So I was thinking about this Mandatory Internet Filter that Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy are bringing in to Australia and something dawned on me that hadn't before. See previously I was pissed off that this filter will stop Australians' seeing anything and everything that the ACMA decide someone under the age of 16 shouldn't see. Not just legal stuff, but just stuff in general that someone under the age of 16 apparently shouldn't see.

But it dawned on me that a filter of any kind has to take our information about where we're going online and what we're doing online and sort through it. Of cause due to the nature of the internet your ISP already has this information but under the privacy act can't do anything will it. But as this filter apparently exists to keep us safe from harm and includes sites which are illegal in nature; one would expect there to be logging going on.

Logging is the capture and storage of information pertaining to computerized activity, in this case being your online activity. It's something ISPs aren't allowed to do, but something the government do intend to do. It's bad enough we have companies like Google and Facebook giving us the online big brother treatment without our government giving us the same.

I for one think Australia is better than that. That we aren't a paranoid country, and up until now haven't had paranoid governments. The ability for a government to collate data about each households internet usage without criminal cause for line tapping, without the consent of those who occupy the household and on a mandatory basis is unconstitutional. Sure our constitution doesn't protect freedom of speech, but what the Australian constitution does protect is the individuals right to go about their business in a lawful manner without interference from a government agency.

Seriously, who voted for Kevin Rudd? Because everyone who did is a freak'in idiot. I tried to tell you all not to do it, I warned you he'd screw up Australia. He's more interested in playing fairy tale princess meeting "important people" and flying around the world than in anything that benefits Australians. This government artificially took Australia into a time of economic downturn through scare tactics and misinformation. It lost a lot of Australians their jobs and set us back quite dramatically. They then blew out the budget and put us into such heavy debt that our childrens children will still be paying it off.

But not only are they a clueless government, incapable of making a truly healthful decision, not only are they wasting billions of tax payer dollars, dollars you and I worked hard for, but they have also shown themselves to be a fascist, big brother government intent on controlling the populous at whole. This isn't what our fathers and great grandfathers fought and in some cases died for. They'd roll over in their graves to see the country like this. So thank-you to everyone who freely chose to vote for Kevin Rudd, because in that free choice you have doomed all Australians to have none.

I've had a few people question me about what Sacrifice and Celebrations is, as has Sarah. It's nice to see so much interest from people. So I thought I might take a moment to quickly just define what it is.

Sacrifice & Celebrations is the only "holiday" event in the Sourzairian religion. It lasts for 4 days, and consists of the last two (2) days of the year, followed by the first two (2) days of the new year. For the Sacrifice element, the participant enters an extreme fasting ritual where you are not able to ingest anything. That is to say for the last two (2) days of the year no food or drink (including water) is consumed.

During this time the participant undergoes a lot of self reflection, and induces a powerful mindset, slowing bodily functions; which enables them to make it through the fast without injuring themselves. Sacrifice is about personal growth, personal reflection and cleansing of the bad from the year passed. It is a deeply spiritual and moving time for the participant; but should only be preformed under guidance by a spiritual leader. That is to say, please DO NOT try this at home without proper guidance by a leader in the Sourzairian faith. There is a LOT that can go wrong, including permanent injury or death.

The first two (2) days of the year are the Celebration section of the "holiday" and involve feasting on a grand scale. The first day of the new year is also where presents are given. Presents however are not what you may traditionally think of them as they do not have to be materialistic in nature. For the Sourzairian a gift can be the pleasure of someones company, a song, a piece of advice, a kind hearted gesture. Sure you can give material gifts (especially to kids) but it is by no means a requirement of the "holiday". Celebrations is about renewal, rejuvenation and celebrating all the good and potential of the year to come. In this time the Sourzairian formulates ways to deliver on the self development achieved in sacrifice, making the coming year better than the last.

Together as a singular the "holiday" increases enlightenment, mental strength and will, physical power and highens our connection to the source and the power and knowledge held within. The source of cause being the universe as a singular living being.

So there you have it. A quick run through of what Sacrifice and Celebrations is all about. Now that you understand, you can stop asking me what it's all about

As 2010 rolls in you may be feeling let down that the sci-fi future we were promised isn't here yet. I read an article today in the Big Issue which consisted of some guy bitching about just that very thing. But what you may have failed to realise is while we haven't gotten everything the jetsons promised, we're certainly on our way.

