How the tech industry defused the internet filter

 

Analysis: Voluntary code solves everyone's headaches.

Howls of IT industry protest may have alerted the wider community to the Federal Government's plans to filter the internet, but it was diplomacy that secured the delay in its implementation.

In orchestrated press releases last Friday, Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy and the ISP industry finally found common ground after arguing over the filter since last December, when he mooted changes to the Broadcasting Services Act, due to be amended next month.

The Government will delay the passage of the filter bill and review 'Refused Classification' category - the basis by which a blacklist of sites would be formed. And the industry agreed to a voluntary code of practice to block child pornography.

Politically, it is a master stroke for both groups.

"The beauty of the agreement is that it has given hope to both sides," a source close to the agreement and speaking on condition of anonymity told iTnews, "The appeal is that it is neutral - everyone thinks they got something."

For the Government, it takes the contentious filter off the agenda in the lead-up to a federal election that could come as soon as late August.

This allows Senator Conroy to focus his energy on positives such as the rollout of the National Broadband Network. The Government may now no longer need to attempt to pass enabling filter laws or be held responsible if flaws emerge in its plan.

For conservative lobby groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby, the prospect of the RC category being reviewed almost sounds like good news - the door was left open for the RC category to be expanded to include other content.

And, for the industry, there is the year's delay and the chance of a more moderate approach from Senator Conroy.

A voluntary code was always the industry's preference. And the filtering of a narrower category of sexual exploitation of children is a far better option than the wider scope of RC.

Peter Coroneos, chief executive officer of the Internet Industry Association said the delay was "welcome breathing space" for the industry.

He believed the RC review and voluntary code will serve to take the political heat out of the filter issue.

Coroneos said the compromise was a "collective effort" after months of discussions but decided only the day before the announcement.

Care was taken to keep negotiations out of the press: "By last week, people in the industry saw that the timing was good to pitch a more productive way forward".

Coroneos said that Telstra, Optus and Primus - who have signed up to the voluntary code - represent 70 percent of Australia's broadband subscribers.

"Seventy percent is not a bad starting point - we obviously want to build on that. I am pretty confident that soon we'll get to 90 percent of the industry," he said.

Coroneos said that it was a "matter for ISPs" as to whether they accept the code but that it was in their best interests.

The code "provides a much more attractive option to the industry than what they would have faced otherwise," he said.

The industry "now has an opportunity to demonstrate the industry's preparedness" to self-regulate, he said.

"If we can achieve good policy objectives through self-regulation - that is a far better outcome than legislation. If we can have industry players committed, rather than doing something against their will, we can avoid the negative consequences of legislation."

For now, it has bought the industry time.


How the tech industry defused the internet filter
"Howard had the right idea. (i can't believe I am saying that) Give every household a copy of a filter package, and allow us to prevent access to material for our kids. the ALP filter is wholesale ..."
By peterhau
 
 
 
Comments: 34
hellfire
Jul 12, 2010 3:30 PM
This issue is far from diffused. Labor thinks to fool us that it has been shelved because it is not popular with the public. But the reality is that Gillard supports Conroy on this issue and all that has been done is that the filter has been postponed by a year or more. In the meanwhile work will progress on it's readyness for implementation and it will become a reality after the election if this hopeless Labor Government is returned in the coming federal election. DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THIS POSTPONEMENT CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THE FILTER
anonymous
Jul 12, 2010 3:41 PM

"Everyone thinks they got something". So just what have we got?

The minister continues to refuse to discuss his censorship with Net user representatives, while meeting with the fundamentalists who are pushing their own agenda.

Three ISPs have agreed to introduce a censorship system which will be mandatory for their customers, and the minister has deferred the rest of the mess until safely after the election.

After the election, nothing will have changed except that the minister will declare the censorship a great success and make it compulsory for everybody.

His measure of success will be that people in the voluntary/mandatory test have not seen any child pornography. This will be true, but what he will not admit is that nobody else has seen any CP either, because it simply is not there. It's illegal, so it is not sent over the open Internet where it could be detected.
funkyg
Jul 12, 2010 4:24 PM
I'd just like to correct anonymous above. Actually those on the ISPs in the trial will still be able to get whatever they want using a proxy, which is one of the main reasons what they are testing is next to useless, but I get his point that they'd be mad to do it anyway.
Tom Brown
Jul 12, 2010 4:31 PM
Great!

