|
And to add to this debate, Australian's suffer from enough lag when online, this can only make things worse.
Just how much with the filter and its hardware cost to buy and maintain ?
Posted by
Paul,
Aug 1, 2008 12:22 PM
|
|
Blah blah blah...
Same old whinge from people not prepared to make an effort... Everyone else can do something about it as long as they are not involved, except to comment from a pulpit somewhere...
Well guys, "a little bit of porn" is somehting you should not be advocating for children as a price to pay for your degreeof sacred comfort.
What a mob of selfish "holier than thou" theorists...
As for the minimum 22% performance degradation, I have the repsort and cannot find that finding. Perhaps you are reading the report from 1999... Get a grip on reality folks and try a dash of honesty while you are at it...
Posted by
Mike the Observer,
Aug 2, 2008 3:09 AM
|
|
Why not mention the one supplier who didn't degrade throughput? Why not use them? Because the underlying reason for the article is to attack child protection.
Posted by
David,
Aug 2, 2008 6:13 AM
|
|
I wouldn't to see my network performance degraded due to internet censorship.
Saying that you are "protecting children from porn" is highly emotive, and serves to produce no reasonable technical argument.
And to all these people who are jumping up and down demanding that kids be protected - here's an idea - how about you be better parents and install your own content filtering, or monitor your kid's usage? And if they get past the filtering on your PC? what makes you think the ISP level filters are any better?
I'm really sick of people refusing to take responsibility for anything, and as a result we get stupid government initiatives that are turning us into a big brother state.
Posted by
Ben,
Aug 2, 2008 3:28 PM
|
|
pointless effort to filter the net.
what's more strange is that everyone whines and carries on when China filter parts of the web, and yet it's more than fine for everyone to have filtered net access in Australia.
From what I've seen of filtered net access it's pretty useless as you'll still have porn sites and neo-nazi sites still popping up, you can have 100% filter results on google serches and you'll still have gay porn coming up.
then to the people who really believe they are going to filter out child porn stuff from then net would be clearly kidding themselves when most of that won't be web sites at all but on IRC or message type sites so the FBI don't track you etc, the web sites that would have child porn would be done by the FBI so they can catch people.
only the sheep would really believe they can filter out a lot of the "bad" stuff from the net.
It's like saying their kid will never lie in their entire life.
Posted by
Zag,
Aug 3, 2008 12:48 AM
|
|
There are plenty of options out there for parents who want to filter out porn to protect their children. Why should the internet using community as a whole have to act as ‘parent’ to every child just because some parents won’t take enough care to responsibly manage their child’s access to the internet?
The real scourge that the internet community needs to take responsibility for is not child access to porn, but access to ‘child porn’.
Posted by
Gerard,
Aug 5, 2008 8:57 AM
|
|
It seems to me that there are two reasons for porn blocking at the ISP level. One is to prevent adults from accessing material to which they are legally entitled. Did you ever wonder why so much shelf space at news agencies is taken up by pornographic magazines? It's because of adults who don't want to have their name on a subscription list. Most magazines get small sales from newsagencies because most readers save money and buy a subscription.
If adults are forced to request that their ISP permit them access to porn sites then that will be a deterrent from using Internet porn. I think that if the politicians want to discourage porn then they should either tax it of increase the range of porn that they ban.
The other reason for filtering is for the benefit of bad parents. Some parents are too lazy to supervise their children and want porn filtering so that they can use the Internet as a substitute for the TV. Of course unsupervised children will just use encryption and get access to whatever interests them regardless of filtering.
Posted by
Russell Coker,
Aug 5, 2008 9:13 AM
|
|
Mike the Observer...
>Same old whinge from people not >prepared to make an effort...
>Everyone else can do something about it >as long as they are not involved,
*excuse* me? who is it you think are going to be asked to actually
*implement* these filters? Systems and Network Admins. i.e. SAGE-AU members. Of *anyone*, they are best placed technically to advise on the technical hit this will have on *your* Internet experience.
Note, they don't comment on "pornography" of any sort - it is just the
*technical* side.
>Well guys, "a little bit of porn" is
>somehting you should not be advocating >for children as a price to pay for your >degreeof sacred comfort.
and once again we hear the canard "it's for the children". Interesting how over the last half century this has been a cry of people who are not willing to accept their *own* responsibility for bringing up their *own* children. Sex-ed? We'll make the teachers do that. Drug-proof the kids.
Make the teachers do that. Alcohol abuse? let the teachers do it?
And then bitch and moan about how the education system is 'failing' the kids because they can't read, or spell, or count! When are they supposed to do all this? They sop bleeping busy learning about sex/drugs/"other
stuff" that their parents are too cowardly to discuss with them.
Which brings us to Internet filtering. The place for this is at the *PC*, right before it hits the screen, *not* the "great firewall of australia".
Are you worried about what your kids might see? Then
*take*responsibility* and do it, on the PC, at home. Watch them. Talk with them. Don't abrogate responsibility to 'the government'. Haven't you noticed, whenever the government gets involved in something they inevitably stuff it up?
>What a mob of selfish "holier than
>thou" theorists...
Hmmm...
>As for the minimum 22% performance
>degradation, I have the repsort and
>cannot find that finding. Perhaps you
>are reading the report from 1999... Get >a grip on reality folks and try a dash >of honesty while you are at it..."
Figure 19 - p48 - the best performing was 2% (not too shabby - but under controlled conditions), to the worst case of 87% *worse*! The 'Median Level' (the black dot on the red line) is about 30% - so that will be
(kinda) "the average". So, our Internet access is not all that fast (even on ADSL2+), and you want to take a 1/3rd hit on that? A 1 minute download to now be 1 minute 20 seconds? A 5 minute download, 7mins+, etc.?
Perhaps you skimmed the report, it might be better to *read* it, and then discuss it with someone who *knows* something about networks and firewalls.
We won't mention all the "technically incorrect" 'factoids' throughout the report that, if it had been read by a knowledgeable person, would have been picked up and corrected.
Basically, the report is a WOFTAM, Waste of Flaming Time and Money!
reg's,
.h
Posted by
h,
Aug 5, 2008 10:23 AM
|
|
Addressing the root causes would be a better approach rather than throwing money wastefully at a symptom.
If the Federal Government want to grandstand with $125M then they'd be better off giving the various AFP taskforces (Virtual Global Taskforce, Australian High Tech Crime Centre) all of the money.
These taskforces are actually fighting the problem at the source and having a direct impact on the lives of exploited children. Unlike the implementation of a poorly thought out and poorly executed implementation of a content filter that will be all too easily bypassed.
The last thing we want to do is diffuse the funding of effective organisations.
Posted by
Chris Knight,
Aug 5, 2008 12:58 PM
|
|
A large amount of the porn finding its way to children is directly through spamming which this firewall will not stop. The stats show that a large amount of porno spam originates from infected PCs inside China and has passed through their firewall without being blocked. The guys who run the spamming operations seem to be above the law in their local countries and according to the Spamhaus ROKSO, many are also into selling illegal drugs and child porn yet nothing is done about them. The easiest way for an Internet security expert to get child porn in their mail box is to provide details of spamming tools publicly online. If the government was serious about protecting the children, they need to start putting serious economic sanctions on countries that allow the spamming to continue.
Posted by
th,
Aug 5, 2008 2:39 PM
|