Author: Paul Wallbank

  • How the ACMA blacklist works

    One of the comments to my Smart Company column took me to task on how the Australian Communications and Media Authority compiles the website blacklist. I’ve put the comment and my reply which explains the process below.

    I should also add the blacklist only applies to sites hosted outside Australia. ACMA will direct an Australian hosting serivce to take down any site rated X18+ or refused classification .

    Paul, you incorrectly write that it is up the classification board to decide what is blacked out. That is incorrect as they only have jurisdiction on what is published within Australia. The blacklist is currently maintained by ACMA, so which minor public servant gets the job of surfing the web looking for something they can add (as well as responding to any ministerial hints about “unwanted” material).

    If it was a transparent process, the material had been vetted against Australian standards then maybe. Or rules by a court. But not a secret list. No way.

    Thanks for your comment, Richard. One of the big concerns about filtering is exactly how an appeals process or independent oversight of a blacklist will work.

    ACMA refers any complaint about a website to the Classification Board. The board then classifies the site under the same system used for computer games and movies. If the board refuses classification or gives the site an X18+ rating then ACMA adds the site to the blacklist. The details are on the ACMA and Classification Board websites.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Why Internet filtering is bad for business

    Why Internet filtering is bad for business

    This article orginally appeared in SmartCompany on the 14th November 2008

    As reported in SmartCompany last week the Federal Government is proceeding with trials of internet filters that will restrict Australian access to the world wide web.

    The aim of internet filtering is to block child abuse sites from Australian web surfers. While the idea is well meaning, the proposal will be an additional burden on business and won’t fix the problem.

    There certainly is a problem – a study by the University of California, Berkeley, found around 1% of websites contain pornographic material. With over a billion websites indexed by Google, this translates to around 10 million sites containing things you’d rather not be seen in your workplace or by your kids.

    To deal with this problem, most computer operating systems, browsers and search engines have built-in adult filters, and the Federal Government provides free software for home computer users on its NetAlert website.

    The new filter will go a number of steps further, with it being compulsory for internet providers to deny access to around 10,000 sites, a number that falls dramatically short of the 10 million estimated pornographic sites and who knows how many terrorist, gambling and euthanasia sites that will probably be added to the list.

    The task of deciding which of the billion websites to be blacked out will fall upon the Classification Board. In 2005-6, their 65 staff considered 9425 movies, video games and websites. To say the board will require a massive injection of resources is an understatement.

    Under the current proposals, the banned list would be secret, and it’s uncertain if your business inadvertently found itself on the list how an appeal mechanism would work.

    One serious risk for business is that many of the people who post illegal and inappropriate material do so on others’ computers to avoid detection. Hacked personal computers and corporate servers are frequently used by criminal gangs for exactly this purpose.

    There is also the risk of sites being blocked for political reasons. Canberra has form on this, with the Federal Police using spurious copyright reasons to close down Richard Neville’s spoof John Howard site in 2006.

    Recently, a staffer of the present Federal Government indirectly pressured a prominent critic of the filtering proposal through his industry association.

    So there are real risks to your website if someone in your company does something illegal, messes up a security setting, or simply upsets the wrong person in a minister’s office.

    However it’s not the censorship aspects of filtering that should be the main concern for businesses. The indirect consequences will be deep and far reaching for Australian commerce.

    The immediate effect is filtering will increase internet costs. Given 98% of businesses use the internet, the increased ISP charges will be a tax on almost every Australian enterprise.

    Business relies upon fast, reliable communications. Trials to date of the filtering systems show a decrease of speed between 2% and 84%. The filters will also add another level of complexity to the system, which in turn reduces reliability.

    Those additional costs will become another barrier to entry. At the very time the Federal Government is struggling with competition in the communications industry, this proposal will eliminate many smaller operators and favour the larger incumbent providers.

    Overall, this proposal will add costs and reduce the reliability of one of the modern economy’s critical business tools. The real tragedy is the filters simply won’t work.

    Similar posts:

  • Global Entrepreneurship Week

    I went along to the Sydney launch for Global Entrepreneurship Week tonight.

    What an absolutely interesting evening! There really are a lot of great ideas out there and plenty of talented people making them a reality (many of them 20 years younger than me).

    More on this when I’ve had some sleep (in three days times).

    I also learned about the Kauffman Foundation. More on that later too.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • AVG anti virus problems

    I’ve long recommended AVG for home users. But since the release of version 7.5 there’s been a slow decline in the quality of both the support and the product itself.

    Flagging a critical Windows dll file as a virus is a real worry. If that had happened to me, my first thought would have been that I’d stupidly infected myself with something.

    The lesson when a result like this comes from the blue is to treat it with suspicion. If one virus checker flags a problem like this, hit it with a couple of others to confirm the problem.

    I think I’ll have to change the free anti virus recommendation on the PC Rescue and IT Queries websites. It looks like Avast! is the best choice and I’ll keep AVG and Anti Vir as the alternatives.

    Similar posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Are we coming to the end of spam?

    The BBC reports the results of a US study on the profitability of spam networks. Seven researchers set up a fake pharmacutecal website and used the Storm network to drive traffic to it through spam messages.

    Out of nearly 350 million messages sent 28 people attempted to buy something which the researchers estimate would have returned about $US 100 a day.

    Not bad money, but hardly worth the effort of setting up a fake site, arranging the merchant facilities and getting on to the Storm botnet. 

    The return also assumes all the potential purchases were genuine. There’s a good chance many of them would have been fraudulent which would have further eroded the returns.

    If those returns are typical, then we’re probably seeing the end of the mass spam, although I’m worried that a new breed of 419 type scammers might take advantage of people in financial straits as the economy worsens.

    The full study is available at the UCSD website.

    Similar posts: