Conroy making valiant effort, then mentions BitTorrent

by William Maher | Tuesday 23 December 2008

Full credit to Senator Stephen Conroy for being the bravest man on the Internet, declaring BitTorrent filtering a possibility.

[UPDATE: The Conroy blog will turn off public comments today (24/12/08). Read the story here.]

Say what you will about Senator Conroy’s Internet filtering plans – described by some as like trying to “boil the ocean” – but the man has Cojones.

Facing what some are likening to a 1960s protest movement over cyber-censorship (only, you know, on the Internet), you might have expected the good Senator to tread lightly when it comes to our precious tubes.

But no - Senator Conroy has clarified one of the biggest concerns about the filtering plans, saying it is “anticipated” that the effectiveness of peer to peer and BitTorrent filtering will be tested when the trial begins shortly.

We've already raised the question of whether BitTorrent would be included in the government’s anti-porn system. For the record, the government FAQ about the filtering trial does cover this topic, saying:

“It is understood that technology exists to filter peer-to-peer networks. If such technology is proposed as part of the Pilot by an ISP it will be considered.”

So there it is. Should you run for the hills, or another country, as some have indicated they will do if this gets off the ground?

Amidst the many arguments against Net filters flying around at rapid pace at the moment (speed, freedom of speech and the like), the copyright issue in particular seems to be generating some of the most heated debates. As the AFACT vs iiNet case has shown, movie labels aren’t shy about clamping down on BitTorrent users illegally sharing movies.

Despite some effort to dampen concern about censorship – point 24 in the government FAQ promises that there are “no plans” to expand the parameters of the Internet content blacklist – it’s clear the government is having a hard time shaking the perception that this is the thin end of the wedge.

