 per cent were "wild" and said the government's intentions were misrepresented by opponents.

"This has been a campaign quite dishonest in the way that it has talked about how speeds will be impacted," Mr Conroy said.

"I've seen wild claims that 87 percent of the internet would be slowed down. If the government is going to introduce a policy that slows the internet by 87 percent, I'd be out there saying that's not just an acceptable outcome.

"The evidence here in our testing and overseas, where this sort of filter is operating in many countries, there is a negligible impact, 1/70th of the blink of an eye."

He made the comments after yesterday's launch of Cyber Security Awareness Week, where Senator Conroy made no mention of the internet filter or its role in the government's cyber security strategy, until questioned at a press conference.

"The government has never claimed this is a one size fits all solution, we never claimed this was a silver bullet, lots of people allege we made that claim but it's simply not true," he said.

"The reason for cyber safety week is we have a whole range of initiatives for our cyber safety policy... a whole range of policies to address this, [of[ which the filter is just one."

He also conceded the government had missed the deadline to introduce the internet filter legislation in the first half of the year.

"We hoped to finish the consultation and legislation finish being drafted in the first half of the year. We don't expect that to be the case.

"The consultations are still ongoing... We would hope the legislation will be tabled in parliament in the second half of this year."

The government was working well with ISPs on the majority of issues, he said.

"Yes, we have a disagreement. We're in constant dialogue and consultation with the individual ISPs
and we're continuing to consult with them about the mechanism that will go around the policy to ensure we have better transparency, accountability, a way that Australians can feel secure in having this blacklist."

Conroy cries foul over 'dishonest' filter foes

27 comments in this discussion

"You've got to remember that the Telstra "solution" involves filtering entire websites. That is, filtering all of Wikipedia even if only one image (such as an album cover) is on the list. Realism ..."

By gdt

Tags

internet, filter, censorship, conroy, dishonest

Tim Berners-Lee calls data retention a 'really, really bad idea'

