Comments on 'Promoting A Civil & Confident Society Online'

FreedomLover

23 Dec 2008 1:50pm

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO - NO CLEANFEED!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!

Dave

23 Dec 2008 1:51pm

If this policy in any way shape or form was considering the FACTs then this would be discarded and the money given to the AFP to police things, rather than this hankie waving sieve.

Geordie Guy

23 Dec 2008 1:52pm

What a load.

Senator Conroy has not answered the questions posed and has instead responded sideways in a manner consistent with his performance in the senate.

Repeating the same misinformation as has been put forth in the media as to the reasons behind the low uptake of PC-level filters and the technical issues surrounding implementation, as well as the free speech concerns, is reprehensible.

Dennis Nelrum

23 Dec 2008 1:53pm

Evidence based approach hey? The DBCDE has done nothing of the sort. Stephen Conroy is so disillusioned that he used other progressive countries as examples for filtering (like Sweden) where no such mandatory filter exists. Is this what out Government representatives mean by evidence based?

13tales

23 Dec 2008 1:55pm

Thankyou for responding Minister Conroy, some other points I would like to address to you:

1) This filter simply WILL NOT WORK. Any motivated person with a minimum of technical knowledge could circumvent it by means of a VPN or other similar service. An astute observer will note that my current IP address does not match my geographic location (I'm actually an Australian working in Japan). Similar systems will bypass the filter entirely and are freely available. Means are also available for encrypting and anonymising peer to peer traffic. Those who distribute child pornography will not be impacted by your filtering measures.

2) Since the filter is easily circumvented, how will you penalise circumvention? Would not any resources dedicated to policing circumvention of the filter be better utilised elsewhere?

Dennis Nelrum

23 Dec 2008 1:57pm

In addition, the filter will *not* work. Whether or not you agree with this form of censorship in Australia, it technically will not work - but only deteriorate our third-world-like Internet.

For those mums and dads that think the Govt is doing this for you... you need to wake the hell up. Child pornography is not (and will never be) distributed through websites. All technical advisors to the DBCDE is aware of this. Using children to push through legislature is a tried and true method for political agendas.

This filter puts an end to child pornography as much as cigarette filters put an end to lung and throat cancer.

Rob

23 Dec 2008 1:56pm

Why isn't the filter opt-in or at the very least opt-out? Why is it mandatory for people who are already perfectly confident online?

Charlie

23 Dec 2008 1:57pm

What is the government's real objective here? If I apply an "evidence based" approach to assessing the scheme, too things are obvious:

1) This filter will not achieve its aim of protecting children. Filters will still let through 'bad' sites, will have no effect on instant messaging, and will mean parental supervision is still essential - as is currently the case.

2) Filtering will not achieve its aim of preventing criminals from accessing illegal content. Getting around filters is straightforward given the Internet is based on inherently open technologies and criminals are evidently already skilled at evading the authorities.

So please excuse the public for being worries about their freedom of access to information (or "freedom of speech") being under threat. The government is clearly not levelling with the population about the genuine aims of this filter.

Daryl

22 Dec 2008 3:57pm

No Clean Feed. Education is the way to go. These filters will just not work and it will leave many parents with a false sense of security. "Educate and empower" not censor.

Ryan McCue

22 Dec 2008 3:58pm

A system like this is fundamentally flawed. We should not be blocking anything at all over the network system in Australia. If people really wish to access these types of things, they will easily find ways around them.

Additionally, your claim that this will protect children is both misguided and incorrect. Children should be educated on this by both the education system and by their parents. It is not the government's place to do teacher's and parent's jobs for them.

I'm very familiar with the sorts of systems used to filter these sorts of things and they are very easily circumvented.

Sam D

22 Dec 2008 4:02pm

With regard to your response to the question of free speech, can you confirm that the blacklist will contain content that is 'prohibited' according to the ACMA definition of prohibited content ?

You do know that the ACMA prohibited content rules are completely out of touch with what most Australians consider acceptable, don't you?

13tales

22 Dec 2008 4:04pm

Additionally, on preventing circumvention:

Banning or prohibiting technology that would circumvent the filter, would be banning the same technology (Virtual Private Networking, encryption) that is relied upon by many businesses and individuals to ensure confidentiality and security in their dealings online. This would severely inhibit Australia's ability to compete in the digital economy and render individuals more vulnerable online. I await some response of substance or discussion of this important issue...

Jim

22 Dec 2008 4:05pm

By definition a filter will slow down access. Every bit has to be checked against the Govt blacklist and other material that could be "potentially or offensve to children" . It physically takes time to do this.

If you don't understand the technology hand the portfolio over to someone like Kate Lundy who does!