Voluntary code, no law, no standards!

Lets see how bitching about the ISP's goes, they are not beholding to the critics. And of course anonymous will blame the government and his last paragraph is nonsensical.

Who likes the TV industries voluntary standards on advertising oh sorry infomercials.
Tom Brown
Jul 12, 2010 4:39 PM
If the consumer accepts the ISP will not let RC content through does that mean the ISP will be legally responsible if they do.

Why can ISP's now take up a (Voluntary) filter without the much bandied hit on speed or maybe it was hyperbola (bull) in the first place.


brownbear
Jul 12, 2010 4:51 PM
I must say I am disgusted with this whole debacle.

So we are going to hide (Filter, block, censor) child abuse material on the internet.

We are not going to resource law enforcement agencies to collaborate internationally and identify and arrest perpetrators and ensure that support and assistance is provided to the victims.

We are not going to get the hosting ISP to remove the material.

Filtering -
What a morally bankrupt solution to the problem of child abuse material on the internet.
Tom Brown
Jul 12, 2010 5:12 PM
Sorry Brownbear I question your comment

I think you are unrealistic, we are not talking about law enforcement agencies chasing down those involved in this illegal trade.

And to be real, our laws against certain material is censorship. If you go to jail for child porn it is censorship are you saying those viewing that material should be left free. If so that industry would get a great boost.

You talk morals but what you say is not. A simple technical partial solution for accidental (and still illegal) errors in browsing are "disgusting" to you. Your morals boil down to the desire to punish. You are blinded by your desire for vengence to the extent you do not see a good policy as it gets in the way of your desire.
Res
Jul 12, 2010 5:45 PM
Voluntary filtering... yes, that's right kids, we are now going to prove to Conroy that it can be done, something completely opposite of which everyone has been saying to him for a long time now.

Wake up and smell the darn coffee.
zag
Jul 12, 2010 5:52 PM
@Tom Brown

That doesn't work because that would imply that artful pictures of nude children is child porn when it was clearly stated that it's not child porn Bill Henson little case, shows up the problem.

I don't actually agree with what Bill Henson did as I think it breaks the current laws, yet it was considered all art, so child porn could be portrayed as art and thus doesn't break the law.

Anyway...

The problem with this filter is it doesn't just filter child porn but more things than that gay sites etc are also filtered out and some things that aren't in the RC are also filtered out.

Some church groups would want PHP and ASP sites filtered because they could be drugs went it's web program language.

Australia is supposed to be a free country yet this labour government wants to put in a filter it, this government should be thrown out the door not voted out but actually forced out of office.
brownbear
Jul 12, 2010 6:18 PM
@ Tom Brown
You say: "You are blinded by your desire for vengence to the extent you do not see a good policy as it gets in the way of your desire."

What crap. Censoring child abuse/pornography does nothing to stop the perpetrators or assist the victims or future victims. All it does is hide it. How can this be good policy?
MichaelJM
Jul 12, 2010 7:07 PM
It is not possible to design an "Internet Filter" that can only filter out "Chid Pornography". Clearly any working "Internet Filter" can filter out anything that its controller desires to censor. ISPs that have signed up to this agreement will in the next twelve months have designed and implemented such an "Internet Filter" This whole agreement is a subtefuge designed to remove a sensitive issue from the coming Federal Election. Prime Minister Julia Gillard is hustling to fix up issues likely to cause problems for the ALP in this election, under the direction of the NSW ALP party hacks that run the ALP. This is an agreement that Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy is too stupid to have worked out himself. It gives the religious fundamentalists everything that they want while giving nothing away.
btone
Jul 12, 2010 7:09 PM
This is the country where folks can be subject to a traumatic, drawn out (eventually sensibly dismissed) legal process for reposting youtube video of a Russian circus performer swinging his small child in a circle thanks to a 'child abuse expert' opinion, and where a magistrate has declared that a naughty cartoon of Bart and Lisa Simpson can be interpreted as child pornography. We are expected to trust three commercial entities and clerks in ACMA to proscribe what is child abuse and child pornography, or some nebulous 'responsible person' to review same a year or so down the track.