Ok so our skies aren't littered with hovercars flying around, but other than the fact that's clearly a good thing... you can actually purchase one. That's right they do actually exist and have done for over a decade! So why haven't they taken off (excuse the pun) you might ask? Well, other then the price tag; which is somewhere around 1.4 Million USD each due to the small amount made; you have to factor in that there is no infrastructure in place. I mean even if the price came down over night and everyone ran out and brought one, there'd be nowhere to land it (think about it the average yard gets smaller every year), nowhere to refill it's tank, nowhere to service it... There aren't any rules or legislation in place so it would currently stand as a plane and you'd need the appropriate licensing and have to submit courses and junk. You can get them, but honestly why would you want one?

Ok so we're not zooming around in the stars visiting other planets for holidays. But that actually might be closer than you think. Richard Bransons company Virgin have invested heavily into creating commercially viable rockets and space craft in which the average joe can afford to make it into space. He's getting VERY close! He craft can already make it into inner orbit! In the last decade we've also seen the Russian space program begin to take paid space tourists on some of their less intense missions. Ok so 20 Million dollars a pop is out of 95% of our budgets but space tourism certainly does exist and is a growing market.

Think about all the cool stuff that we have now days that didn't exist even 5 years ago let alone in the 70s, 80s and 90s! I mean we have mobile phones capable of video conversations, indeed the average mobile phone is capable not only of making a video call, but taking a large number of high quality photo's & video, listening to music, plugging into the GPS network, surfing the internet, checking email, play games and so so so very much more. With the aide of services like facebook, myspace and twitter we're able to keep everyone we know up to date with every last insignificant event that happens in our lives, regardless of where they or we are in the world.

With the aide of services like paypal, we're able to instantly and securely pay for products and services from the comfort of our own home. Indeed the market for internet shopping is growing exponentially. And computers have not only become more a part of our lives than sci-fi ever predicted, but they're capable of far more as well. Think about it, there is a computer in ever single aspect of your life now. Your car has one, your mobile phone is one, you probably own a netbook or a laptop, you probably have a desktop at home, your games console is one, you most likely use one at work in some facade. Computers are EVERYWHERE! They're in our factories, they're in our offices, they're in our schools, hospitals and basically anywhere else you can think of. And each one, connected to a world wide network.

And ok granted we don't drive around in cars that drive themselves yet. But again, they exist. In fact EVERY major car manufacture on the planet has had at least one vehicle capable of driving ITSELF in the testing phase for well over a decade. And yes our cars might still use petrol, but again that isn't because the technology isn't there. It's because of money that we're still stuck on the petrol powered combustion engine. Australia at least (I'm sure other countries are doing the same but I'm not well researched on the subject) is making a switch from petrol to hydrogen powered cars over the next 10 to 15 years. The switch will first move consumers to diesel and then to hydrogen. But hydrogen isn't the only alternative fuel source we have technology for. There are far to many to name them all! But examples are things like bio diesel or solar.

Solar power itself has made some amazing leaps in the last decade, and I'm excited about the commercial launch of the daisy solar panel which increases solar energy conversion by up to 90% while taking up less than 1/4 of the space of a traditional solar system.

Just think about all the literally millions of new inventions and technologist which have been developed over the last 30 years. The microwave oven for example. A device which automates the cooking process and reduces cooking time into a fraction of what it is in a conventional oven. Kevlar vests stop speeding bullets in their tracks. plasma, LCD and LED TVs which have made the TV thin enough to be hung from a wall like a picture. The exciting new world of 3D Television. Yes, that's right I said 3D television, and they're available right now! Sure with a price tag of $13,990AUD there isn't going to be a mass herd to the store to buy them, but just remember it was only 5 years ago that LCD TVs cost that much and look at them now.

In every aspect of life technology has advanced. So sure we aren't quite where sci-fi promised we would be, but we also have things that sci-fi writers never even thought of. So as we enter 2010 I reckon we should all just take a moment to reflect on all the advancements we've made in the last few decades and how much they've changed our lives. Lets just take that moment to give thanks to all the 10s of thousands of people whom put their blood, sweat and tears into creating these inventions and technologies. And then take a moment to dream about where we might be in another 10 years time!

