Reading through the ISP Filtering Live Report(s) – still wondering what this proves. Is anyone surprised by the findings? I’d have been surprised if it was much different. Now to base a full blown strategy (flawed in concept according to many from the outset) on a test/trial whose scope is ridiculously inadequate to represent real-life implementation. It would laughable if the impacts upon us of this progressing weren’t potentially so serious. Where to start? What hasn’t been said before? Refer here:

Securus Global: IT Security, Penetration Testing, Security Assessments, PCI Compliance, Product Assurance, QualysGuard, Security Strategy, Vulnerability Assessment.

  1. Wireghoul says:

    Does anyone know what the stance is on user contributed content driven sites?
    How many times will someone have to post porn on the wikipedia page before wikipedia gets the can? What about 4chan posting porn on youtube? Or reflecto porn on ebay?

  2. Big Galoot says:

    All this talk of the Internet Filtering trial & report being flawed must surely be a case of sour grapes for all you non-believers out there.

    Everyone – forthwith, please cease your incessant whinging & whining about the internet filter.

    After all, internet filtering is fantastic, it is right and it is proper: just ask the ACS !

  3. For political games, a small narrow scoped “trial” is deemed a success and “proof” it can work on a grand country-wide scale. LOL. (See initial post). Point in time filter of a few known websites – no rocket science. Point in time filtering of millions of known bad sites – no doubt enough processing power and success again. No impacts to speed etc? Tell that to Symantec, McAfee and co – they’d love to know how to negate the processing hit as scale increases for their own products. (Anti-virus software speed trend over almost 20 years).

    As mentioned before, would love to know what Conroy deems as success? If the magic filter catches 80% of bad sites/content (though highly unlikely) is that success? Not in my eyes. Failure in the foundation principles of it’s intent. Will low figures and attitude that even some is better than none be accepted as the catch phrase for the known weaknesses and failings of the system?

    Will focus be taken away from the better defences – home, education, parents, policing activities? Money diverted away from these areas?

    Fact based arguments that we in general society accept as determination of right and wrong, good or bad don’t necessarily work in politics as we know – where agendas are more based upon self-preservation and perception – no critical thinkers please. We’ll tell you what reality is.

    Wondering if Conroy believes his own hype and position over all this. Does it matter? Once it hits mainstream mums and dads and mainstream press – he knows his pitch will work on those not in the know.

  4. IT Journalist says:

    This guy calls himself an IT journalist. Very patronizing tone and sad for The Punch to not have better quality writers who do infosec stuff for them. “Nerds”, “Geeks”? Seriously!

    You make yourself sound pretty stupid Simon.

    If we have people like this who think they are IT representing IT, that is very sad.

  5. Drazen Drazic says:

    Simon also discovered PCI DSS in September 2008 and started warning businesses about a “*new* credit card security standard”. Of course the rest of the world had been onto this scoop for years. Covered here:

    In the same month (2008) and in the same journal he talked about hackers:

    “Imagine for a moment that you are a hacker. Like most, you know your way around a computer, But you’re aware that computers are quite well defended these days. The glaringly obvious security holes in software have all been plugged and new ones are fixed within a short time of their discovery. Hacking in short, is therefore pretty hard these days.”

    Nuff said hey?

  6. Declan says:

    Stop your whinging and start your writing.

    Get the paper and make a response. They become public record and do make a difference.

    This will email the Minister of Censorship himself :)

  7. John O'k says:

    @big galoot You have not posted in a long time. We miss your work!!!!!

    @DD If more were looking at your basic description of the problem, I think more would wake up. Bringing it back to basics makes the best argument but the profile you have is not big enough. (Outside of our industry)

    Simon Sharwood. What can you say? Your reporting would be like me reporting on the hairdressing industry. I know nothing about it but if I was paid, I would try. Unlike you I would at minimum try to understand the industry. You are embarrassing.

    @Declan Lots of love Bro! Support!