Nov 12, 2008 4:27 PM | 10 Comments

Is iiNet's decision to take part in Internet filtering a good idea? Nathan Taylor sounds off on controversial filtering plans.

[NOTE: This story originally referred to Internode, not iiNet, as the ISP participating in Internet filtering trials. The story has been corrected.]

I’m no fan of Helen Coonan; Richard Alston had plenty of horrible ideas and nobody could even remember anything useful that Michael Lee and Daryl Williams did – but I do think there might be something to Michael Malone’s comments that "This is the worst Communications Minister we've had in the 15 years since the [internet] industry has existed."

Malone, who is the head of iiNet (one of Australia’s largest ISPs), was speaking, of course, of Senator Stephen Conroy. The comment was primarily in reference to the Internet filtering trials that are due to go ahead starting on Christmas Eve, but it could equally apply to the rollout of the national broadband network.

Malone has said that iiNet will be participating in the trials, mostly to prove that the filters are impractical, unworkable and unwanted. It’s a bizarre thing for iiNet to do, but I hope that iiNet doesn’t lose any customers if it does affect its Internet speeds.

I’m not sure that he will have much success proving anything to Senator Conroy in any case. This is a man that seems absolutely oblivious to reality, more prepared to listen to wingnuts from the Australian Family Association and Australian Christian Lobby than he is to listen to people who actually know something.

Three government-funded studies have shown the filtering to be ineffective, costly and detrimental to Internet performance, but he’s still pursuing this nonsense anyway.

I guess Australia’s ISPs will just have to suck it up for now, keep piling on the criticism and hope that one day we might actually get a Communications Minister who actually knows a thing or two.

I should also point to a set of common-sense recommendations for Internet filtering put together by Sage-AU, the System Administrator's Guild of Australia. Senator Conroy would do well to listen to these kinds of recommendations.

Update: Oops. Malone is from iiNet, not Internode. Corrected.

• The bad news about the NBN
• Opposition air-swings over the NBN
• Ten games that qualify as art
• Copper is dead. Long live fibre!
• The GeForce 275 and Radeon HD 4890 are here

gnome Nov 12, 2008 5:27 PM	You're wrong about Richard Alston. He never had ANY ideas (not ones that might have achieved something positive). This "filtering" nightmare started with the previous government, and it seems to be supported by the present government for the same single reason: it will buy a few votes from those simple and technically ignorant enough to believe it will "save the children". It won't, because the people who prey on children will quickly learn how to go round the filtering. Everybody else will have to suffer degraded SP performance and increased cost.
ErgoWeSurrender Nov 12, 2008 5:55 PM	Filtering won't stop the 10 year old registering on MySpace and it won't stop his/her 35 year old 'friend' from discovering their identity or location. It will and does happen- just like a recent case where someone locally makes serious threats to burn someone's house down - all in the 'safety' of MySpace. What good will a filter do for this scenario. But this doesn't happen apparently 'just ask myspace admin'. Kids have to be 13 to register - yeah right! Ohh... and the myspace admin's will tell you they are serious about safety. This is an example of how piss poor any filtering will be. Parents would have no idea about half of the things their kids are doing on the net- and in any case there is always a proxy or way around the filters. Conroy wouldn't know if his arse was on fire- let alone the stupidity of filtering.
bigjezza Nov 12, 2008 7:07 PM	Umm, Internode? The author is obviously very confused. Try researching before posting stories. Can't be explained as a Typo, it happened more than twice.
ErgoWeSurrender Nov 12, 2008 7:54 PM	Well spotted bigjezza. I think the OP means iiNet!!! Sloppy posting like this doesn't do anything for this site's reputation. Maybe the OP would be better on WhingePool. Bottom line is no matter which ISP filters- all it will do is piss off its customers, the smart ones will VPNout or other proxy/relay to bypass filters and if the performance takes a hit those customers will bail to another 'non-filtered' faster ISP.
Nathan Taylor Nov 13, 2008 10:39 AM	You're right bigjezza -- for some reason I transposed iiNet and Internode in the article. I actually corrected it, but our CMS took a while to push through the change. I have to offer a major apology here. I'd like to blame a crazy Word macro, but really it's a result of blogging while tired.
lloyd_borrett Nov 13, 2008 12:36 PM	I'm an iiNet customer. But if they participate in this Govt trial, I'll switch to another ISP. It's bad enough that I can't get ADSL2 via iiNet on my exchange. So I pay a fortune for the fastest non ADSL2 offering iiNet can provide me with. And now they want to slow up the connection by introducing this filtering. Bad move iiNet.
Adam Turner Nov 13, 2008 3:35 PM	I think iiNet's approach could be the right one. It's obviously pointless trying to explain to Conroy and Co how stupid this idea is - but the trials won't achieve anything if only Yes-men participate. Perhaps Malone can achieve more good on the inside than on the outside.
J Nov 14, 2008 9:46 AM	I agree with Adam that iiNet's decision to participate in the trials is the correct one. It is not possible to argue from a strong and informed position if you have never spent the time or made the effort to understand and experience that which you are aruging about. iiNet's objective seems to be that they wish to prove beyond doubt that the filtering is a bad idea and essentially a complete waste of time, money and resources. Better to produce hard facts than let the Government spin merchants paint you as a whinger with no evidence to backup you claims.
RandomWookie Nov 14, 2008 1:06 PM	Its a great idea that they are doing it so that they can see that filtering is impractical, but if the people who want this filtering can find even a small amount of proof that it worked, then it will stay! As it is the worst idea in the world, if someone does not want to be exposed to the stuff on the internet then dont log on, or if you dont wont you kids exposed to the dangers of the internet then monitor the access and only let them use it under supervision. Better yet they could educate there kids on the dangers of the internet instead of dreaming up hair brain ideas like this.