For all the tax payer dollars the government intends to put into the mandatory internet filter, they will be wasted. Not only because as Australians we do not require, request nor as a majority desire such a filter; but also because the whole filtering process even at the ISP level can be side stepped in a quite uncomplicated way. With the current adoption of dependency on the internet in Australia, it's my prediction that the filter will be, more often than not, side stepped by the general Australian public.

What remains unclear however is how legal, post filter implementation, these side stepping methods will be. As it stands however, these methods are legal, and do not harm anyone. Regardless of whether new laws making these methods illegal are implemented along side the filter, it is clear anyone whom is actually guilty of committing a cyber crime or engaging in any illegal activity this filter was apparently designed to stop, will continue to use these methods.

And why wouldn't you, considering some of them render you completely anonymous and thus untraceable and not able to be charged with any offense. There are numerous methods to achieve unfiltered access to the internet, some of which are free, some of which charge a fee. There is a great guide to all of these methods over at flossmanuals.net

I do make the suggestion however that if you're even considering side-stepping the filter, you look into it all NOW BEFORE the filter is turned on. I have a strong feeling that once it is turned on, websites offering information on side stepping the filter, as well the websites of services offering commercial methods to side step the filter will be part of the black list. That of cause is just my judgment on the issue, there hasn't been an announcement by the government to say they will be on the list, but it does make common sense.

Links;

FlossManuals.net

The following letter is from a network engineer named Mark Newton whom has brought up multiple concerns about the internet filter with the AMCA. But instead of addressing these concerns, in true fascist nature Senator Conroy and his office have attempted to bully Mr Newton into a campaign of silence on the issue. I am reposting this letter as I feel it captures a great deal of the concerns at the heart of this issue. I have pulled this letter from homepagedaily.com

Senator Stephen Conroy

------

Mark Newton's letter:

20 October 2008
The Hon Kate Ellis MP
Minister for Youth and Sport
161a Main North Road
Nailsworth SA 5083

Dear Ms Ellis,

I am writing to you to express my concerns about moves by Senator Stephen Conroy to implement the "clean feed" proposal described on page 5 of Labor's Plan for Cyber Safety by Senator Conroy prior to the 2007 election.

My objections to this policy are detailed below. In your reply to this letter, I would appreciate a direct, detailed response to each of these issues. I am making the assumption that collating such responses will be a simple matter, because a proposal as important as this one obviously wouldn't have proceeded as far as it has if these basic concerns had not been considered and alleviated. If that assumption is unfounded, then that fact should justify revisiting (or, alternatively, abandoning) the "clean feed" proposal.

While I approve of the general thrust of the Cyber Safety proposal, I have serious objections to the "clean feed" section, which will erect an online Government censorship regime in Australia for the first time.

I also have significant objections about the professional conduct of Senator Conroy as he has pursued this issue. The Senator has attacked critics by comparing them to child abusers; refused to provide details of his policy then maligned opponents for their "speculative" remarks; lied to the Australian voting public about the availability of an "opt-out" in December 2007; and failed to consult with the 21 million Australian stakeholders who will be most affected by this plan, in contravention of the Prime Minster's oft-repeated aim to implement a "Government for all Australians" [1, 2, 3]. Rather than addressing the serious policy objections which I outline below, Senator Conroy has preferred to respond with aggressive, offensive, extremist bluster.

The Government has not demonstrated a need for an online censorship regime.

While I accept that the presence of illegal material on the Internet is a cause for some concern, I'm appraised of two important points which the Government appears to have missed.

Firstly: Australians have been using uncensored Internet access for at least 30 years, and there's no evidence of a burgeoning problem concerning access to illegal material. I have been using the Internet almost every day since 1989 and have never seen any content that I'd expect to require Government intervention. Without demonstrating a need for this system, how can the Government credibly claim that it should be mandated?

Secondly: There is little evidence that Australian parents require Government assistance. Indeed, those who claim that parents require such assistance have a remarkable track record of being wrong.

In 1989 / 1990, the Senate Select Committee into Online Services carried out an enquiry into the nature of content available online, and made a rash of recommendations in favour of some kind of censorship scheme based on the expectation that unfettered access would harm the fabric of Australian society.

