[VOOK]

Quote

THE Federal Government's controversial internet censorship scheme may extend to filter more online traffic than was first thought, Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy revealed today.

In a post on his department's blog, Senator Conroy today said technology that could filter data sent directly between computers would be tested as part of the upcoming live filtering trial.

"Technology that filters peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic does exist and it is anticipated that the effectiveness of this will be tested in the live pilot trial," Senator Conroy said.

Peer-to-peer file-sharing technology is the most common way for computer users to share video, picture and music files over the internet.

It was previously thought the Government's filtering plan would be restricted to traffic on the "world wide web" – the channel through which users view websites like news.com.au.

Senator Conroy revealed the plan to trial peer-to-peer filtering technology in a reply to critical comments made on the Digital Economy Future Directions blog launched earlier this month.

The blog was launched to encourage public input on the future of Australia's digital economy, but has so far been saturated with comments attacking Senator Conroy over the Government's filtering plan.

Senator Conroy addressed the level of critical feedback in his post and said he had been following discussion of the plan on social networking websites such as Twitter.

"I'm aware that this proposal has attracted significant debate and criticism – on this blog and at other places in the blogosphere," Senator Conroy said.

"I'm following the debate at sites like Whirlpool and GetUp and on Twitter at #nocleanfeed."

The filtering scheme has made headlines around the world in the The New York Times and British newspapers and was the target of protests held in major cities across the country earlier this month.

http://www.news.com....hnology/story/0,...5014239,00.html

While this sucks more, the real question is if he has been reading Whirlpool and the lik,e - Why hasn't he realised he is wrong yet?

[ENKC]

'sif pay for porn. Screw you Mr Conroy.

Which is to say, I'm sure there are still good intentions behind this, but it remains a massive stuff up waiting to happen.

[MLTZER]

Like i said to Vook on msn, let them block bittorrents, some nerd will come up with something else

[Nibbler]

Hello Proxies and VPNs.

Though they are slow but atleast you can still get your content.

[Obscurus]

Protip; the ISPs, Telstra and Internode in particular have already told these guys to go away.

Like ENKC said, he can't be reading other 'blogs on the matter, as he'd see the overwhelming flaws in what hes doing.

Gah, its all so retarded.

[Nibbler]

iiNet want to take place in this trial so that they can prove that the system will fail.
If it goes to a lesser known ISP in the trial the results will come out differently and who will know then it might be permanent.

[Tom The Bomb]

Thing is if this does go through there would be a way to block it, its just like with firmwares and stuff, hackers are always just a little bit smarter than the coders.

And bittorrent isnt always illegal, so would it just block everything or what it considers illegal? Cos I don't want bittorent to turn into limewire with fake file names. >_>

[trin]

Apparently the government has documents which say how stupid this idea is and how it will make the internet slow as crap (was reading on whirlpool today)

[railspider]

Heh, I guess this guy is being paid top dollar to run all of these trials and do all this 'research' - why not do something that will feasibly (/hopefully) never happen to make a quick buck?

[celler_door]

get away from my internets kevin rud!...im not in an intelligent mood

[Toshiya]

What a f*ckhead.

[PlasmaDavid]

I thought people were saying it wasn't going to block these types of file transfers, and thus be ineffective at blocking much massive pr0n movement? (And thus was a reason to hate the filter)

This post has been edited by PlasmaDavid: 24 December 2008 - 02:50 PM

[Dark()Shinobi]

What is this? Are we moving to become "mo' like China" or something? Censorship first, and now this?

Pffft, Krudd (and associates), you've pretty much lost any of my interest in you, and any hope for my vote come next election.

[Ninja Catfish]

PlasmaDavid, on Dec 24 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

I thought people were saying it wasn't going to block these types of file transfers, and thus be ineffective at blocking much massive pr0n movement? (And thus was a reason to hate the filter)

It wasn't initially.
And now that it's been pointed out, they've changed it.

But I still fail to see how they can filter encrypted traffic.
Online banking is encrypted, and there'd be no way to know what is contained in encrypted traffic withut well, decrypting and analysing it first.
So essentially they'll just have ot analyse legitimate traffic which *needs* to be secure, and is encrypted with good reason just in case you're a child pornographer.

[Nibbler]

I'm sure encrypted sites are exempt from the filter.

[Ninja Catfish]

So what's stopping child pornographers from just encrypting their P2P traffic then <.<

[Nibbler]

Ummmm.

Uhhh

I really dont know.


Id actually like to get some more info on how it works, i got some at work a few months ago but it wasnt very indepth. Anyway apparently the filtering isnt going to take effect till mid January now, which i read on some news site today.

[Neon]

Australia is the new China