David

22 Dec 2008 4:06pm

OMG this government was originally designed to carry out the peoples wishes and needs. not to ignore and censor them. "Criminals are running the government"

They think we are so stupid, it first starts with a few websites and before you know the internet is just another mainstream propaganda machine.

Its not for the kids thats just a front.

Sack the censoring idea Conroy you puppet. your assigned to serve us the people not some the special interest hidden behind the scene. You answer to us the people.

If you wont do your job then "RESIGN !!!! RESIGN !!!! RESIGN !!!!!".

abba12

22 Dec 2008 4:14pm

The problem I see is, it's actually putting children in MORE danger. Yes, it will block child porn sites (which are not the sort of thing children will 'happen' across anyway) and will block whatever else the government perceives as innapropriate. But you know what this will cause? It will give parents false confidence. Parents with little knowlege of conputers will allow their children online, unsupervised, with no idea what those children are doing, because they beleive the filter keeps them safe. The biggest predators do not come in the form of websites but in the form of chat and myspace and other such places. The lack of supervision means these dangers are less likely to be picked up until it's too late. Parents that continue to supervise will see no differance between filter and no filter, except for possible lower speeds and, if it becomes too invasive, their own websites blocked.

This will harm children, not help them. It will make them more vulnerable with less adult supervision.

MarkC

22 Dec 2008 4:17pm

Besides restating that you're going to break the internet and try introduce a single point of failure, and besides highlighting the ridiculous flaws in this hairbrained scheme, I have a few other points about this concept that I totally HATE.

I found my 8 year old son reading articles on the SMH titled "teen rape death plunge horror" and another titled something about "Satanic Sluts". Are you going to safeguard him from that highly inappropriate content? It might not be porn but I can assure you it caused him significant grief and stress, and as a parent I would want to know that any "filter" could be switched on to avoid that. Also, he used Google Images to search for "Black Hole" and you can imagine what he found. Is your silly scheme going to protect him from that? (I am sure the answer is "NO").

You cannot filter inappropriate content outright, as the sources are too variable and inappropriate is highly subjective (no matter what you say about the list's guardians) and I for one would like to see all religious content filtered. Some religious weasels will undoubtedly get control of your filter and will then start their traditional process of confusing crime with sin. How will you safeguard against that?

Please, take your filter elsewhere. Maybe you should go with it.

Klaw81

22 Dec 2008 4:19pm

�The Government does not view the ISP filtering debate as an argument about freedom of speech.�there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content�. claims that the Government's policy is analogous to the approach taken by countries such as Iran, China and Saudi Arabia are not justified.�

You mean you think such claims are unjustified. Your proposal clearly proposes that ACMA will block any sites they deem �unwanted� without oversight and without redress. It may be that the Government does not currently wish to block political content of any sort, but there�s nothing stopping them doing that later, is there? The recent Wikipedia fiasco is a great example of why your proposal will be ineffective.

Furthermore, it is clear from the debate in regard to computer games that ACMA�s ratings are out of touch with the general community. As a result of the online classification regime, ACMA�s list of sites to filter will quickly grow to include almost all adult content, which will remove one tier of the 2-tier system.

��despite an $84.8 million government program and $15.5 million in advertising, only about two per cent of households with dependent children are using a filter��

Somehow, you added 2 and 2, and got 7. The fact that only 2% of households with children have installed a filter despite it being freely available to all clearly that indicates there is little or no demand for such a filter. Parents who are truly concerned about their clhild�s wellbeing do not rely on such ineffective methods, but instead choose to educate and monitor their children�s online behaviour. Instead, you seem to have decided to interpret the low take-up rate of PC-level filters as an invitation to enforce ISP-level censored internet for every single Australian citizen. How you made that leap of logic is beyond explanation.

Your argument that �many parents do not have the technical skills or knowledge to install and manage PC-level filters� is pathetic in the extreme. A step-by-step explanation of the installation process on the website would result in a 99% successful installation rate, and an automatic update (like anti-virus software) would keep the filter up to date with ACMA�s blacklist. It�s a perfectly workable solution for those who think that filtering is an acceptable alternative to actual parenting.

�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.�

Does this mean the government will move to filter peer-to-peer networks and BitTorrent traffic as well as HTTP traffic? Do you anticipate this will then be extended to email, instant messaging and other internet traffic protocols? Are you about to instruct Australia Post to open all of our letters to see if we�re posting naughty pictures to each other? Will our VOIP phone calls be monitered for dirty talk? How much privacy and freedom do you expect us to give up �for the sake of the children�?

abba12

23 Dec 2008 7:49am

(I've placed this in a second comment to seperate my two main points, to try and help you, not to spam) I'd also like to ask what response you have to the rumours more than child pornography will be banned, but things like euthanasia sites and anorexia websites for example. Now, wether you agree with these things or not, that fact aside, the people are entitled to their own opinion, and as long as the website is not malicious it should not be banned. People are entitled to say their opinion on these matters, and a website may be formed. Now, if they're selling drugs for the specific purpose of euthanasia, thats a little differant, but if it's just speaking about it in general, I may not agree with them but I think they have every right to speak about it. There have been statistics to say the blacklist contains more than child porn. What else is contained, what else are you looking at banning? Those things are where my issue with it comes in.

