Enterprise filters block political Sex Party website

 

Sex an issue for some web filters.

Corporate web filters at organisations such as Shell and the National Australia Bank are blocking web access to the registered Australian Sex Party.

It was contesting the August 21 Federal Election with seven candidates in Victoria, including convenor Fiona Patten, who challenges Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy.

Organisations block access to the party's website at www.sexparty.org.au because of how their web filtering solutions use keywords to classify sites.

One such filter was in place at Conroy's Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy during a content filtering trial last year.

A department spokesman declined to disclose details of that product. He said it was unsuccessful in the trial. The department now uses ContentKeeper software.

"One of the products being trialled blocked this site using its default settings ... This site is no longer blocked," she said. "The Department does not filter legitimate political content."

Vendor classification

The party's website was classified as 'pornography - minimal risk' in McAfee's Trusted Source database, which underpins its enterprise-grade Web Gateway, SiteAdvisor and SmartFilter software.

McAfee's Asia-Pacific vice president and chief technology officer Michael Sentonas told iTnews that the site was viewed as "inappropriate" because it linked to "extremely graphic" affiliate sites and photos of events such as Sexpo.

Whether the site was blocked in a McAfee customer network depended on their policies, he said.

"McAfee's products make every attempt to provide full flexibility as to the type of content that is allowed past the filter," he said. "For instance, a primary school may utilise a very different policy than a University.

"Every attempt is made to maintain an objective view of the web contents and correlate that to the publically available content categorisation definitions in order to empower our customers to create the appropriate policies for their organisations."

The offending website came under the category of 'Advocacy Groups' in a URL database managed by Websense, which provided enterprise web security gateway and filtering software.

According to Websense's marketing manager David Brophy, Websense filtering products would enable access to advocacy groups' sites by default, although customers could block access to these sites if they chose.

Trent Davis, chief technology officer of Netbox Blue, said that blocking access to the site at Australian enterprise networks would likely be inadvertent; it was typically accessible to Netbox customers.

"Some simpler systems would block it as they put a heavy emphasis on key words and images on the site, not factoring in the grammar and 'intent' of the site," he said.

"My belief, in the case of the simpler systems, this would be inadvertent as many systems rely exclusively on automated classification."

Davis said his products used a "more advanced automated system" that referred websites the system could not confidently categorise to a human operator who reviewed the site within a day to update its classification.

"Regarding the blocking of sexparty.org.au, in a typical corporate environment with a Netbox, this would not be blocked as it is classified as a political site," he said.

Corporate blocks

Neither Shell nor NAB would disclose details of their web filtering software.

Shell Australia spokesman Paul Zennaro said employees could contact tech support for access to the site. Access was typically granted for legitimate requests, he said.

A NAB spokesman said the bank had "clear policies governing the use of electronic communication, including the Internet."

"Like other corporations, NAB also make use of standard internet content filtering services that block certain material deemed to be inappropriate," she said.

"At the moment, these standard filtering services are filtering out the sexparty.org.au content."

Party convenor Patten said she was aware of filtering issues. The party has taken a strong anti-filter stance in its 2010 campaign, opposing Labor's proposal to mandate ISP-level content filtering.

When the party launched in November 2008, Patten could not access the website from airport lounges and had difficulty sending media releases to major news networks, she said.

"We're a Federal political party. We've been approved by the Australian Electoral Commission," Patten said. "I am aware of some corporations blocking it [the website], which shows the inadequacies of current software."

Although she acknowledged that the term 'sex' in the party's website URL could be responsible for its filtering woes, Patten said the party was unlikely to change its name.

"I think the fact that people are still blocking our site just because of the word 'sex' in the name shows that we need this political movement," she said.


Enterprise filters block political Sex Party website
"Emails from IT News mentioning The Sex Party are also getting blocked..."
By Ace
 
 
 
Comments: 7
iuytfdrsz
Jul 24, 2010 11:29 PM
"The Department does not filter legitimate political content.""

Ahh, what a way to justify potential censorship. So they do filter illegitimate political content? What constitutes what is legitimate and what isn't? And who decides what is legitimate and what isn't?

Politicians, and similar nasty pieces of work, frequently try to frame discussions within certain boundaries. This is especially true in debates about the bogeymen the establishment use to justify so much. For example, the drug dealing bogeymen would not exist if it were not for the political policy of the prohibition of some drugs, but the failures of prohibition doesn't get talked about in most political circles.

Most child abuse occurs within families, or by trusted friends of families, but paedophiles are rarely presented like that in papers or by politicians. That is because if they are honest about child abuse, most customers or voters will take offence, which is bad for profits and power, respectively.

Allowing someone to frame political debate in anyway gives them much more power. As foul as political extremist's attitudes usually are, if they are censored then public discussions about their foulness will not occur, and so when the foulness is discussed underground, there will be less counter arguments presented, ironically doing the direct opposite of the aims of the censorship: the extremist will gain support.

Just look at the USA, with their 2 party system, where the 2 are pretty indistinguishable. The Republicans know they will be back in power in a few terms' time, and the Democrats know they will be back in 7 tops. The two party system is the best system for keeping a power elite at the helm. Quite frequently we do see US politicians deriding third parties, or alluding to them being illegitimate in some way. We saw the same in the UK before the recent election. Most industry would prefer the Tories or Nu-Labour in power, so before the election there was much slagging off of the Liberal Democrats, or slagging off of a coalition government. Especially when the Libs were talking about electoral reform, which would mean less of power swinging between the 2 very similar parties in the future.

There are far too many vested interests in being able to define legitimate politics. Those who benefit from the status quo will nearly always try to maintain the status quo, so when a government representative talks about legitimate politics, they are also talking about some kind of illegitimate politics. Invariably the illegitimate politics will be politics that varies from those currently in charge, or their cronies.
Maxxi2
Jul 25, 2010 2:20 AM
ROFL iuytfdrsz, ain't is wonderful. If they call themselves the Sex Party then they are either complete dills with zero understanding of how enterprise content filters work if you wish to be active online, or you are obtusely attempting to be filtered in order to make a statement.

Anyone with half an idea of how enterprise content filters function know full well that a name like that is bound to be blocked by these filters.

Has nothing to do with politics at all, just the fundamental basics of content filters. Wonderfully amusing and some light distraction in an otherwise quite serious election...
iuytfdrsz
Jul 25, 2010 3:51 AM
It's the capability to censor that's the real issue.

OK, this example is clearly just bureaucracy at its best, but be careful with turning a blind eye to any political censorship. It being justified through moral values is far too common, this time through a 3rd party corporation.

Right, time for another reefer :)
Flaschengeist
Jul 25, 2010 1:40 PM
"Slaves do love their chains"
anonymous
Jul 25, 2010 2:34 PM

"Has nothing to do with politics at all".

And of course neither has the resident troll.
flyingblind7
Jul 26, 2010 8:58 AM
Why not ignore all politics and politicians. They'll tell us the truth and do the right thing.. Won't they??
Ace
Jul 26, 2010 11:13 AM
Emails from IT News mentioning The Sex Party are also getting blocked...
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
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.
 
Meet Westpac's new technology leaders
Engineering realigned under CTO.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Was your 2012 IT budget...




   |   View results
Cut by less than ten percent?
  15%
 
Cut by more than ten percent?
  34%
 
Flat
  27%
 
Increased by less than ten percent?
  7%
 
Increased by more than ten percent?
  16%
TOTAL VOTES: 409

Vote
Will you still use DropBox and other cloud storage in the wake of the Megauploads saga?

   |   View results
Yes
  65%
 
No
  35%
TOTAL VOTES: 303

Vote