Industry backs 'workable' filter solution

Pirate Party wins right to contest federal election

Chinese Government tightens Internet controls

Breaking Stories

NBN Co buys TransACT fibre network

Myer automates online order management

Google technology advocate sends NBN safety message

ACMA shops 'freephone' charge changes

Vodafone still losing Australian customers

Comments: 27

Daveh Jun 7, 2010 2:25 PM	So, lets look at it. We are talking systems that measure time in thousandths of a second. If the internet goes at about 1/95th of the blink of an eye. Slowing it down by 1/70th would be a severe impact. The next thing i would point out, is that the 87% mentioned is a number given by the governments first round of testing. Senator Conroy is engaging the people with Ad-Hominem and hyperbole, not fact. He lacks knowledge and substance. He deliberately avoids engaging the Australian public with any factual accuracy or significant detail. Senator Conroy is a weak person, pushing weak and ill conceived policy that has been unable to stand up to criticism. For shame Senator.
--Ben-- Jun 7, 2010 2:27 PM	The hypocrisy is so blinding it would almost be safer looking at the sun. He is seriously pointing to the same trial which they refuse to subject to any scrutiny due to confidentiality clauses initiated by the department, and using bogus excuses of objections from stakeholders in not releasing FOI documents to cover up their incompetence, deception and lies. Spare us the crocodile tears Conroy.
Digger11 Jun 7, 2010 2:37 PM	It's no surprise that the govt. hides immigration levels and population policy from the little people. You all just go berserk when the govt. does something you may not agree with - even though the vast majority of Aussies support cleaning up the filth on the Internet. The problem with Australia is that the press often rpeorts the noisy minorities views - when views of aminstream Australia (like my own views) are cleary boring and not newsworthy!
EMwyres Jun 7, 2010 2:46 PM	I don't wish to self promote, but if Senator Conroy wishes to promote opponents of "his" filter as being "dishonest", he himself can only be describe as the "father of all dishonesty": His latest gaffe: http://bit.ly/a8IouX His historical (hysterical?) gaffes: http://bit.ly/bn3s3A
tardis42 Jun 7, 2010 3:35 PM	Conroy fails again. He says two different things about the "87%" in the one paragraph, neither of which are what the anti-filter people have said. "I've seen wild claims that 87 percent of the internet would be slowed down. If the government is going to introduce a policy that slows the internet by 87 percent, I'd be out there saying that's not just an acceptable outcome." he says • 87% of the internet would be slowed down (by how much?) (nope, no-one ever said that) • "the internet" (what, all of it?) would be slowed down by 87% (nope, no-one said that either) maybe he thinks 87% of the internet would be slowed down by 87% ?? what people did say (because that's what got reported as the worst performance result of the most accurate filter in the previous trial) is that some sites (High traffic sites like youtube, for example) may be slowed down by up to 87% if that filtering product (the most accurate tested in that trial) was used and contained pages on that site. Conroy is a pathological liar, and he doesn't understand the technology AT ALL. where he claims that "where this sort of filter is operating in many countries, there is a negligible impact" he's talking about countries that exclusively filter child p0rn - meaning there aren't any high traffic sites being filtered by those systems. when the IWF put a Wikipedia page on the filter (high traffic site), it broke wikipedia for most of the UK - to read and edit. I like his closing line too - "a way that Australians can feel secure in having this blacklist" - That pretty much sums it up right there. one of the major problems with a submissions based filter is it will never catch much of the total - the false sense of security is one of the bigger problems with it - and he thinks it'll make us secure?! EPIC fail right there.
Mitch Jun 7, 2010 3:58 PM	More rot from Senator Conroy what else there is to be expected.
Cham Jun 7, 2010 5:55 PM	@Digger11 I agree with you that certain "filth" on the internet needs to be cleaned up. I'm not going to get into a debate over what we each consider "filth", that's really irrelevant, because we're in an agreeing position that whatever it is, it should be gone. However, I do disagree with you on what I have assumed from your post that you think the filter will clean up the filth. It won't. Even the government would be hard pressed to say that this filter will remove 1 bit of inappropriate material from the internet. Instead it will just block it, meaning people who want to get access to it will go around the filter, in more undercover and harder to track ways, thus massively harming law enforcement efforts against said filth.
tardis42 Jun 7, 2010 5:57 PM	ah digger 11. there wouldn't be any arguments if he was cleaning up the actual filth (Child porn only) but the filter of course doesn't clean it up, it only puts up a sheet with a "please don't look behind the sheet" sign on it. It's probably been asked of you hundreds of times by now, but what's your interest in this? filter vendor? i'm assuming you aren't Clive Hamilton, if only cos you don't sound as socialist as he is, but...
anonymous Jun 7, 2010 6:38 PM	Conboy has consistently shown that he is only interested in maintaining his power trip of imposing "his" secret Internet censorship, hence his cascade of lies. Every one of the evils that he claims his filter will fix - pedophile, rape and terrorist sites - are already illegal and do not need his intervention to be shut down. "Saving all the children"? Spare us, but please note in passing that people opposed to secret govt censorship are not therefore pedophiles, rapists or terrorists.
frances Jun 7, 2010 7:03 PM	Instead of a porn filter, can we have a dishonesty filter instead? At least we woulldn't have to listen to or see this drongo ever again.
stopnet Jun 7, 2010 7:35 PM	Sometimes public servants forget the bit about 'serving the public'. Time to make Mr Conroy reconsider: http://www.stopnetcensorship.com
tallguy Jun 7, 2010 9:56 PM	@frances: Great idea. I'll vote for the politician who proposes it... only they'd probably get themselves filtered...
peterniss Jun 8, 2010 12:28 AM	Considering Conroys persistent advertising the filter as a child porn blocker when the actual percentage of child porn to the rest of blocked content is less than 1% I think hes doing a fanastic job of misrepresenting this rediculous filter. And the real child porn activity on the internet is unfilterable in the sense of what this is all about. The federal police are the only way child porn can be combated. I'm sorry but manditory censorship is just wrong. I would support an optional filter for those with children but as it stands its very very bad. And Conroy is nothing more than a self congratualting douchebag.
btone Jun 8, 2010 7:11 AM	Wow, Dig(yourself another hole)11 almost made it through without a spelling gaffe. Unfortunately the inclusion of aminstream, (apparently like himself), blotted the copybook...again. Still if he can do to the printed word what Conroy does to the spoken it is at least a source of minor amusement, given the remainder of their combined contribution to rational argument is a source of bemusement to the actual mainstream 95+% who reject their nasty little mindsets.