See more about: censorship | bittorrent

Comments: 22

mordie 23 December 2008	" point 24 in the government FAQ promises that there are “no plans” to expand the parameters of the Internet content blacklist" ... at this time I imagine is the not printed disclaimer here... P2P wasn't in the content filter until this Monday. This WILL effect WoW and EVE players who have P2P patch systems. ... We are heading to the Dark Ages again with the controlling government with it's hidden Agenda and there is NO appeal system once an item is blacklisted.. There is more to be concerned about with the implementation of this clean feed ... There goes Australia's freedom of speech ... Be warned this is only the start ... Comment made about the PC Authority article: Conroy making valiant effort, then mentions BitTorrent? Full credit to Senator Stephen Conroy for being the bravest man on the Internet, declaring BitTorrent filtering a possibility. What do you think? Join the discussion.
Wbb 23 December 2008	Who is Cajon and what is it exactly that the Senator has that belongs to him? I thought perhaps that cojones was meant instead but since the 'j' sounds more like an 'h' in that I'm afraid I'm a bit stumped.
mordie 23 December 2008	The Trial date has changed now...I wonder how many changes there will be! "The pilot trial will not begin until mid-January and an announcement regarding participants will be made at that time." http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2008/101
Slatts 23 December 2008	Wbb wrote: Who is Cajon and what is it exactly that the Senator has that belongs to him? I thought perhaps that cojones was meant instead but since the 'j' sounds more like an 'h' in that I'm afraid I'm a bit stumped. I think, Wbb, that what William is trying to say is that Senator Conroy has balls. Not being fluent in Spanish, a bit of lee way might be extended. We can't all be multilingual like the good Senator who, it seems, not only speaks English like a native but is also fluent in Bull$hit. A rare ability that should see him go far in his chosen career.
grinder350 24 December 2008	Full credit to Senator Stephen Conroy it led me to wonder who side your on if this goes threw i wont need your magazine because i wont have a computer so full credit to my bank account.
Slatts 24 December 2008	grinder350 wrote: Full credit to Senator Stephen Conroy it led me to wonder who side your on if this goes threw i wont need your magazine because i wont have a computer so full credit to my bank account. Er.. Sorry?:?
malai5 24 December 2008	grinder350 wrote: Full credit to Senator Stephen Conroy it led me to wonder who side your on if this goes threw i wont need your magazine because i wont have a computer so full credit to my bank account. Gee, confiscation of computers the next step??? Maybe grinder350, they are just going to take yours, or you know something that we are not being told. Please share. Cheers Malai5 Edited by malai5: 24/12/2008 07:41:15 PM
mordie 24 December 2008	malai5 wrote: grinder350 wrote: Full credit to Senator Stephen Conroy it led me to wonder who side your on if this goes threw i wont need your magazine because i wont have a computer so full credit to my bank account. Gee, confiscation of computers the next step??? Maybe grinder350, they are just going to take yours, or you know something that we are not being told. Please share. Cheers Malai5 Edited by malai5: 24/12/2008 07:41:15 PM I think they think the author is giving Senator Stephen Conroy praise and in doing so think that the author of the article is speaking on behalf PC Authority are all for the content filter.. I actually think the author of the article was just saying "well minister you have balls! Good luck with that!" what is PC Authority true statement on the issue? He/she might also be making reference to the news/rumor going around that SSL enabled pages and https address are going to have their data unencrpted as part of the filter process...ie you banking info is likely to be scanned by the content filter ... (yes there is a rumor that the filter will be designed to to do this on the fly to stop SSL and Https "unwanted content" ...
malai5 24 December 2008	I am just being the "Devils Advocate" here. As far as the banking details being "scanned" is concerned there is already a facility for this which is used by the ATO, Centrelink and various other Government Statutary bodies on a "Need to Know" Basis. So, the Government "snooping" via a "filter" on your Banking details and any other details they wish, again with the "coverall" excuse, "need to know", would be just "business as usual", except it would be more obvious and up front instead of the clandestine way it is done now. Isn't it funny how "need to know" is really the exclusive preserve of the Government. This you will find out if you seek any sensitive information under the "Freedom of Information" legislation. If the Public need to know, you get the impression in a not too subtle way that they don't. But what would we really expect when we live in the "illusion" of a Democracy. Cheers Malai5
aplus 25 December 2008	Merry Christmas everyone! Is it a 'Brave' man or a 'Stupid' man that says "I can levitate if I walk off a cliff " Point being if communist china cant stop the 'dissidents' from getting around their 'filters' then how can this government do it? I recall a previous government trying that once and wasting about 150 million a few years ago. A 15 year old cracked it in 30 mins if memory serves me correct. Porn isn't the problem. Japan has the most violent and degrading porn and the crime rate there is 5-10 times lower than Australia which bans this stuff! It all comes back to how we raise the family instead of blaming something else. It's all buck passing and lack of responsibility on society. All the 'not my fault' and 'I didn't do it's'. It's nothing more than 'look how responsible we are!' by this government. Some disgruntled hackers might get a little miffed. He who is without sin cast the first stone.
grinder350 25 December 2008	I like to play online wargames like many Other Australian this filter would have to slow things down considerbly passing threw the filter every move or map so i dont support Senator Government's plan to censor the internet .
SirSquidness 26 December 2008	grinder350 wrote: I like to play online wargames like many Other Australian this filter would have to slow things down considerbly passing threw the filter every move or map so i dont support Senator Government's plan to censor the internet . I will preface this post with the following: I know little about what methods are actually being used for the filter. What I do know is that specific protocols are being blocked (BitTorrent, for example) and in the HTTP protocol, specific sites are being blocked. What I don't know is whether they are purely blocked IP addresses (so any network traffic going to/from a given IP/IP range is blocked) or whether they're using deep packet inspection to figure out what website a given HTTP request is going to (remembering that lots of websites are often hosted on one IP address) or what the purpose of each individual packet is. If it's the later, we're all screwed. Each individual packet the comes in through our connection will have to "wait in line" to be inspected by the filter. Latencies will definitely increase (by how much, I have no idea. It depends very much on which filtering system they choose, which ISP you're on [which in turn effects how much filtering capcity you have access to, which filtering system is implemented, etc], etc etc. Lots of variables). ISPs may set up exceptions to the filtering if they know for a fact the source is clean (eg, if you're playing games on their gaming server network). But if they can't verify it's clean, depending on legislation, they may have issues getting around it. If it's the former, again each packet will have to 'wait in line' for filtering, but it will be a lot quicker and simpler. There will be a list of blocked IP addresses. If the dest/source IP address in the header of your packet is on the list, it's dropped. If not, it's let through. No deep packet inpsection. A lot less resource intensive. etc. There will, again, be some impact. But it's a lot less than the potential of the later method. I know there are other filtering methods, but I've heard both of these methods being mentioned by Conroy and his mob (or other people in teh know about it all)
.:Cyb3rGlitch:. 27 December 2008	Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't VOIP a P2P based system?
mordie 27 December 2008	.:Cyb3rGlitch:. wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't VOIP a P2P based system? yeah it uses your PC as a host/route if your using something like skype ... don't tell me they might end up Fing that up too!! sigh even my 70+ mum thinks the so-called "clean feed" is going to do more harm then good!!!
gyro666 12 January 2009	........"As the AFACT vs iiNet case has shown, movie labels aren’t shy about clamping down on BitTorrent users illegally sharing movies."....... It just isn't about "protecting" anything other than profits, it's never been about unsavory content. All the rationalizations offered in support of filtering are simply a smokescreen to mask the real intentions of those pulling Senator Stephen Conroy's strings. The same greed that gave us the economic meltdown is out to suck the life out of the net in any way it can to "protect" the holy $$$$. Parasitic bottom feeding Solicitors and Accountants are going to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes............
malai5 12 January 2009	Don't "sugar coat" it for us gyro666.:roll: Of course I agree with you entirely. Money, Power and Greed are ALWAYS the agendas behind the smokescreen of perceived "Public Good". Actually the phrases: In the best interest. In the public good. Are two of the most dangerous oxymorons (they mean the opposite to what they say)in our society. Oh yeah, I almost forgot that most famous one of all: "Trust Me." Cheers Malai5
Slatts 14 January 2009	malai5 wrote: Don't "sugar coat" it for us gyro666.:roll: Of course I agree with you entirely. Money, Power and Greed are ALWAYS the agendas behind the smokescreen of perceived "Public Good". Actually the phrases: In the best interest. In the public good. Are two of the most dangerous oxymorons (they mean the opposite to what they say)in our society. Oh yeah, I almost forgot that most famous one of all: "Trust Me." Cheers Malai5 Nicely put Mal. By the way, we'll still love you in the morning mate;)
malai5 14 January 2009	Yeah, so you say. I'll wake up and find an unfamiliar chewed off arm under me and you will have split the scene.:( Cheers Malai5 Edited by malai5: 14/1/2009 08:26:07 PM
Slatts 14 January 2009	C'mon Mal! I'm no dingo!:shock: For you tho, I might make an exception:-k
malai5 14 January 2009	This all reminds me of the way Government representitives treat the public. You know, tell them anything, promise them anything and then just do what thay are told to do by "their masters", stuff the public. The equivalent of being "The Dingo" to those that were told, "Trust Me"!:^o Cheers Malai5
Slatts 15 January 2009	Mal, you're such a cynic.
malai5 15 January 2009	You know Slatts, if it was just as simple as me being a cynic that would be fine, but through many years of experience I have found it to be the truth. Sad but true.:( There is no truer saying as: "Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Cheers Malai5