Dennis Nelrum

24 Dec 2008 10:08am

For those who are watching this blog carefully, lets get some momentum with comments. If you have a Reddit account, please vote for additional exposure: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/7l0a0/dear_redditors_i_beg_you_to_help_us_save/

TheWomp

24 Dec 2008 10:09am

How dare you hide behind Australia's children?

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with what is suitable for children. And, freedom of speech is more than just political speech. The plan you have outlined would have us all treated as children, there is no freedom at all in that.

Give more funding to the police and stop wasting time and resources on censorship, pitiful excuses, and trying to redefine the term freedom of speech.

A man who truly cared for Australia's children would not be keeping money from police to protect them, nor hiding behind children to push through wrong policy.

It takes a special kind of "man" to hide behind children.

Josh Deprez

23 Dec 2008 7:55am

"Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society..." The argument is not with your *intentions*, but with the *structure* of your proposal. As previously stated, combining mandatory ISP-level filtering with an opaque blacklist is the same structure as applied in countries such as China. Who is to say your intentions will not change? Or those of the next government will not be different? May I also remind you that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." "I'm aware of technical concerns some have raised with filtering technology." Then you must be undoubtedly aware that the technologies keeping your - online banking, - credit cards, - electronic transactions, - medical history, - as well as the nation's military secrets all private and secure, will be the same technologies preventing you from giving me a "clean feed." The same technologies that will enable the Internet generation's kids to find unsuitable materials. The same technologies that you are using to host this blog. On the other hand, if you do manage to find a way to break world-class encryption, let me know so I can shout myself a few dinners at your expense.

Brownbear

23 Dec 2008 8:00am

Senator Conroy in his reply has not addressed the issue that has concerned most people about the proposed mandatory filter. It isn't about Child Pornography or illegal material it is about the additional bits and pieces that are currently perfectly legal and it was indicated could be included in the filtering. This includes subjects that the minor political parties have suggested. The very experienced people who work in the area are telling you that a filter wont work and is a waste of money. I think it is well past time for the Senator to listen to those people who know what they are talking about. The fact that there was such a low uptake of the filter offered for free by the previous Government might be an indication that Australians don't believe that they need a filter. If the Government wants to spend some money pursuing the low life animals who participate in the production and dissemination of child pornography you have my total support. A filter isn't going to do this. Good police work will. Telling me that I can't look at information about other cultures because you don't like their politics or religion is definitely not acceptable. That the "online society" should be civil and able to be confidently used by all is as desirable as safety in our homes, our streets and in public places. When you have achieved your dream in the real physical world you will find that cyberspace will for some unfathonable reason have copied it. Sorry Senator but Australians aren't mugs and your arguments don't wash. Why don't you take your filtering proposal and put it where it belongs - Oh and don't forget to flush.

peggotty

23 Dec 2008 8:04am

As an online publisher, a parent, and a citizen, I am utterly opposed to this proposal because it is a simplistic approach to dealing to a serious issue and it will not achieve a reduction of child porn or avoid the "accidental" exposure of children/teenagers to porn. (Two different things often confused by filter supporters) Why it won't work? The government is treating this as though the sites in question are static publications. Websites can move domains and IP addresses faster than any organisation can keep its blacklist up to date. A few redirections and your classifiers will be tied in knots. Other options? There are 4 ways people get to porn sites - accidentally or otherwise. 1. Links from another site or search engine. You talk about a civil society. In civil societies, we have media businesses which rely on providing good content and omitting the rest to keep their audience/users. Whether you are talking about news media, entertainment sites or search engines, it is in all those businesses' interests to invest in the technology so that they don't give readers what they don't want. ie let google bear the costs of filtering porn out of their results. Likewise media owners bear the cost of avoiding giving their readers nasty surprises. It's censorship by omission and is kept in check by having a variety of businesses in competition with each other. 2. Adware, Spyware, Viruses Adware on a test machine is the only way I have been presented with "accidental" porn in 14 years online. Put simply, adware and spyware vendors get their software installed on users computers so they can force open windows and sell the page views. Do something about the adware/spyware issue (which is also a threat to many online businesses) and as a byproduct, you'll get rid of most of the accidental porn problem. 3. Mis-typed domains. The domain parking industry is huge yet is provides no benefit that I can see. A domain not found notice would be far preferable than a page of SEM ads or some porn. This industry merely soaks up the advertising dollars of legitimate businesses. 4. Address given by a "friend" or "accomplice" You can't monitor every offline or online communication to stop people telling others where to find the stuff if they want it. You have to rely on education. If anything open online communication is easier to monitor and aid investigation. So instead of wasting all our money on filtering software that won't work, let those who want filters on their own computers put it there (paying out-of-work tech people / tech apprentices to install software for the technologically challenged could be cheaper than imposing filtering at the ISP level) Most importantly, do something about the spyware/adware and you'll get rid of most of the porn that is pushed at people. This industry is already being tackled in the US courts for their effect on businesses, but is allowed to go unchecked in Australia. And please be more concise about the problem. If you are trying to stop child abuse, put the money into investigation. The online images are just the evidence, you need to tackle the crime rather than filtering out the evidence. If you are talking about stopping your kids happening upon a bit of online porn, don't play the child pornography card. Kids have seen porn behind the bike-shed at school, at their mates houses, when they've found their parent's stash, for generations. It's not the same issue and IMO to conflate the two doesn't show sufficient respect to the seriousness of the situations when children who are being abused.