Anach Jun 8, 2010 7:22 AM	So essentially, by calling those opposing the filter dishonest, he is branding Child support groups, the National Library, the Federal Police, Google, Microsoft, various ISPs, untold numbers of IT professionals, and pretty much everyone else who KNOWS what they are talking about, liars. As Conroy has said. "There are 20000 people falling victim of those spams coming through the portal". So obviously he knows what he is talking about. I believe he is out of his league and does not know enough about the tech to have the job. His accusations and false reports come across as arrogant or religious bias. Either way, he has no idea.
genx Jun 8, 2010 8:40 AM	Digger where is your proof of the "vast majority", More people signed the anti-censorship petition than the workchoices one. The government works for the people, are you suggesting they shouldn't by hiding information or creating secret blacklists? I'm sorry, but you are totally out of step, if you think then Gen X and Gen Y are NOT the growing majority with vastly different "moral" standards, and not only that, but are far more informed on government movement than previous generations, you must be loony mate. But go for it hey, you are free and uncensored to keep spewing your vapid comments, you are clearly on your own unless you head down to the local church or bowling green.
Ace Jun 8, 2010 11:02 AM	@genx, he's referring to the Christian Lobby Group, who are wholly behind the filter. The make up the vast majority of Christian Lobby Group members.
tin Jun 8, 2010 11:04 AM	Pot, Kettle, Black. Yesterday FilterMan was talking about how evil Google was, and ended up spreading his own version of misinformation and dishonesty by saying Google collected banking details from open WiFi networks... WRONG MR CONROY! Banks use SSL. So if he wants to play the dishonest misinformation card, perhaps he himself should stop spreading misinformation!
schneider Jun 8, 2010 11:11 AM	Can we just stay off the Filth issue and move instead to the issue that technically it does NOTHING. The reason why NO IT person supports the filter isn't the filth (that is a side issue really some for some against) but EVERY IT person KNOWS the filter will not work at all to do anything! Child porn will be peddled the same way it has always been done. The only thing this will stop is people in bad situations getting help online with regards to their issue on illegal addiction or self harm. NOTHING else will happen!
Tom Brown Jun 8, 2010 12:59 PM	I will howl into the night. So many comments, so full of bull. You falsely put words into Conroys mouth. Watching for every little missed word or for any unintended connection to the extent that you must create your own or reiterating someone else's rubbish. EG: to take comments by tin, it appears Google collected data the contents of which have not been given to the AFP or in fact in the EU case has been withheld from the investigators by Google on advice from their solicitors, the last I heard. Misrepresent the breach as data from banks (SSL)what rubbish just make up anything to justify your desire to criticise. I assume you know something on which you comment and apologise if I have assumed incorrectly. I refute and take exception schneider's claim to speak for me. Lots of false assumptions what rubbish. Glad to see some questioning.
anonymous Jun 8, 2010 1:25 PM	@Tom Brown, and from the IT perspective your point is? You wouldn't be trying to censor out any criticism of the much beloved Conboy and his little filter, would you?
Eric in Syd Jun 8, 2010 2:22 PM	The "1/70th of the blink of an eye," nonsense is pure spin made up by Conroy, For some reason I always thought this was based upon data gathered by the Telstra report - however looking at it now http://exchange.telstra.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/TBT-final-report1.pdf That specific calculation was "With a Blacklist of 10,000 entries, we are able to see that response to a DNS query increases from 1.7ms to 2.2ms." Therefore the calculated impact was 0.5ms If we take this answer - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_fast_can_the_human_eye_blink "An eye blinks at 300 to 400 hundred milliseconds per blink" And choose the latter value to give him the benefit of the doubt, 400ms / 70 = 5.714ms By my calculations (and I'm no mathamatician so correct me if I'm wrong) it's closer to 1/700th the blink of an eye? This is a completely pointless statistic because it's a server based measurement taken in ideal lab conditions of a solution that differs wildly from the one the gov't is proposing. Furthermore it was trivial to circumvent, it didn't contain pages from “heavily trafficked” websites, it can't filter pages, only whole websites (so poses questions about the pages on Wiki and Youtube allegedly already on the list) If your current claim is that anti filter campaigners are misleading the public, then surely it's disingenious for you to continue to mislead the public? If you want a statistic people can relate to try these.. The internet comprises of roughly 3 trillion websites(and growing), and the technology tested can only filter up to 10,000 websites - that’s the equivalent of a shot glass in an olympic sized swimming pool. The average time it will take to circumvent his filter 1/70th the blink of an eye If you actually want to stop peodophiles, then put this money towards policing and education, and appologise to Facebook and Google because if anyone can help you track these people down, you probably want them on side!
Mitch Jun 9, 2010 8:38 AM	Tom Brown you must of gotten a nice bit of money from Conroy to say such drivel..
Sams Jun 9, 2010 2:47 PM	"I will howl into the night." Only on a full moon I suspect.
Ace Jun 9, 2010 3:51 PM	Although I couldn't understand most of it, I did enjoy @Tom's comment. I howled with laughter into the night!
Pilotyoda Jun 13, 2010 3:58 PM	Senator Conroy. If a train or truck driver new as much about their job as you know about yours, they would lose their jobs! The only dishonest person here is you 1) The filter can be bypassed. 2) It wont and never could stop child abuse (which is the real issue behind child porn) or the dissemination of such material. 3) The filter (censorship software) will impact net speeds. 4) Your version of a filter is open to expansion and abuse by any government of the day, and in some countries this would include Christian groups. You have already stated that it will be used to block additional material at any time. 5) The filter is imperfect as it doesn't work on high traffic sites and cannot discriminate between different content (eg Youtube, Google searches, etc) 6)Please name the countries you say use this filter and how they implement this, or are these references only about totalitarian states? 7) On-line banking is encrypted and insecure systems will only give out the fact that you did. 8) The majority of ISP's did NOT take part in the trial and the trial was of a very limited nature 9) If some material is legal in other countries why do you think net users shouldn't go there. After all I could legally travel to that country. The Net is just another way of viewing material in that country. And if so, what does your stance do for trade relations with those countries. 10) Your new proposal about recording everything we do on the net http://www.zdnet.com.au/govt-wants-isps-to-record-browsing-history-339303785.htm#comment-320502329 is just another demonstration of your unilateral contempt of ordinary people and your paranoid behavior. Bring on the elections.
gdt Jun 14, 2010 6:44 PM	You've got to remember that the Telstra "solution" involves filtering entire websites. That is, filtering all of Wikipedia even if only one image (such as an album cover) is on the list. Realism factor zero. A more realistic solution -- deep packet inspection of HTTP traffic -- slows the web browsing experience more. Worse, DPI requires router to maintain "state" -- a record of where each connection if up to -- and this opens the way for successful denial-of-service attacks against ISP routers in a way that is not possible at the moment.