Jacob

Mr. Conroy, there is several fundamental problems with your internet filter that you are clearly evading.

1. How do you propose to detect what data is illegal and legal through P2P? I'd love to see your method.

2. Every bit of data on the internet will need to first route through to your blacklist to determine whether or not it is banned. This takes physical time. The internet will be slowed. Why do you feel it is necessary to slow an already snail-speed country?

3. You don't honestly think this will have any impact on child pornography do you? You believe that stopping the minority of Australians who view it will have any effect on child abuse here, or abroad? Do you think the minute reduction in worldwide child pornography viewing will have any effect at all on a the actual abuse? You think this money wouldn't be better spent on actually combating child abuse? It is a most inadequate solution to simply blind people from illegal happenings.

4. Do you believe any responsible parent, including yourself, cannot take measures into their own hands with free filtering or simply sitting down with their child at a computer? There is a plethora of software and monitoring methods, let alone talking to your child so you can develop a trust with them.

5. When the trial proves that; a) the filtering is inadequate and was bypassed easily, and/or b) internet speeds were reduced, what then? I believe you will surely ignore any results and look at the minute positives they produced in order to continue your plans.

6. You described that there is a National Classification Scheme for films, computer games and publications. You fail to recognise that the internet is not a media system, it is a system of interconnected computer networks that interchange data via packet switching. If you think the same rules that apply to a newspaper or video game is fit for this, you are sorely mistaken.

7. You continuously mention countries like the UK implementing filtering, but you dance around the fact that only a few ISPs implement this technology, and it is completely optional.

8. Can you figure out why a wealthier, more technologically advanced country hasn't implemented a mandatory filter before we have? In fact, no country. You need to consider this. China and other countries don't count, as you have said.

Your comments give the attitude that there's no reason not to implement this.. when in fact, there's little reason to implement it. It will be bypassed easily by adults AND children who want the content; it will have no effect on the problem of child abuse, even if it were to stop pornography production because this does not stop the act in itself; and you're making our connections slower than they need to be. Whether it's 2% or 80%, I don't want it. For the record, until you publish the persons and content decided on the expanded ACMA blocklist, and introduce legislation to protect us against unconstitutional censorship, I will not believe that the only thing you are censoring is illegal material. How can anyone?

Your comments tip toe around sensitive or unknown issues, giving the same standard responses and always hiding behind how it's supposedly for the children and how it's merely blocking already illegal content.