Australian Government fails again on Internet Censorship

July 28, 2008

The results of the Australian Governments first test of internet censorship have been released today (pdf) and The Australian, as usual, runs the Government spin:

THE federal Government will embark on the next step of its internet filtering strategy after initial trials proved successful, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said….

In the past, one of the main drawbacks of the technology has been web performance degradation but the government now says the trial showed that ISP-level filtering technology had significantly improved compared with technology used in a 2005 trial.

“It is very encouraging to see that the industry has made significant progress with ISP filtering products and we are heartened that many of the products tested are commercially available, with many of them already deployed overseas,” Senator Conroy said in a statement….

Senator Conroy said the tests proved that the web filtering technology could be expanded to a wider base.

A side note: I always love it how some mainstream journalists here preach that bloggers don’t research a story properly then run a Government press release without actually reading the paper or providing critical analysis on it. But I digress.

The ACMA paper looked only at the technology in use and did not consider the cost of any filtering technology, a critical consideration when implementing broadscale internet censorship in Australia.


The paper finds that filters in place, but not actually filtering content (bizarre test, I know, but the results are telling) resulted in the following degredation of service (by which you would presume meant reduction in data, hence speed):

below 30 per cent for all products; and
below 10 per cent for five of the six products.

In short form: even when not filtering content, the filters for all products saw a decrease in internet speeds of up to 30%. For 5 products, the speed reduction of up to 10%.

When actively filtering content, these figures change again

2% for one product;
in the range 22 to 30 per cent for three products; and
in excess of 75 per cent for two products.

Translated: one product only caused a 2% drop, 3 products caused speed reductions in the vacinity of 22-30%, two products a staggering greater than 75%. Notably the product that causes the least speed reduction is not named nor related to the success in filtering results (which we are about to get to), so it may have a lower impact on speed, but it may have higher rates of failure in actually censoring content.

Effectiveness of Blocking

ACMA found the following success rates in filtering nominated content:

above 0.88 for all products; and
0.94 or above for three products.

88% accuracy on all products, half with 94% or above.

How those figures relate to the next set I’m not sure, because this set indicates the failure to block nominated content

below 0.08 for all products; and
below 0.03 for four products.

Maybe it’s buried further into the paper, but if the base is 88% yes, and the fail rate worst figure is 8%, where’s the missing 4%?

Overblocking may be a new term to most, but it means censoring content that isn’t meant to be censored. The results

The previous trial reported a difference in the level of overblocking (that is, the proportion of content that was blocked that should not have been blocked) between the most and the least accurate filter products in the range six to 62 per cent. The corresponding levels measured in the current trial varied across a significantly smaller range?¢‚Ǩ‚Äùbetween one and eight per cent, with most falling under three
per cent. The median overblocking rate was significantly improved from the previous trial.

Yes, somewhere between 1-8% of perfectly legal sites were blocked in the trials. But that’s ok, because it use to be 6-62%.

Here in lies the problem with censorship: once it starts, it rarely stops, and in this case, innocent content providers and online retailers may find themselves blocked for no other reason that the technical failure of the Government’s plan.


Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is hell bent on selling a rabid, three legeed dog no matter what the cost to ordinary Australian’s.

22-30% reductions in internet access speeds are not acceptable at a time where Australia lags behind most of the world in Internet access connection speeds. Consider also that our distance from the rest of the world delivers us slower access times anyway, where as my 14mbps connection in Melbourne does not deliver the same results as the same connection in the United States, simply due to the time data takes to travel across the world (or lag time).

That censorship will no longer deliver 75% drop in speed doesn’t make 22-30% acceptable. Any cut in internet speeds places Australia at a further disadvantage in the information age.

Success rates of 90% in filtering trials are irrelevant on two fronts. First, the testing considered a list of sites to be blocked, but as anyone sitting behind a corporate firewall knows, or even in China for that matter, it’s extremely easy to bypass content filtering. Those that want the content the Government is so keen to censor will still get at it. Secondly, it is NOT acceptable that in a democratic, free country that the Government deems it acceptable to implement technologies that censors any amount of legal content, let alone up to 8% of it. Who are these future victims of accidental Australian Government censorship? will they be compensated? Would we accept the Government accidentally taxing millions of Australians, or denying them social services? Imagine being removed from Government databases, to be a non-entity in your own country. The outrage even in a handful of cases would be loud and long, and yet our Government is planning to accidentally block Australians doing their business online from being seen by other Australians.

