Rubénerd!

Why did the EFA retweet my post about Ned Flanders, and what does he have to do with the proposed National Broadband Network (Wikipedia)? Read on my friend!

Geese love ganders...

During an impassioned discussion on security and the NBN at this year's EggNOG conference (sorry Andrew!) Arbor Network's Roland Dobbins asserted the internet fit the critera of a failed state and urged that the NBN be designed in a more secure fashion. If we don't he fears we may be responsible for creating a "cesspit".

As Ry Crozier reported in IT News Australia:

"Jonathan really likes it when I mention his name in posts for absolutely no reason."

Well that was clearly the wrong quote.

"If the network isn't defensible and there's not an active push to impose law and order, there's a danger [the network] wil [sic] become a cesspit and fail," as it had in China and Russia where criminal hacking had taken the place of litigation in the West as part of "legitimate" business strategies, he said.

I first read that as a "cesspit of fail". That colourful language would have been way cooler, and probably would have soften up the audience of nerds in attendance. While we're on this subject, it has always bugged me that attendance has a double T. Why does it need it? Even Mr. T only needs one, and if I brew a cup it only needs one. Except for green tea, they often need two.

But I digress

"We have to take positive action," he said, believing that an unmanaged network could rapidly become unmanageable, insecure and then un-securable.

I read this and my nervousness centre started up. I was shattered. These Rolling Stones lyrics doing anything for you? No? Okay then. The problem with security, as he rightly points out, is its much harder to patch an insecure system than it is to actively design a system with security in mind from the beginning. This I can completely understand and appreciate.

I suppose the thing that worries me is what he means by "positive action". To be blunt, it sounds ever so slightly Conroy-eque. Take these recommendations, implement them, and don't ask questions otherwise... you're against positive action!

We could read this as a cynic and assume his company has some magical new software or system to make the NBN more secure, or that he'd be able to offer his services for making it more secure for a fee. I know Singapore networking folks but I'm a complete AusNOG virgin so I wouldn't know. Frankly, its hard to judge his intentions, or the intentions behind Orewllian-ly titled "positive action".

You promised Ned Flanders!

The point I made on Twitter and got retweeted for this afternoon by the EFA (HOW COOL IS THAT!!!!1!!!one!!!) was the idea of inventions. Why did my iTelephone autocorrect that word to that? Even if such a plan was founded on good intentions, as Ned Flanders said to Marge when the residents of Springfield rebuilt his destroyed house only to have it collapse as a result of faulty workmanship: "I can't live in good intentions Marge!".

I would be more than happy to be proven wrong about this, but talk of this nature creeps me out.

Doing my bit. Will be donating as soon as I get paid for my latest work.

And here I was thinking it was going to be a story about Disney abusing copyright extensions.

For those of us who were disappointed that the Electronic Frontiers Australia chairman Dale Clapperton's recent breakfast television appearance was valuable but too short, yesterday he appeared on The Spoonman on Triple M and was able to go into much more detail and discuss the real dangers of the federal government's plan to filter and censor the internet, especially poignant given our recent salute to those who died protecting freedoms on Remembrance Day.

Candidly, we really need someone like Dale in charge of communications and the internet in this country and not Senator Conroy.

There's an audio link to the show on the latest post of the No Internet Censorship for Australia blog. The transcript of part one of the show with Dale Clapperton is available from Hoyden About Town.

Senator Conroy's saga continues today with reports that he is ready to initiate a so called "pilot" run of the Great Australian Firewall. I wish I was making this nonsense up. According to the NoCleanFeed.com blog, the trial will begin soon:

The Government has announced its ["clean feed"] filtering pilot is going ahead, and has called for ISPs to participate. The Expression of Interest document requires ISPs to filter the ACMA blacklist, with optional extensions such as dynamic filtering.

What I suspect will happen is that the trial will be a dismal failure; it will slow down internet connections substantially and the blocks put in place will easily be circumvented. I'm looking forward to seeing all the screenshots of sites detailing bomb making on computers involved in the trial, and subsequent screenshots showing blocked pages for breast cancer awareness.

The problem is, such an abysmal result will not deter Senator Conroy or his vocal minority (minority... minority... minority...) of supporters because their belief that such a system is useful and practical isn't rooted in facts, figures or even common sense, but rather in an unfounded idea that what they're doing is right and that everyone else is wrong, regardless. As with other adherents to similar ideologies that utilise such reasoning, they're incredibly hard to talk rationally to because they already have their conclusion before they have their facts.

