I will however point out that such systems can only have a detrimental affect on cloud computing which is heavily reliant on low latency, high bandwidth connections. I'm surprised that others have not focused on this before, but with consumers and business alike moving en-masse to cloud computing solutions like Google Apps, who in their right mind would interfere with the pipes that make it all work? Filtering systems are complex, orders of magnitude slower than dedicated network equipment, largely ineffective, easily circumvented and perhaps most importantly, prone to catastrophic failure.
Google's recent high profile outage which rendered the Internet unusable for the majority of Internet users for almost an hour was due to a SINGLE '/' CHARACTER misplaced in a filtering system. For many businesses, Internet connectivity is getting to be as important as other utilities like water, gas and electricity - without it they are completely paralysed. Even spikes in latency which affect functions like address auto-complete and interactive interfaces (think Gmail) can render cloud computing applications unusable. Forget the children (who could be filtered selectively anyway), think of the cloud! Besides, education is a better strategy.
For those of you who (like me) take offense to this latest attack on our liberties, here's what you can do:
- Write to your local member
- Contact the minister
- Sign the petition
- Contact your ISP, and let these trial participants know what you think too:
- Primus Telecommunications - feedback@iprimus.com.au
- Tech 2U - sales@tech2u.com.au
- Webshield - info@webshield.net.au
- OMNIconnect - enquiries@omniconnect.com.au
- Netforce - info@netforce.com.au
- Highway 1 - sales@highway1.com.au
- If you happen to use one of these ISPs then boycott them by fast churning to a freedom respecting ISP (and tell them both why you have done so)
- Join the GetUp! Campaign
- Join Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA)
Dear Sir,And here's what I heard back a few days later:
I write to register my strong objection to the "clean feed" proposal which is already once again already making Australia the "global village idiot". A certified security professional I assure you that you are trying to achieve the impossible and as an Australian citizen I am concerned that this measure, sold as protection for society, will actually erode its very core. The scope for abuse of such technology is virtually unlimited and though today's objective may be a noble (if unattainable) goal, inevitible future repurposing is a very serious risk that far outweighs any percieved benefit; it is indeed a slippery slope and short step from here to the systemic abuse of the most oppressive of regimes.
Furthermore, as an active proponent of the next generation of technology known as cloud computing I can assure you that any such system will impair both performance and security while being easily bypassed, damaging the country's competitive edge and forcing business and personal consumers to pay more for already extortionate Internet access (in France for example a complete, unrestricted telephone/television/internet package costing hundreds in Australia is only €29.99).
Please reconsider this misguided proposal and divert funding to countermeasures such as education which will certainly be far more effective, in the same way that funds diverted to first responders would be a far more beneficial response to the threat of terrorism.
Kind regards,
Sam Johnston
CISSP
Thanks Sam for your email. There are many concerns about the manner in which a blanket arbitrary determination about web content will be imposed by the Government.
The coalition fully supports guarding our children from being exposed to inappropriate internet content and is of the firm belief that parental and adult supervision and guidance should be front and centre of all efforts.
We will continue to monitor the progress of this trial with great interest and make a considered assessment based on its outcomes. This will include analysis of the specifications and performance of the filtering methods tested.


Not everyone understands the importance of the Internet, this is evident when those who are ignorant of the real benefits of the same are put in to power. What the Australian government is attempting to do is the equivalent of saying that boiling the water of the ocean is possible.
ReplyDeleteThe name "Clean Feed" implies that you either want safe (filtered) Internet according to the proponents and to opposed it means that you are in favor of child pornography in the Internet.
Yet, I laugh at the fact that they believe it will work. Let me end by saying that anything that resembles filtering in the Internet is a clear attack on freedom of speech.
Hopefully sanity will be restored.
I have little faith at this stage that the results of such a trial will be valid - the trial is too short and too confined, which is more to say that it should be abandoned than expanded and elongated. On the other hand, even if they are valid it seems likely they will be ignored just as the massive backlash was ignored last year. In short, it seems very likely at this stage that they will get what they want, if only because the vocal minority manage to push it through with other legislation.
ReplyDeleteYou're right about the name - like much legislation it is more about marketing than meaning. This is out of control in the US (think CAN-SPAM, Patriot, etc.) but it's true that the term 'clean feed' has positive connotations, 'internet censorship' is negative, but 'internet filtering' would have been a happy medium.
Provided it were allowed by the legislation (it likely isn't) then a good way to 'protest' this from a technical point of view would be to have the 'access denied' page throw up a bunch of information about censorship as well as the various steps that one can take. Let's hope we don't get that far.
Sam