Censorship is always flawed and always has unintended victims. The victims of Senator Conroy’s bloody mindedness will be every internet user in Australia, through increased costs, lower speeds, and for some of them, to be denied their legal rights in what is suppose to be a free country.

31 responses to Australian Government fails again on Internet Censorship

  1. This is such a disgrace that the Australian Government is even toying with the idea of this.

    Originally they were selling it as an opt-out service, let's face it you'll definitely end up on an obscure government database for opting out, or whether it'll be an opt-in service.

    As an opt-in service I don't actually have a problem with it though.

  2. I worry when a government says it's going to get fast internet access to so much of the country, then starts projects that will result in slower internet access.

  3. Probably the weirdest sentence is “As set out in the minister?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s direction, the trial testing was required to be conducted in Tasmania.” – why Tasmania?

  4. Sounds exactly what someone in the Chinese government would say.

  5. We have to band together to NOT LET INTERNET SENSORSHIP happen. This is our forum, a forum where the truth bubbles to the top…..The effectiveness of their efforts isn't isn't what aorries me, it's the fact that they are doing it at all….. When did we become a communist state? Their about to ruin the best thing that happened in the past 1000 years.

  6. Tasmania is a good testing environment because:

    a) less infrastructure means less $ spent (and potentially lost if you cock up)
    b) I don't know if this is still true, but at one stage Tasmania's population was almost a perfect demographic spread to match the nation at large.

    As some examples, KFC trialled combined KFC/A&W stores there, which failed, and the Commonwealth Bank piloted its CommSee CRM in the Tasmanian branches and call centres.

  7. Just read your story about censorship and I am wondering what it is that your government will be censoring? Why is a Democratic society such as your's being allowed to do this?
    Are safeguards in place to insure that the government only censors what it says it will? Who decides what will be censored? Do you yourself agree to the censoring.

  8. I thought we lived in Australia not China, Saudi Arabia or the 25 other nations to do it.
    I think that the government is narrow minded and focusing on the wrong things and it wont stop what they are trying to stop it will just drive it underground again, meaning it is harder to catch them.

  9. Nice article To Know the Useful Informations.I am using the Broadband Connection in my Home.When My Sys Gets Slow i am Check the Speed of the Internet at that Time I will Check My Connection Speed Using the site Ip-dETAILS.COM

  10. Those that want the content the Government is so keen to censor will still get at it.

  11. Those that want the content the Government is so keen to censor will still get at it.

  12. Those that want the content the Government is so keen to censor will still get at it.

  13. That is a idea, I am agree with the opinions of this articles about equalizer t shirt .
    You have a good idea, and I am very happy to read this essay of t qualizer .
    Thank you for your opinions, and I will do something qualizer shirt myself .
    I think this is the best suggestion t qualizer shirt .
    I totally agree with your opinion aboutt qualizer t shirt .
    Great point! We all benefit from this excellent article of equalizer tshirt .

  14. UGG is the most popular women's sheepskin boot.You will find the bestUgg Boots here at best price.Ugg Boots Sale have highly praise!

  15. Nueva Inglaterra en otoño el viento de la moda sistema de hebilla de los MBT tomar, los modelos de tipo guapo, especialmente niñas encantan los MBT zapatos , la apariencia de buena salud, la mezcla de la mujer de moda el desgaste y las piernas partido, los niños guapos que eran rango neutral.

  16. If you are seeking for Moncler, Moncler jackets, Moncler vest or Moncler coat, will be your right choice as the clothes here are high quapity and on hot sale with low price.

  17. It should come as no surprise that Jews conspicuously wear North Face Sale;the two make an adorable dyad.In fact, this fashion trait is more indigenous to the JYA, than to the non-JYA. For example, one can see the JYA wear a The North Face Outlet on a spectrum of disparate occasions:she audaciously tests the limits of practicality unlike the non-JYA by wearing a light spring-appropriate gray fleece jacket with “North Face Outlet” emblazoned on the left breast in the frigid death of winter (exceptions: LA and Miami).North Face Jackets have become the staple ingredient to any JYA’s sense of modern Jewish style, akin to circumcision.http://www.discountnorthfaceou…/


  19. DSFSDF

  20. In the article Coach Outleton remittent fever, noticeCoach Factory Outlet has been taken of an occasional complication ofCoach Factory Outlet Online the symptoms of enteric fever with that disease; Coach Outlet Store Onlineand in the observations upon Coach Outlet Couponsthe causes of the disease now under considerationCoach Outlet Store

  21. ECCO Shoes

    is a firm step toward the creation of the world’s best shoes in the goal ahead. To date,
    ECCO sandals
    has more than 90 countries around the world with approximately 4,000 store brand sales.

