a dingo stole my baby

RESULTS of a federal government trial show that live ISP-level content filtering does not have a negative impact on network performance and can work in a real-time environment.

However, a highly anticipated report based on the pilot is still weeks away and the federal Opposition says the government can not be trusted to deliver on the $43 billion national broadband network when the goalpost keeps shifting for a mere $300,000 filtering trial.

"The trial shows that filtering does work and that the gear stops identified IP addresses without major degradation to network speed," sources close to the trial said. "We can stop individual URLs, IP addresses, but we can't stop peer-to-peer nor virtual private network-type traffic."

Trials concluded last month and Enex has submitted the test results to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

Opposition communications spokesman Nick Minchin slammed the government for the delay and said it had produced "nothing" since the filtering policy was first announced in the run up to the 2007 federal election. "This procrastination is unbelievable," Senator Minchin said. “They should release the report now. There seems to be a systemic problem with Senator Conroy and deadlines," he said. "Until today, we still don't even know what the criteria for the trials are."

"Senator Conroy doesn't seem to be able to handle a small trial. How on earth can we expect him to handle a $43bn broadband project? This incompetence doesn't bode well for taxpayers," Senator Minchin said.

Originally the government wanted to bar every web page listed on a secret blacklist managed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The list contains a wide array of URLs that contain both illegal and prohibited content.

Senator Conroy has always stated that ISP filtering is no silver bullet and was not the only answer in tackling child pornography. He has pledged to make the report public in "due course".

Senator Minchin said the Coalition did not support mandatory internet filtering, but if legislation was the chosen route, it would study it carefully before making a decision.

The controversial filtering plan has been slammed by several quarters including privacy advocates, child protection groups and advocacy organisation GetUp.

Their main concern is the mandatory nature of the program which forces ISPs to play ball. Most argue that a voluntary approach by industry is the way to go.

Related link: Internet filtering a farce: Minchin - Sept 2, 2009

It wasn't as if it wouldn't work. And blocking IPs/URLs at the point of entry is sure to work without harming network performance substantially. But. If it takes a year, $300,000 and a lot of too'ing and fro'ing to just get preliminary test results, I think the patient is not looking at a very healthy life.

If their arguments are true to be believed. Its only about blocking extreme nasties. Not that there are many just those considered too nasty for Aussie's to visit. Who knows what those sites my do to us!?!

If that is the case, with $300,000 already spent (that a few years of my salary wasted!), the actual investment for what they say is a small percentage of nasties out there, is going to be a very very costly exercise.

Please don't waste my money Senator Conroy. I work hard for it. I would rather see it go toward an old-age pension increase; or a new dining table for The Lodge - seriously - at least they would have more purpose and use!

Thanks but no thanks Senator Conroy - but I have a mummy already :) I don't need someone watching over me while I browse the WWW. And, it doesn't really matter, we will just work around your silly notions.

Sylvestor
www.twitter.com/Sylvestor