Broadband costs will rise and access speeds may suffer if the government's national Internet content filtering scheme is mandated, according to network experts.
Members of the System Administrators Guild of Australia (SAGE-AU) claim the filters will inflate operating costs for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) which will be passed on to consumers, and dampen broadband speeds.
The scheme is part of the government's $125.8 million Plan for Cyber Safety which will split funds between law enforcement, technology and education to reduce the proliferation of child porn and inappropriate content on the Internet.
The comments attack findings in a recent government report that claim the filters would have minimal impact over Australia's telecommunications environment. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) tested the performance of six Internet content filters for accuracy and network resource requirements in a Telstra lab on a Tier 3 broadband network with a load of 30 simulated users.
SAGE-AU member Mark Newton said the filters will be overrun if forced on ISPs because the average user access speeds in the trial were slower than dial-up speeds.
"Filtering software does not present noticeable performance degradation [in a] traffic rate below dial-up speeds," Newton said in a written statement.
"It is difficult to see the relevance of that conclusion in a world where the minister wants everyone in Australia to connect over 500 times faster.
"How is it possible that we have come this far, and covered this much ground, over this much time, without any attempt by the government to address industry concerns about the on-the-ground practicalities of implementing the plan?"
The guild claimed more than 3000 Web sites would be incorrectly blocked every second if the best content filter was used in a real environment. It argues manually unblocking Web sites will produce a "significant cost" which could inflate Internet access costs and further disadvantage areas with poor Internet access.
The ACMA test showed the worst performer allowed through 12 percent of a set list of banned material, while the best blocked more than 94 percent. Fewer than one percent returned false positives, and five of the six consumed less than one percent of network resources when attached but not filtering.
Guild member David Jericho said the plan will reverse benefits brought by the National Broadband Network (NBN) because of "delays and processing required by any content filters".
Nefarious material carried over peer-to-peer networks will bypass the filters because they are unable to determine content shared over the protocol. The guild claims peer-to-peer represents one third of network traffic.
RMIT university system administration lecturer Don Gingrichat said the filters do not have appropriate blacklists for banned content.
"From past experience in looking at how this has played out in other regions, there seems to be a near certainty that legitimate and useful educational sites will be inadvertently blocked as a part of any effort of this sort. 'A little bit censored' seems a lot to me like a 'little bit pregnant,'" he said.
Guild president Donna Ashelford said the government should ditch the plan and address root causes of child porn.
Reprinted with permission from Computerworld Australia. Story copyright 2008 Computerworld Australia Inc. All rights reserved.
An interesting aspect of all the comments made on this subject is the fact that almost all commercial organisations that implement content filtering have the stated issues, and have had these for years, yet accept them and work around them due to the requirement to have some control on content entering the network, and the resulting benefits.
These benefits far outweigh the costs and inconvenience factors.
Yet when we look at the public sphere, somehow by some magic wave of a wand, we should have perfect protection, no additional costs, no performance issues and no extra work for system admins...
I have been delivering internet security for over a decade, internationally, and the vast majority of CEOs would not tolerate the degree of negative dissent that is being applied to the subject of Duty of Care here. They listen to and analyse the information, arguments and positions of the stakeholders, then apply policy based on regulation, compliance and the best interests of the organisation and staff. The latter two being closely intertwined in this case.
I have heard all these negative comments since 1995, and yet again the vast majority of organisations have content filtering, have not gone broke yet and continue to function quite well thank you.
You would have to believe that many commentators are more interested in pushing some personal wheelbarrow and postulating for the sake of postulating, instead of asking themselves what the priority is here: Fsst speeds or basic security??
I know what they say when their CEO or CIO asks them at work...
Post new comment