Yeah, right...
Ace
Jul 12, 2010 7:23 PM
No filter, either defined by government/law or voluntarily by ISP can stop child porn to any effective degree. It is a complete nonsense. The search engines already filter stuff like that out, so the chances of any such stuff turning up on someone's screen accidentally is negligible.
ITnovice
Jul 12, 2010 8:16 PM
Some of the debate here is quite uninformed and based solely on opinion. There is nothing wrong with the compromise reached. It means that the government will still have to use the same measures of monitoring that other countries like the United States use which is not a bad thing anyway. Democracy and freedom of speech do not automatically mean Australia should not have a filter. filters and monitoring methods exist to catch those people viewing/creating/sharing unjustifiable content.
BlastedUser
Jul 12, 2010 8:19 PM
Filtering doesn't solve the problem but hides it instead, which pretty much is what politician's want. If you don't hear about it, it's as good as gone. Of course, if they are successful in getting the ISPs to record all our internet activities, this can flush out the less sophisticated users. Then again, all this big brother activities will make some of us want to be sophisticated enough that our own private lives aren't open to the government's prying, but we will be running the risk of being accused of having something bad we want to hide.

Anyway, this delay is just that, a delay. The government made no announcements on them softening their stance on filtering, they are just being smart at removing a policy from consideration that a lot of people oppose.
DanielBrown
Jul 12, 2010 8:46 PM
Just dont vote Labour back in. Thats what Ill be doing.
JoeSoap
Jul 13, 2010 8:46 AM
So what we have here is Labours attempt to introduce filtering on the sly. I wonder who is paying for the equipment the isp's are using for this filter ? I'm sure govt support would be found buried somewhere in the accounts.
Sams
Jul 13, 2010 8:56 AM
ITNovice: "Some of the debate here is quite uninformed and based solely on opinion."

And some of it is based on decades of IT experience including, in my case, experience as a principal engineer in a leading global security software company.

"filters and monitoring methods exist to catch those people viewing/creating/sharing unjustifiable content."

Sharing techniques exist, and are in use, that cannot be filtered or intercepted. The proposed filter is not going to catch anyone: it is not part of its scope in any case. Even if it were, only completely inept sharers would use the web for file sharing, and the filter doesn't address anything else. And the reason is (a) the performance hit it would take for packet analysis, and (b) the uninterceptable protocols would always get around it.
BrettWinterford
Jul 13, 2010 9:56 AM
@btone - but if it is voluntary for ISPs and telcos to filter, you still get the choice - when the media reports what sites Telstra, Optus or Primus mistakenly block, you will have other options - other ISPs and telcos to work with. But if a filter is legislated, you will have no option. Any move to avoid legislation should be encouraged.
btone
Jul 13, 2010 12:09 PM
@Brett: "But if a filter is legislated, you will have no option. Any move to avoid legislation should be encouraged".

Fair enough to an extent, and the UK model which this essentially is solves some concerns re 'mandatory' and 'universal'.

But the three ISPs are essentially forcing their customers to accept mandatory censorship of undefined content based on a still secret list compiled by the same agency that was discredited by previous leaks with no apparent independent monitoring. "Trust us to define CP?...sure can!" The option of like it or leave isn't there for cable users or thousands tied to Telstra for a myriad of technical reasons.

This farcical game will obviously end in compromise. But this smells of snowboards and cigars behind closed boardroom doors with the spin doctors waiting outside for the pre election deal.
Flaschengeist
Jul 13, 2010 1:16 PM
"Slaves do love their chains"
Bourkie
Jul 13, 2010 1:35 PM
Strange how they coordinated their press releases, yet they still have a mismatch over basic policy:

1. Conroy came out saying the CB (Classifications Board) is the only board competent enough to classify child porn (still wrong; the AFP is the only group qualified, but anyways) rather than incompetent ACMA.

2. Telstra, Optus and iPrimus all said they'd be sourcing their Child Porn shopping lists from ACMA, not the CB!


Communication = FAIL
caco
Jul 13, 2010 4:15 PM
I love how they say "someone close to the source" - nice reliable source you have there - makes the information just as viable as the information given from the Labor government.

I am really sick of the governments "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" approach to the internet and not thinking of it on a technical yet logical scale - this is not a church we are running we are running a society - yes there is moral practice that needs to take effect but stupidty and morality do often go hand and hand.

The fact is people who often look at child pornography often get caught or know the loop holes in the system.

