In the wake of Google’s changed stance toward the Chinese government, the company has now raised concerns about the Rudd government’s internet filter.
In a piece in Crikey today, Jason Whittaker reported:
Google will argue the scope of content proposed to be filtered is too wide. In a blog post written in December, Australian policy head Iarla Flynn branded mandatory ISP-level filtering “the first of its kind amongst Western democracies” and “heavy handed”. She wrote:
Some limits, like child p-rnography, are obvious. No Australian wants that to be available?—?and we agree. Google, like many other internet companies, has a global, all-product ban against child s-xual abuse material and we filter out this content from our search results. But moving to a mandatory ISP filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond such material is heavy handed and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information.
Flynn says the Australian filter would be unique as a mandatory framework. Germany and Italy have mandatory ISP filtering but for a limited range of sites (child-abuse material, and in Italy unlawful gambling sites).
Google told Crikey it wants “more light shed” on the technical trials, to which it wasn’t party. It’s particularly concerned about the “potential impact on speed”.
“The government’s own technical report states that someone with competent technical expertise could probably get around it. Filtering should only be seen as one part of any effort towards protecting people’s online experience. We believe that education and police enforcement is vitally important,” the spokesperson said.
Whittaker writes that Google will be putting its concerns in a submission to the Minister, Stephen Conroy.
“(Google’s) particularly concerned about the “potential impact on speed”:
That would be presumably from increased processing loads, which would increase the energy used, and the resultant poison CO2sidosis, by the datacentres etc involved, n’est-ce pas?.
I’ve seen handwaving estimates suggesting global datacentre energy usage is running at about the level of the aviation industry, and on the up: not insignificant. Internet service proposition changes like these filters and iViews, as they approach being the mass/ normal/ubiquity condition of use, with significantly increased processing and network traffic loads, will necessarily be incurring environmental imposts, being as they are end to end powered by electrickery. I’d like to see an exhaustive environmetal audit if the iView service, and mass uptake scenario projections.
This barely, and temporaily, effective filter service, and similar super crap pseudo solutions which really just extend the problem spaces, like a hybrid camry, is what we get for letting factional daleks anywhere near the levers of policy that affects the real world. Worlds worst practice solutions’R'Us indeed.
Google may well be making a submission to Minister Stephen Conroy but he will blandly inform them that sex is evil and to many Australians are watching it on the Internet instead of doing it at a time we desperately need more population. What is worse, (and the internet has certainly encouraged this) if they have a spare half hour most Aussies, apparently prefer to read a book, rather than have sex. We’re never going to get more babies that way.
It bears repeating repeatedly that the technical expertise required to avoid the filtering is very moderate indeed. Further, unless the government is willing to block a huge number of proxies used for all sorts of legitimate purposes (including business ones) this loophole cannot be closed.
Put simply this filter will simply not stop anyone who wants to from looking at illicit material. The way to beat it will be common knowledge among the kids, let alone the sleazebags.
Looks like people are already starting to treat this obnoxious Rudd labor government as damage and rout around it. Hasta la vista Steve baby, don’t let the door hit yr butt on the way out.
No, they mean page load time. Google have found that every 0.2 seconds of load time for search results costs them 20% of users. 200 milliseconds is easily going to be chewed up by ISP filtering. Thus, this is a more or less tax on Google (and all other websites). QED.
Bizarro.
You also have these stories in the last two days
Google refuses to censor
Google censors
“Filtering should only be seen as one part of any effort towards protecting people’s online experience. We believe that education and police enforcement is vitally important,” the spokesperson said.”
Why does everyone say this as if it is not already the Government’s policy?
“Germany and Italy have mandatory ISP filtering but for a limited range of sites (child-abuse material, and in Italy unlawful gambling sites).”
So if the Government does what their recent comments suggest, and use the blacklist of specified sites but not the heuristic filter, we won’t be the first/only western democracy to do so.
“Google have found that every 0.2 seconds of load time for search results costs them 20% of users.”
Surely this is irrelevant to filtering, since every search engine would face the same load problem. It’s not like people will stop using search engines.
“Put simply this filter will simply not stop anyone who wants to from looking at illicit material.”
Haviog worked in IT, I doubt it. I discovered that all the jokes about coke trays and the like are not just true, but scarily common. Obviously some people will get around it, but I’d suggest it would actually be a small minority, especially since you would have to actively WANT to do it, which means you actively WANT to visit what in any other medium would be illegal content. Take yourself, DD: maybe you would know (or be able to find out) how, but why would you?