Anonymouse

I have read the responses provided by Mr Conroy to what he identifies as the main "themes" against the Internet filtering proposal. However, I find they miss the mark and are unconvincing, as I will explain. At the end of my post, I provide further issues that should be considered. 1. This is an attack on freedom of speech While there was perhaps "never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content", freedom of speech as viewed by most Australian concerns more than just political content. I can say whatever I want on the street with very few and limited laws restricting me. What I say cannot be blocked. The person speaking can simply be sued or prosecuted. Online speech should be the same. It should not be blocked, but if illegal then the publisher should be taken to court. Only after a court of law finds it illegal should it be removed. Furthermore, the possibility for abuse by this Government or a future government remains, given a hidden blacklist. 2. Why aren’t PC-level filters sufficient? Does the lack of take-up of the filtering software by Australian households not tell the Government that Australians do not want to filter the Internet? It does not say that they want to filter the Internet, otherwise ISPs would be lining up to offer optional filtering services to increase their users. Basic economics. 3. Why won’t the Government publish what is included in the ACMA blacklist? Does Senator Conroy's response, citing the "public interest" due to lack of a filter, mean that if an Internet filter is implemented then the blacklist will be published? It should be, as a check and balance. At the least, the sites that are not child pornography and hence with no specific laws against them should be listed. 4. Won’t internet filtering reduce internet speeds? This does not take into account increasing network latency, which is important for applications like VOIP, video conferencing and online games. 5. Internet filtering won’t stop peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic—so why bother? Has the Government considered the existence of FTPs, IRC channels and newsgroups? What about encrypted tunnels overseas to download whatever content one wished? There are myriad ways to get around the proposal. All you will do is make the Internet slower and more inconvenient for legitimate users, while illegitimate ones will still get around the filter. Do you realise that adopting Internet filtering will encourage businesses to form overseas with the sole purpose of providing encrypted proxy links for Australian Internet users? You will cause more Australian money to go overseas for no positive reason. 6. So what else is the Government doing to help protect children online? It would be better that those engaged in illegal activities not be made aware of methods of evading detection so that they could more easily be detected and prosecuted. Implementing an Internet filter will make those engaged in illegal activities more aware of methods to avoid detection, hence making the job of law enforcement authorities more difficult. -- Another problem with the proposed Internet filter is that it adds another layer for Internet traffic to go through. This will increase network latency, which is a measure of the time it takes packets to go from one point to another. Having to go through the filter will delay packets, making the Internet feel slower. Everything will take marginally longer to load, due to the extra time taken by packets as they pass through the filter. This is especially important for applications where latency is important, such as voice over IP (VoIP), video conferencing and fast-paced online computer gaming. The filter also introduces a point of vulnerability into the Australian Internet infrastructure. It will be susceptible to DDoS attacks. Filter nodes can be spammed with millions of requests in short order, resulting in Internet outages (or very large delays) to legitimate users until the attacks cease. I keep seeing "unwanted content" mentioned in relation to the filters. What is "unwanted content", anyway? I have more than a sneaking suspicion that the filter will not just ban child porn sites (of which I am suspicious that any even exist, as I doubt people would be stupid enough to host a site that is so clearly illegal), but is rather directed at protecting private interests like copyright by blocking, for example, BitTorrent and P2P websites. This would be doing the job of the copyright owners for them -- our Government enforcing the private interests of a tiny subset of society -- at our own public expense. Terrible. Also, even if we can trust this Government with a blacklist, what about future ones? You can see everything in public view. If the Internet is an extension of society, you should be able to see everything there too. Don't filter, but prosecute the purveyors of illegal material.