Since the internet is protocol based over digital content, therefor that digital content could be representing anything, from a church website to a fully fledged X18+ site. The fact is, nothing is stopping people from hosting a shop front (which has been used before) for lets say a gardening service, instead of receiving a lawn mower and given the site has is reasonably smart (which they would be to hide content from a search engine) can receive child pornography.

The thing is, child abuse, and often innapropriate content is given to the child through access of child based websites, chat rooms, social networking sites etc, and just because laws and protocol are in place on these websites, there is nothing stopping you from faking an account on a legitimate service to use it for wrong doing before it eventually gets caught - and being the internet, nothing is stopping the person on the over end masking their indentity. Social Engineering - its the biggest IT flaw - NOTHING is stopping people doing that - user stupidity, and especially adolescent incompetance (not the word, but gullibility) is the main pitfall between child and child sexual exploitation.

Nothing is stopping someone going on MSN / AIM / IRC either, a protocol people use everyday for a legitimate service.

All this filter does it go straight to the basic ways of gaining access to this content, it does not stop, abuse of social networking sites or other forms that can be used / faked or abused.

If the labor government cannot even stop meth / ice coming into the country - a physical entity, how do they propose to stop a virtual service on a protocol that was made to stop what the government intended on doing.

They should develop a system where the parents are aware, this doesn't JUST happen on the internet, there are rings all around the country probably operating on all platforms of media.

If youre a minister for IT you definitely need to have a fundamental grasp of the security risks and other security experts, network engineering experts, rather than being clouded so much by morality and thinking there is a quick solution - humans are the link between the two ends - not the internet, or the 98% of users who are doing the right thing.
Maxxi2
Jul 13, 2010 4:15 PM
Bourkie, looks like you have not yet understood the system as yet. There are two bodies here with different responsibilities going forward:

1. Classification Board: Makes binding findings and handles appeals on Refused Classification content/URLs. This will be relevant for the RC Blacklist whenit is introduced and used.

2. ACMA is the body/Authority responsible for managing implementation and execution of legislation compliance and relulatory oversight in the communications and media industries.

As defined by the govt and legislation, not as defined by individual members of the public... >;))

So in summary, when the RC blacklist is implemented, the CB decides and ACMA executes.

The CB does not deliver the list as such, and this was never foreseen nor proposed.

Good luck with reading up on that m8...

Interesting point about the UK. 97% approx of all internet users there are filtered today, and all have the choice, and had the choice from Day 1, to use other non-filtered ISPs, yet only a minute percentage ever did.

The acceptance rate is sky high, the complaints are negligible to almost non-existent, less than a handful of glitches in over 13 years of operation, massive uptake, clear and functioning industry co-operation, strong national and international police org relations and co-operation, highly effective in it's aims.

- Democracy and free speech in the UK are apparently not dead after 13 years of filtering
- No grinding death of internet speeds
- No massive costs aspects resulted
- No massive public backlash to be seen nor heard
- No attributable suppression of human rights in the UK on this basis so far
- The public has had 13 years to find out about it, read about it and protest, and despite apparent massive online poll protests in Australia, the UK public have broadly no problems with it at all.

Communication = SUCCESS
anonymous
Jul 13, 2010 5:27 PM

@Maxxi, your filter minister hagiography sounds familiar, probably because you have been recycling it for so long.

Now getting back to reality and common sense, your verbose output still hasn't touched on why your pet filter is such a great idea when it won't detect the child porn that you and the minister are always talking about.
Maxxi2
Jul 14, 2010 9:03 AM
Ahhh, anonymous... Eloquent, objective and balanced as ever...

Question: Can you disprove the facts presented concerning the UK ISP filtering model?

Question: Is the data regarding the handing of RC content and the differences between the ACMA and CB roles incorrect?

Those were I believe the subject matter of the posting, and are I believe predominantly accurate?

Your time may be better spent testing those realities, as the IWF has been doing what you claim cannot be done.
Sams
Jul 14, 2010 2:27 PM
Maxxi2: "Question: Can you disprove the facts presented concerning the UK ISP filtering model?"

Can you prove firstly that you presented facts?

Bland assertions such as "the complaints are negligible" are unlikely to be facts. One person on these forums has already cited direct experience of major problems caused by UK filtering. Complaints about not being able to see something that you don't know is there because it is hidden are fairly rare too!

Maxxi2: "The acceptance rate is sky high"

There are many reasons for choosing an ISP: price, prevalence, marketing, and, and but not least, ignorance, rate very highly. It doesn't indicate "acceptance" of filtering. If the ISP has a yes/no box for filtering when customers sign up, how many do you think would tick yes? Got any "facts" to back that up?

Maxxi2: "highly effective in it's aims"

If you are all about "facts" and not hot air, then show us the statistical facts on how said filtering in the UK has reduced 1. the production of CP, 2. the sharing of CP material on the UK Internet, and 3. the accidental viewing of CP by Internet users in the UK. Or wasn't that the aim?
legless
Jul 14, 2010 4:24 PM
The thing is that no real thinking person is against certain types of material being filtered out on the net. Many countries do it all the time including Australia. The problem has always been with the implementations of the filter and the fact that it will not stop the trade of this material, nor will it help catch or punish the people involved in its trade.

Also there is justifiable concern about what other material might be included as RC content at the time of implementation and/or in the future.

The number of times that people accidentally "stumble" on child porn sites is now pretty low anyway due to the filtering methods already in place and this new filter will make little difference. It will always happen as new sites spring up daily and can't be added to any lists until they are found and reported. That happens two ways; someone actively seeks them out to add them or someone stumbles on them.

@ITnovice You seem to have a misguided opinion that here in Australia, we have the guarantee of free speech. Unlike the USofA we are not not guaranteed that right.

@Maxxi2 You make the point that UK users were free to opt out of the filter by choosing other ISPs. It's irrelevant how many chose it as people are basically lazy and the majority of internet users don't want the hassle. We will not be given this choice.

@DanielBrown So your answer is to not vote Labor back in? God help us all if Liberals get in power. Abbott might not be openly speaking out in support of such a filter but only a fool would think it is not in his mind. He already admitted he'd lied to us so it's obvious he'll say whatever it takes to get into the PM's chair.
anonymous
Jul 14, 2010 6:28 PM

It seems that a person posting here (and elsewhere) has used multiple screen names over time but with a very familiar closed mind on the realities of government imposed Internet censorship.

This has resulted in them being already dubbed a tool of the minister and a pro-censorship troll. It seems that nothing has changed in regard to the latest iteration of the censorship idiocy.

And legless, the opposition leader doesn't impress me greatly either, but surely there is no way that any thinking person could support the current arrogant censorship dictatorship, with or without the blind flag-waving from the usual suspects.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu)
Jul 14, 2010 7:45 PM
I'm with the 94% who are against the filter as originally proposed. I've posted here over the past year that it would need to become optional, in that it ought be 'ISP-based', but that the clients of the ISP could 'opt-out' of the filtered feed to take a raw feed.

So, I take the delay as a 'win', as while one idiotic Minister might want to pursue it in a year, by then the issue driving it - ALP Senate preferences - will have become a moot point... so wiser minds might rule.

Moreover, if ISP self-regulation removes access to the abhorrent content (child porn), then it removes the 'driver' for the religious zealots to demand a change in the law. In other words, we will avoid all legal restrictions if the self-regulation is done well. This is a good outcome as it means that if any future government wanted to shut down opposition websites (say), the ISPs would not do it, as there would be no legal compulsion to do it. I actually prefer that to the 'safeguard' approach of a single retired judge approving the list, as a future corrupt government would only need to get one judge on side... whereas this way, they need to get the whole ISP industry agreeing...

