Comments on: Internet filters a success, if success = failure http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/07/29/internet-filters-a-success-if-success-failure/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:48:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: mike smith http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/07/29/internet-filters-a-success-if-success-failure/#comment-17102 mike smith Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-17102 Or https: (aka secure sockets) If they can filter that, it makes the internet rather insecure. Or pretty much any of the tunneling technologies. Mmm. secure pron. :) What happens when you drive something underground? Think Prohibition... Or https: (aka secure sockets) If they can filter that, it makes the internet rather insecure. Or pretty much any of the tunneling technologies. Mmm. secure pron. :) What happens when you drive something underground? Think Prohibition…

]]> By: Bernard http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/07/29/internet-filters-a-success-if-success-failure/#comment-17103 Bernard Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-17103 that's a very restrained piece of analysis Stilgherrian. that’s a very restrained piece of analysis Stilgherrian.

]]> By: Gail http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/07/29/internet-filters-a-success-if-success-failure/#comment-17104 Gail Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-17104 The original proposal included an opt-out of the "censorship". What happened to the opt-out options. There does not appear to be any provision for a full opt-out in that report. Without an opt-out or even an opt-in option, it plain and simple mass censorship.<br /><br />Some action guys - there's a minefield of disasters waiting to happen in that report. The original proposal included an opt-out of the “censorship”. What happened to the opt-out options. There does not appear to be any provision for a full opt-out in that report. Without an opt-out or even an opt-in option, it plain and simple mass censorship.

Some action guys - there’s a minefield of disasters waiting to happen in that report.

]]> By: Gail http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/07/29/internet-filters-a-success-if-success-failure/#comment-17105 Gail Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-17105 Perhaps you could also have mentioned the other things that Deep Packet Inspection technology can be used for. Do a search for "NebuAd + Markey" in the USA and the "anti-Phorm" groups in the UK - currently fighting to stop having DPI used for forced advertising and datamining for commercial purposes. NebuAd and Phorm (previously 121Media) are only two of the companies eager to provide forced advertising using this method. Both have a background in major forced/stealthy spyware installations - funny that!! <br /><br />https as a protocol can only protect you from sites that use it - very few. Even using proxies can't escape this level of interception at your ISP's equipment. Think of it as internet wiretapping of everything or, as an analogy, Australia Post opening your mail to insert "tailored" leaflets.<br /><br />There is no protection at all from ISPs who choose to offset the cost of Senator Fielding's crusade by using this technology for other purposes. DPI was intended as an aid to switching efficiency to get better network performance. Doesn't even do that well.<br /><br />I will eat my hat if some of our greedier ISPs are currently engaged in talks with this type of organisation. <br /><br />What is the legal position of this sort of interception in Australia? As far as I can find out, we have no protection and the equipment will be sitting at Layer 7 in our ISP's switching (thanks to Senator Fielding) waiting for the ISPs to use as a supplementary income stream. No you can't opt-out, even your opt-out is intercepted on each access. Senator Fielding has ensured that the ISPs can't re-route our data if we choose to opt-out.<br /><br />In his naive anti-porn campaign, he's opening the door to things that are far worse for everyone.<br /><br />Was it 1.4% of Victorians elected this guy? God help him, he has no idea what he is doing!!! Perhaps you could also have mentioned the other things that Deep Packet Inspection technology can be used for. Do a search for “NebuAd + Markey” in the USA and the “anti-Phorm” groups in the UK - currently fighting to stop having DPI used for forced advertising and datamining for commercial purposes. NebuAd and Phorm (previously 121Media) are only two of the companies eager to provide forced advertising using this method. Both have a background in major forced/stealthy spyware installations - funny that!!

https as a protocol can only protect you from sites that use it - very few. Even using proxies can’t escape this level of interception at your ISP’s equipment. Think of it as internet wiretapping of everything or, as an analogy, Australia Post opening your mail to insert “tailored” leaflets.

There is no protection at all from ISPs who choose to offset the cost of Senator Fielding’s crusade by using this technology for other purposes. DPI was intended as an aid to switching efficiency to get better network performance. Doesn’t even do that well.

I will eat my hat if some of our greedier ISPs are currently engaged in talks with this type of organisation.

What is the legal position of this sort of interception in Australia? As far as I can find out, we have no protection and the equipment will be sitting at Layer 7 in our ISP’s switching (thanks to Senator Fielding) waiting for the ISPs to use as a supplementary income stream. No you can’t opt-out, even your opt-out is intercepted on each access. Senator Fielding has ensured that the ISPs can’t re-route our data if we choose to opt-out.

In his naive anti-porn campaign, he’s opening the door to things that are far worse for everyone.

Was it 1.4% of Victorians elected this guy? God help him, he has no idea what he is doing!!!

]]>