Micheal G

I am puzzled as to why the government intends to keep the contents of the blacklist a secret. Case in point, the OLFC host a list of all material that is deemed 'refused classification' for public review. Is not the definition of refused classification material that would not be of good to the public? If so why is such list publically available yet the URL blacklist will not be? If there are sites that promote and distribute so called 'illegal material' which you have as of yet not defined, why aren't the proper authorities both here and abroad if necessary alerted to this fact and action taken? Putting a proverbial blanket over such sites won't stop the distribution and in cases of child abuse, will not stop the act from taking place. One can not hope to use internet filters to block material that is deemed inappropriate, in fact it will backfire in the form of the Streisand effect, painfully experienced by the IWF blocking wikipedia just a few weeks ago. They were forced to reverse their decision. The internet as a dynamic media changes far too fast for any filter to keep up and keep quality of service at a high level, this is backed up by multiple industry reports (CSIRO x2 (1998, 2002), OVUM (2003), ENEX(2008)) Individual discretion is best censor and only by experience, education and good parenting from childhood can one hone theirs. I am for client-side filters as a safety-net for concerned parents, as part of an overall solution; young children must always be supervised on the internet as the internet is a public place. But most internet users are responsible adults, not young children. Why are these people being denied their right of discretion when it comes this particular media? There are multiple overlapping morals in the country and each and every one of them are equally valid in a western democracy. Why is it that the government wants to exert its own set of morals on the wider community without consideration of everyone else? The mandatory internet filtering proposal is a fallacy to the digital economy as its very purpose is to restrict the flow of information. As recent events show, these secret blacklists once in use, do not stay secret for long. Finland and Thailand's 'secret' lists are already publically available. Should this proposal go ahead I can guarantee Australia's will be next. Think before you act: with 2 days before the live trial begins and yet no announcement on which ISP's will actually participate and the fact that these 'trials' will just be another lab test in house, it appears that your department is doing to opposite. So my suggestions on promoting a civil and confident society? - Education is the key. Compulsory filters will not work and only cause curiosity around what the government considers 'bad', re Streisand effect. Education will also teach people to discriminate between internet scams and legitimate correspondence as well how to harness the digital economy and its vibrant community. - Increase funding for AFP operations. We all know there are illegal operations active on the internet, but reported numbers are quite a bit inflated compared to reality. Not only that, these outfits hide themselves well and do not makes themselves known. Destroying public access to a public media in the hope of stopping these outfits is laughable as they will just adapt to the new situation and continue business as usual. Classic policing work is really the only thing that works is this is confirmed by a recent interview with an AFP agent on the 19 arrests related to an international child pornography ring.