There is a long history of self-governance displacing the need for legislation. Let's take it as a win, and my bet is that next year the senate will no longer be on some knife-edge balance of power determined by preferences, so the political push for a formal filter arrangement will have evaporated, and self-regulation will have taken the sting out of the issue.
NOJ1025
Jul 19, 2010 2:57 PM
Anyone who can use Google can get around this stupid filter and the people collecting and distributing CP will not even be bothered by this as none of it is hosted on web sites they are all P2P.
This Filter is a waste of TAX payer dollars and a waste of time.
ITrant
Jul 19, 2010 8:58 PM
Won the battle, not the war. This issue is being swept under the carpet until after the election. The only party to actively oppose the filter is The Greens. Judge politicians by their actions, not their promises. Only then will your vote be effective.
BlastedUser
Jul 19, 2010 9:31 PM
As long as it's not one of Labor's promises for this election, they can't say that the voting public gave them the mandate to implement it later. It would be a disaster if both Labor and the Liberals tried to one-up each other in terms of internet censorship.
peterhau
Jul 20, 2010 7:56 AM
Howard had the right idea. (i can't believe I am saying that) Give every household a copy of a filter package, and allow us to prevent access to material for our kids. the ALP filter is wholesale denial of my basic right as an individual to view any sites on the internet. Guess what happens if I end up on a site that isn't something I am interested in? I navigate away from it. it isn't that hard. Gillard seems to be treating the populace like children, which seems a bit strange, seeing that we weren't visiting the evil sites that she seems to think we were, until after the filter was announced. How many "work around the filter" workshops have sprung up to enable people access to the "controversial" data that will be banned? euthanasia isn't something I am interested in, but some people are, that is their choice, their freedom, which seems to be lesser than the will of the government.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
Top Stories
eHealth measures missing the point
Opinion: When will the PCEHR lead to patient outcomes?
 
Photos: Google Glass gets real
Coming soon to an office near you.
 
Photos: HTC One vs Samsung Galaxy S4
Android giants battle it out.
 
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
Bankwest builds continuous delivery capability
To automatically deploy test/dev sandboxes by mid-year.
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Veterans' Affairs sets sights on modernisation
Data safe with Human Services, CIO says.
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Citi Australia drops platform customisations
Technology chief shifts focus from building to leveraging systems.
VicRoads restructures IT team
VicRoads restructures IT team
Department moves to align with industry benchmarks.
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Zurich Australia extends IT team offshore
Malaysian staff served from Australian data centres.
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Leigh Berrell - Utilities CIO of the Year
Yarra Valley Water CIO Leigh Berrell accepts his Benchmark Award for Utilities CIO of the Year.
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Wayne McMahon - Retail CIO of the Year
Domino's Pizza CIO Wayne McMahon accepts his Benchmark Award for Retail CIO of the Year.
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
Inside Perpetual's ongoing IT transformation
CIO Jenny Levy discusses how outsourcing will help the firm "simplify, refocus and grow".
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Managing Complexity - Defence's Daniel McCabe
Daniel McCabe, Assistant Secretary of Australia's Department of Defence, provides the audience at the iTnews Data Centre Strategy Summit with a deep dive into the organisation's data centre consolidation program.
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
How Facebook designed the data centre from scratch - Marco Magarelli
The full keynote by Facebook data centre architect Marco Magarelli at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit. Magarelli details the design considerations behind the social network's Prineville, Oregon; North Carolina and Luleå, Sweden data centres.
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Modernising Legacy Data Centres - Telstra's Jon Curry
Telstra general manager of managed data centres Jon Curry guides the audience at the iTnews Australian Data Centre Summit through the build of the telco's Clayton, Victoria data centre.
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
NSW Government launches NABERS data centre rating tools
Matthew Clark from the NSW Department of Environment guides facilties managers through the details of the new NABERS data centre energy rating tool at the Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit.
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
NABERS launch panel: Australian Data Centre Strategy Summit
Matthew Clark (NSW Dept of Environment), Greg Boorer (Canberra Data Centres), Glenn Allan (National Australia Bank), Mike Andrea (Strategic Directions) and Bob Sharon (Green Global Consulting) discuss the impact of the NABERS data centre rating.
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Fortescue Metals [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Fortescue Metals 'New World of Work" project, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Retail [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss the shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Pacific Aluminium [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Pacific Aluminium's lightning fast service desk refresh, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Industrials category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Domino's Pizza [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Domino's Pizza's shift to hosted services, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: McDonald's Australia [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss McDonald's Australia's new self-service portal for employees, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Retail category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: ING Direct [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: ING Direct [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss ING Direct's 'Bank in a Box', one of three shortlisted finalists for the banking and finance category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Judges notes: Yarra Valley Water [The Benchmark Awards]
Judges notes: Yarra Valley Water [The Benchmark Awards]
iTnews' panel of judges discuss Yarra Valley Water's insourcing project, one of three shortlisted finalists for the Utilities category of the CIO Benchmark Awards.
Latest Comments
Polls
Do you prefer the Coalition's NBN policy?

   |   View results
Yes
  19%
 
No
  81%
TOTAL VOTES: 1669

Vote