The passing of time has shown that 1990 Senate's concerns were completely wrong: Almost 20 years have passed since that enquiry, and Australians have enjoyed uncensored Internet access for the entire period. Society has not fallen apart, there is no emergency, children are not being raised in moral vacuums and turning into rapists and axe-murderers, parents are diligently and capably excelling in their efforts to raise their children into fine, upstanding citizens. Today's parents are comfortable with ubiquitous access to unfiltered Internet, having grown up using Google to assist with homework assignments, publishing blogs and websites, using email to stay in touch with friends and family, and treating the Internet in its current unfiltered form as a valuable resource for the education and social engagement of their children.

This fact is reinforced by the public's unresponsiveness to the previous Government's offer of free filtering software for family PCs. When only 140,000 users downloaded the free software over 12 months, and less than 29,000 of them were still using it three weeks later, Senator Conroy concluded that the $84M filtering software distribution plan failed because it wasn't mandatory, rather than the more rational conclusion that the failure of the initiative could be traced to lack of public desire.

The image of technologically-disconnected parents floundering helplessly in a sea of pornography as they fail to adequately raise their children is a reflection of the appalling lack of Internet-savviness of our politicians, not society at large. Politicians assume that parents are ignorant about the Internet because politicians are ignorant. Yet parents came to grips with it years ago; the last remaining social group in our country who expresses difficulty with the Internet appears to be baby-boomer Federal politicians, whose child-rearing days are mostly well behind them.

It is thoroughly insulting to Australian parents to undermine their efforts by asserting that the way to prevent societal decay is for the Government to step in and make decisions about the appropriateness of online content. That is a parent's role, not Senator Stephen Conroy's role.

The government has not demonstrated that mandatory online censorship is technologically feasibly.

Senator Richard Alston, in his tenure as Minister for Communications and the Arts, passed amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act in 1999. As accompaniment to that legislation, the Minister directed the ACMA (then ABA) to establish NetAlert, and for NetAlert to carry out periodic assessments of the "state of the art" of filtering technology.

Since that time, NetAlert and the Department have commissioned separate studies by the CSIRO, Ovum, and most recently RMIT and Enex Testlab. All of the studies have uniformly demonstrated that online censorship technology:

* slows down Internet access;
* inaccurately blocks content which should not be blocked;
* inaccurately fails to block content which should be blocked;
* is ineffective at inspecting or blocking "Peer to Peer" traffic that comprises over 60% of Australia's Internet traffic; and
* fails to accurately distinguish between legal and illegal content even when specifically configured with lists of illegal content under laboratory conditions.

The most recent trials, conducted in Tasmania by Enex Testlab earlier this year, found that the most accurate product tested incorrectly blocked 3% of innocent material, and incurred a "slowdown" performance penalty in excess of 70%, and failed to reliably block the ACMA's prohibited content list. It stuns disbelief that the Minister for Broadband would be interested in pursuing these systems whilst at the very same time advocating for a $20B National Broadband Network (NBN) intended to increase Internet speeds.

There is no evidence on the public record to demonstrate that mandatory online censorship is technologically feasible. Every time experts have been asked, they have uniformly concluded that it is not possible. Furthermore, advances in technology cause Internet speeds to increase faster then censorship systems' speeds, meaning that as time passes the performance penalty caused by these systems becomes worse.

It is very poor public policy to proceed with mandatory implementation of provably failed technology.

The government has not demonstrated that online censorship is effective.

Any Australian can obtain encrypted Virtual Private Network (VPN) access from the United States for less than $5 per month [1, 2]. This is the same technology that human rights activists use in China, Saudi Arabia and Iran to hide their activities from the Government, and provides an effective, guaranteed bypass of any effort by any National Government to filter Internet content.

There is no requirement for complicated software to use these services, VPN clients are installed by default on all common Operating System platforms. Australians who wish to hide themselves from Government Internet censorship efforts are only a few clicks away from total anonymity.

The government has failed to consider unintended consequences arising from the policy.

In order to implement a censorship scheme, the ACMA will need to make its blacklists available to ISPs.

There are approximately 400 ISPs in Australia. Even if each ISP only has a handful of staff in a position to access routers and scrutinise network configurations, that still leaves several thousand ISP technical staff with full knowledge of the contents of the blacklist.

