Ash Kyd

Hi Senator, Thanks for opening the debate. I had resigned myself to the fact that there was going to be no public discourse on this, so a blog discussion is a pleasant surprise. I respect your decision to engage the public head-on with this, and hope we can reach an ideal solution. While I could write pages on this issue (and I am in the process of doing so on my blog, which I can forward to you if you'd like,) I'll keep this concise. We all know the results of the last trial, we all know the negative connotations with mandatory filtering. It's fact that nobody seriously shares illegal content over http, and it's also fact that anyone with any computer skill at all will be able to get around this filter without detection, within five minutes, given sufficient motive. So my question is this: Why is the existing NetAlert scheme not good enough? Why is it necessary to slug the rest of Australia with the burden, cost and additional negative side-effects of mandatory ISP level filtering, when it seems that less than one percent of Australians took up the last filtering offer? The Internet is not a broadcast media, and treating it as if it were one is frustratingly short sighted, especially for those of us who are trying to run businesses on-line. I'd love to see a system that aids the AFP in catching distributors of filth, and at the same time leaves the Internet uncongested. It's just that for all the best intentions these goals are mutually exclusive — especially within the current budget — and aren't going to become realities any time soon. Cheers, Ashley Kyd - Web Developer.