  22. ECCO Shoes is a firm step toward the creation of the world’s best shoes in the goal ahead. To date, Ecco Men’s Shoes has more than 90 countries around the world with approximately 4,000 store brand sales.

  23. The second type of gardening footwear is a type of gardening boot. These are a bit more of a hassle to put on and off, but they are very beneficial. Like the gardening shoes, Ralph Lauren polo shirts boots should be made of a durable material that can withstand sharp objects. You should also aim to buy waterproof boots so you also have that protection. Gardening boots that Louis Vuitton outletextend up beyond your ankles have the added advantage of protecting your feet and legs. Deeper levels of dirt, mud and any water that is still lying around will not seep into your feet, if your boots rise above the muck. Depending on what type of work you do and what condition your garden is in, shoes or boots can protect your feet while you do your gardening. The pricks and prods of Christian Louboutin UK nature should not be able to break through your new garden footwear, so be sure to purchase your pair! Your children are heavily christian louboutin simple 70 leather pumpsinfluenced by education. It not only helps shape their view of the world and their ability to deal with life, it also plays a role in their strength of character. So it’s really no wonder that deciding how and where your children should be educated can be a hard choice. All schools, regardless if it is public, wholesale polo shirts private, charter, home, non-sectarian, and religious, all have something to offer. Christian Classical Education is different from others because it tries to coach on sale einstate the most proven form of education ever established. Many of our greatest thinkers, scientists, and leaders were the result of Christian Classical Education.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks:

  1. Australian Government to censor the Internet | Mathew Packer - July 28, 2008

    […] Riley has stated his concerns over on his blog. Duncan was also responsible for the Techcrunch article that I linked to in my article back on the […]

  2. Australian Government to censor the Internet | I'm With The Band - July 28, 2008

    […] Riley has stated his concerns over on his blog. Duncan was also responsible for the Techcrunch article that I linked to in my article back on the […]

  3. Blogger reaction to filtering trial - Somebody Think Of The Children - August 3, 2008

    […] Any cut in internet speeds places Australia at a further disadvantage in the information age. – Duncan Riley ‘The Minister for Immigration, Senator Chris Evans, has said he has too much power with […]

  4. Filtros n?ɬ£o conseguem identificar conte?ɬ?dos ilegais em redes de P2P | Remixtures - August 6, 2008

    […] Ali?ɬ°s, o desempenho dos produtos testados deixa muito a desejar em todos os aspectos: mesmo quando n?ɬ£o est?ɬ£o a filtrar activamente conte?ɬ?dos, os filtros desses produtos provocam uma degrada?ɬß?ɬ£o m?ɬ©dia da qualidade do servi?ɬßo (isto ?ɬ©, uma diminui?ɬß?ɬ£o da velocidade da liga?ɬß?ɬ£o de Internet) de at?ɬ© 30 por cento. Para cinco produtos, a redu?ɬß?ɬ£o da velocidade ?ɬ© de at?ɬ© 10 por cento. Quando o filtro passou a filtrar activamente, um dos produtos desencadeou uma redu?ɬß?ɬ£o da velocidade na ordem dos 2 por cento; tr?ɬ™s dos produtos geraram diminui?ɬß?ɬµes da velocidade na casa dos 22 a 30 por cento e os restantes provocam uma lentid?ɬ£o superior a 75 por cento. Mas estas percentagens n?ɬ£o querem dizer grande coisa?Ǭ† uma vez que pode muito bem acontecer que o produto que causou uma menor redu?ɬß?ɬ£o da velocidade seja o mais ineficaz deles todos, como o Duncan RIley explica. […]

  5. Synchronicity - ISP filtering, Iranian bloggers and democracy : Sean the Blogonaut - December 17, 2008

    […] Australian Government fails again on Internet Censorship […]

  6. I am an extremist : Sean the Blogonaut - December 18, 2008

    […] Australian Government fails again on Internet Censorship […]