MattR

Senator Conroy, not one of the answers you have posted actually addresses any of the issues raised. You have said:

The Government understands that ISP-level filtering is not a 'silver bullet'. We have always viewed ISP-level filtering as one part of a broader government initiative for protecting our children online.

Explain how the ISP-level filtering is effective in this 'broader ... initiative'. In spite of all the rhetoric, no quantifiable measure has been given to suggest that there is any real benefit (but several drawbacks) in introducing the filter. Explain how this 'live pilot trial' will provide any useful metric given that all reports currently suggest it will be conducted on a closed network and has already been shown ineffective in such cases.

Given that the ACMA blacklist is not published (which in itself is perfectly reasonable), outline how website owners accused of hosting this 'undesirable' content will be informed, what legal rights they will have, the system of appeal, reimbursement of costs of appeal and lost earnings, etc. should they be exonerated. Further, explain how ACMA will be audited to prevent legitimate (i.e. legally available) content from (a) being added to the list and (b) remaining on the list if it is not deemed unsuitable.

Technology that filters peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic does exist and it is anticipated that the effectiveness of this will be tested in the live pilot trial.

Wait, wait, wait. You're planning to test other filters in a live trial as well? Without telling anyone? Without doing a closed network test first? How come this has never been mentioned before? Please provide details of this technology which filters p2p and bt traffic. Explain how these filters address such issues as private trackers (which the majority of child pornography would undoubtedly use) and the effects on legitimate p2p traffic (such as distribution of Linux), as well as why you haven't mentioned this before.