Comments on: It’s time to get angry about Australian Internet censorship http://www.danwalmsley.com/2009/08/27/its-time-to-get-angry-about-australian-internet-censorship/ Coding so you don't have to Sun, 09 Oct 2011 06:20:03 +0000 hourly 1 By: Lyndon http://www.danwalmsley.com/2009/08/27/its-time-to-get-angry-about-australian-internet-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-31062 Lyndon Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:24:24 +0000 http://www.danwalmsley.com/?p=317#comment-31062 You are making a large leap of faith that such snooping and monitoring did not / does not already exist on the ISP level.... and as with most faiths it is based in fiction :-) Other than that, the majority of the post stands. ISP's and the technology industry have been decrying this as a futile path from the beginning, in fact a few ISP's signed up for the trial with the specific intention of proving the ineffectiveness of it and the non-viability (did I just make that term up?) of the concept. We all know that it is impossible for a packet or url filter/sniffer to correctly identify traffic that is deliberately masked, and that the vast majority of people doing things illegal will be doing so through such channels. Whether this is for nefarious purposes, or merely ill-conceived window dressing (perhaps a misguided 'surely we can just do this' from people with no technical awareness) would be speculation on my part, but I have no doubt that it will fail to achieve the stated aim in all but a handful of stupid cases that would logically have been detected by traditional means. You are making a large leap of faith that such snooping and monitoring did not / does not already exist on the ISP level…. and as with most faiths it is based in fiction :-)

Other than that, the majority of the post stands. ISP’s and the technology industry have been decrying this as a futile path from the beginning, in fact a few ISP’s signed up for the trial with the specific intention of proving the ineffectiveness of it and the non-viability (did I just make that term up?) of the concept.

We all know that it is impossible for a packet or url filter/sniffer to correctly identify traffic that is deliberately masked, and that the vast majority of people doing things illegal will be doing so through such channels. Whether this is for nefarious purposes, or merely ill-conceived window dressing (perhaps a misguided ‘surely we can just do this’ from people with no technical awareness) would be speculation on my part, but I have no doubt that it will fail to achieve the stated aim in all but a handful of stupid cases that would logically have been detected by traditional means.

]]>