A report in The Age newspaper earlier this month indicated that the new Federal Government has announced that the Software filter produced for Australian families and able to be downloaded for free has failed to reach expectations and is therefore under review.
$85 million was spent on the filter, which was hacked by a 16 year old in less than 30 minutes. Expected in 2.5 million households, less than 150,000 were downloaded or ordered on CD and only 29,000 of those are being used today.
The review is in line with Senate estimates hearing, but no indication of whether the filter will continue to be offered, or whether this changes the new government’s stance on compulsory ISP filtering with an opt-out feature only.
Check out the Age story “Web porn software filter a dud” for more details.
Feed
February 28, 2008 at 17:18
They’ve known that this program has been a dud for quite some time, and it’s certainly come as no surprise to most Australians, I think. However, I also think that this has actually just provided Labor with even more reason to push ahead with the ISP filtering plan, which begins trials in Tasmania shortly. They’ve got to one-up the previous administration, and keep the support of the Family First crowd. This is an easy way to do it, but one that is as ultimately doomed as the Net Alert program. The Australian public does not want filtered internet, especially if it comes at the cost of lower speeds and higher prices, which it will. I also expect to see another teenage Porn Cracker on the news using Tor or another anonymising application to bypass the filter in under 60 seconds.
February 29, 2008 at 13:13
There are a couple of issues I have with this idea of filtering:
First, what ever happened to parents supervising their children’s use of the Internet? The main filter argument seems to be to keep the “bad stuff” away from the kids. Shouldn’t it be the parents responsibility to protect their own children, rather than leaving it up to the government?
Second, who decides what constitutes the “bad stuff”? Working from the same argument as before, the filter is marketed to the community as protecting children from pornography etc. My concern though is that the definition of “bad stuff” may become broader over time. Are we trying to replicate the “Great China Firewall“?
Thirdly, how much of an adverse impact is the firewall going to have on our Internet infrastructure. As bookbuster pointed out in their comment the filtering is likely to lower speeds and increase costs. Something Australia can ill afford given our poor performance on international rankings on bandwidth and Internet utilisation.
Lastly, my understanding is that the filtering will have an option to “opt out” what sort of stigma is going to be attached to those who choose to opt out of the filtering. There are many reasons not to have your Internet filtered, not the least of which is what I believe is a democratic right to freedom of information.
Opting out of the filtering doesn’t mean your only interested in the “bad stuff”. But that is how it will likely be portrayed.
At the end of the day though, technology isn’t going to be the solution to what is essentially a user education and awareness issue.
February 29, 2008 at 15:16
I totally agree with you Corey - you summed it up beautifully.
We have internet on our home computers and although our kids are using it much yet, we will not be filtering it, we will be educating our kids about it. Same as we do with other issues of concern.
March 1, 2008 at 20:58
Just a couple of points:
A firewall, is for protecting your own PC from say worm attacks, not filtering information. (though some internet security packages do have ‘child protection’ filtering).
Just how much does anyone trust Governments, the thought of putting ‘Govt. issued’ software on my PC, makes me feel uneasy especially when it has the “for your own safety” feel attached. Does anyone know of an IT based evaluation and review of it such as PC World etc?
“…technology isn’t going to be the solution to what is essentially a user education and awareness issue.” - techxplorer. I cant think of a better statement.
March 4, 2008 at 07:58
@wedge,
A firewall is more than just software on a PC. Although a PC based firewall is the one that users are more familiar with.
I would imagine that the system that they’re planning on implementing will be employing a number of different technologies such as an advanced firewall, content filtering, and a proxy server. There are devices that combine all of these things into one.
It will be interesting to see how this issue evolves and what “technological solution” is provided.
Especially in light of how quickly the last “solution” was subverted, and the availability of software like Tor.
March 13, 2008 at 20:45
There seems to be some misconceptions about the governments PC filtering scheme http://www.netalert.gov.au.
First of all there are several filters offered not just one.
Secondly they are all commercial applications selected by the government. They were not developed by the government.
All of the filters offered by net alert and some others were recently reviewed by Choice Magazine. Unfortunately you need to be a member to read it but three of the five offered got good reviews.
Heres the link to the choice review.
http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106130
March 13, 2008 at 21:07
Thanks for the clarification. And although you may not be able to access Choice directly for free, many public libraries will have access to it through their free online databases. Check with your local public library. (ie. I know its available through General One File from Gale)
March 19, 2008 at 06:02
This has been an interesting discussion. Where I live in the states, there’s a small organization trying to completely separate the “bad stuff” into a completely different port. I don’t know what that means completely, but I took it to mean that there will another type of internet that you will have to actively go and seek out if you want to see adult content. No filters at all whatsoever. It sounds like a perfect solution in my mind, but for now I have to use htt://www.contentwatch.com software.
March 19, 2008 at 06:05
Oops… Sorry about the repeat post, but I realized I misspelled the URL. It’s http://www.contentwatch.com.