In the meantime we don't even have telecommunications infrastructure that works half the time. How much money is Senator Conroy spending rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

Senator Conroy, the person who wants to censor Australian internet

Now for the obligatory further reading links in case you haven't read about the issue here before: for more information about the federal government's plan to filter and censor the internet, check out NoCleanFeed.com where you can also pick up badges to put on your websites; at least before the government decides to block you for such illicit behaviour. You can also find out more at the Electronic Frontiers Australia website. You can email Senator Conroy at his website. Don't forget to also write to your local federal parliament member in your electorate.

With the glee over the good political news coming out of the US subsiding now, we return to Australia and Senator Conroy's plan to censor the internet. If you only read the comments people were writing in the newspapers here, or on blogs, or on web forums, or on news websites, or in person with other people, or on television, or on public transport... you may get the impression that nobody wants this.

Fortunately the ABC has been able to actually find someone who does support the plan, and for their benefit they've published their defence of it:

Family concerns: Internet filtering has the potential to be a great tool to help parents in their difficult vigil.

There has been much backlash against the Government (and Stephen Conroy, the Communications Minister) for their attempt at making the internet safer for Australians. There has been much necessary talk of technological difficulties and also a large amount of discussion regarding censorship.

The article was written by Anh Nguyen, a "researcher" with the Australian Family Association, a Catholic organisation that opposes gay rights and claims that "safe sex" is a "lie" amongst other golden tidbits. Still, everyone deserves their right to free speech and opinion... wait, he is arguing we don't, never mind. The crux of his argument is that a national internet filtering system is desirable even though it won't entirely be effective.

I could argue at great length here over the ethical issues that would arise as as result of mandatory internet filtering. I could argue that if they can't guarantee that legitimate content won't be blocked then it's dangerous. I could discuss the dubious criteria for being blocked, and the slippery slope over what is legal and what isn't. I could argue that the opt-out system Senator Conroy proposes and Mr Nguyen endorses goes against consumer rights and is completely the opposite to how anything else operates. I could argue that the only other countries that have implemented such systems are ridiculed and condemned for doing so. I could argue that such actions are illegal and unconstitutional, and fly in the face of "innocent until proven guilty" Honestly I could even go as far as to quote each of his paragraphs and write at length the problems with his reasoning, and point out the flaws with his figures.

Senator Conroy, the person who wants to censor Australian internet

The simple fact of the matter is though, they are all moot points.

Even if such a system were desirable, it would not work. It would not work for the same reason that DRM (digital restrictions management) doesn't work. People who want access to the blocked "illegal" material will be able to get it. Anyone with five minutes and Google will easily be able to bypass any restrictions. The only people this will affect, just like DRM, are legitimate users. In this case, law abiding people will have slower internet access and legitimate pages that are blocked by accident, while people who want to access illegal material will continue to do so. That's all there is to it. Put the book down, grab a coffee.

As my ever wise grandfather on my mothers side has always said: "don't let the facts get in the way of your argument [Mr Nguyen]". For what it's worth, there are 101 comments on the article, and all but half a dozen people were appalled. Unfortunately "democracy" entitles us to vote for our government, not on their decisions. They know this of course: there's no way this idea would pass if put to the people in a referendum. This is what needs to be done though, so we can bury this silly idea once and for all!

For more information about the federal government's plan to filter and censor the internet, check out NoCleanFeed.com where you can also pick up badges to put on your websites; at least before the government decides to block you for such illicit behaviour. You can also find out more at the Electronic Frontiers Australia website. You email Senator Conroy at his website. Don't forget to also write to your local federal parliament member in your electorate.

UPDATE: If you read this blog using an RSS reader you wouldn't have seen, but Dale actually posted a comment! You can reach him at his aptly-named blog Defending Scoundrels

Browsing the Electronic Frontiers Australia website this afternoon, I noticed that Dale Clapperton appeared on The Morning Show on the 29th of October. I completely missed it, but fortunately they have a video. Sorry about it being in Flash.

EFA’s Chair, Dale Clapperton, was interviewed on Channel 7's [Morning Show] program on 29th October about the government’s proposed mandatory filtering policy. A phone-in survey on the program revealed that 80% of respondents were opposed to the censorship plan.

Given the severity of the issue, I just wish he could have appeared on the show for longer.