A moment of consideration of that state of affairs yields the unavoidable conclusion that the blacklist will be "leaked". Many sites on the Internet specialise in providing repositories of "sensitive" Government data for the purpose of providing public access to documents against Governments' wishes, and a Government blacklist is exactly the kind of content those sites exist to publish.

When the Government makes a mistake, it will be public [1, 2, 3]. It is simply not believable that putting the same people who called for the destruction of the Bill Henson photographic exhibit in charge of a blacklist of pornographic imagery can end well. It also strains credibility to assert that there is value in putting the people who decided that Mohammad Haneef should be pursued on terrorism charges, or that David Hicks should rot in Guantanamo, in charge of a list of illegal terrorist material. Governments of both sides have a long and distinguished track record of embarrassing failure in these areas, and the public is wise to be sceptical of moves to place further faith in the demonstrably flawed judgement of our public officials and political representatives.

Leaks have other hazards: It will only be a matter of time before someone, somewhere in the world, testifies in open court that they knew where to find child pornography due to the assistance and enablement of a leaked copy of Senator Conroy's Internet blacklist. The Government will no doubt launch a flurry of PR spin to demonise the leaker and portray itself as an innocent victim of circumstance when it happens, but one fact which will not be in dispute when it happens is that the Government was warned and carried on regardless. How much child exploitation is the Government willing to accept as "collateral damage" associated with this policy? More than zero? How much more?

Encouraging people who wish to bypass censorship to use encrypted VPNs carries a further unintended consequence, namely that the Australian Federal Police are unable to effectively execute Interception Warrants on encrypted traffic. Implementing censorship will drive criminals towards encryption by blocking non-encrypted methods of accessing the content they desire. I invite you to ponder the likely political effect of the revelation that Australian law enforcement was unable to gather evidence to convict a child abuser or a terrorist because the ALP's censorship system had inspired the offender to encrypt their Internet traffic.

Senator Conroy has invalidated the government's claim for a mandate by lying to the Australian public about the scope of the policy.

In December 2007, Senator Conroy was widely reported in the press as stating that "...anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service."

In October 2008, Darren Pauli from IDG/Computerworld obtained confirmation from the Minister's media spokesman that no opt-out will be available, "... the filters will be mandatory for all Australians."

As far as politicians' lies go, this one is breathtaking in its audacity. The Minister took the false impression that Australians will be able to (in his own words) "opt out of the service" to the last election, and allowed it to persist for almost an entire year even as the policy progressed to "live trials" with no opt-out provision. Then when the truth was exposed he launched personal attacks to denigrate critics as "extremist" "speculators".

Summary and Conclusion

Nearly a year has passed since Senator Conroy announced his plan, and none of the concerns described above have been addressed. The 21 million people comprising this policy's largest stakeholder group have not been consulted. We have not even been provided with the details we'd need to assess whether Senator Conroy's efforts to implement the policy are consistent with the Australian values, societal fabric, and child-rearing aims that the policy is purportedly designed to protect.

It disturbs me that Senator Conroy's response to these criticisms has been to label those who disagree with him as "speculators" and "extremists" and to compare them to child abusers. My criticisms are not "extreme", and I am not a child abuser. I am a voter, and I expect Senator Conroy to show some respect by answering my concerns without resorting to hysterical personal attacks. Senator Conroy's job is to convince the Australian public that his idea is worthy, but his habit of resorting to bluster, offensiveness and secrecy has severely undermined that role. Without Senator Conroy's detailed responses to these issues, the responsibility for any undesired "uninformed speculation" lies directly upon his shoulders.

I call upon you to:

1. respond to the policy concerns that I have outlined above; and
2. represent my interests in the Party Room to persuade Senator Conroy and the Prime Minister Mr Kevin Rudd to change track by abandoning the "clean feed" proposal.

The general aims of the ALP's cyber-safety initiative are worth defending. In particular, budget allocations for education programs and investigative law enforcement are commendable. But the "clean feed" proposal is impossible to defend on technical, moral, financial and public policy grounds, and should be reviewed for suitability for inclusion in the Government's policy agenda before being allowed to proceed any further.

Sincerely yours,

Mark Newton

-----