nevesis

23 Dec 2008 8:05am

What a frivolous use of tax dollars! I bet my left arm it'll be broken by a 15 year old the day it's enabled.

TheWomp

23 Dec 2008 8:07am

"We are happy to have an open debate about these technical issues. However, the Government does not view this debate as an argument about freedom of speech." It is *NOT* an open debate if before the debate you list what will be closed to debate. I would have thought one of the children you are so keen to hide behind could have pointed out that error for you.

Jinjirrie

23 Dec 2008 8:20am

Please ensure you read the interviews with a white hacker at banthisurl.com so you clearly understand why your filters will (a) be pathetically easy to circumvent (b) expose Australians to man in the middle hacker attacks (c) enable your blacklist to be purloined. eg. "If you�ve got a blacklist, by its nature it has to be at every ISP � even the small regional ones. If they don�t have it at every ISP then they have nothing to filter. They could have some sort of fancy updating mechanism, but I�ve seen a lot of the updating mechanisms and they�re usually not very good. Probably the whole technical staff at each ISP would be able to access the blacklist, and if you�ve got what could be a few thousand people being able to access the blacklist, that�s a huge risk that you�re taking." Stop drinking the Kool Aid the net filter and VPN companies and prancing moral bandits are patently feeding you and LEARN. As for freedom of speech, political freedom of speech is only protected by implication under the Australian constitution. Any Charter of Rights which may be forthcoming from which is present consultations needs proper entrenchment by act of parliament, and should include Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Stop getting in the way of our human rights, please, and leave OUR internet alone. We don't want or need your filters, they are UNDEMOCRATIC and an invasion of our privacy. Leave the policing to the police. Those who wish to protect themselves and their children from internet information have ample means to do so through existing "family friendly" ISP fees and a plethora of PC based software - the rest of us are quite able look after ourselves and children and have done so without a problem for many years. You scope-creeped from Labor election policies in regard to internet filtering, and frankly I suspect you will scope-creep again.

rachel

23 Dec 2008 8:22am

No. There is no way that you, in your heart of hearts, think that this will improve the quality of anything other than some already wealthy internet business-man's paycheck. Let people decide for themselves that which they wish to visit on the internet and what not. You have no place deciding for me or any other person that which I find "offensive". Stop telling me I am too stupid to do that much for myself. I find it rather insulting. Also, it would be a mark of a bad/lazy/irresponsible parent if he or she could not monitor their children and their use of the internet. Thus, if the child is visiting inappropriate internet content it is the parent's fault.

Micheal G

23 Dec 2008 8:24am

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.

marshall hughes

23 Dec 2008 8:25am

Mr Conroy, I believe you sincerely want to do what is right for all Australians and that your intentions are true. But please please do not take away this marvelous tool that the internet has become. We need fast, cheap internet to help us plan our lives and to help us educate children and to help us run our businesses. Fast internet is no longer a luxury but is a basic right in an age when information is power. Please believe in us, the Australian people, that we can think for ourselves and we can take care of our own children. Step 1: Build the NBN. Now. Step 2: Cease this censorship plan. Step 3: Spend the planned censorship money on the Federal Police. Let them go and worry about the people breaking the law so the other 99.9% of us can go about our normal lives. I appreciate the chance you have provided for feedback Mr Conroy, thanks for listening. Yours, Marshall Hughes

Stu

23 Dec 2008 1:58pm

NonSequitur

23 Dec 2008 8:34am

Spend the money on education and real police work! The filtering policy is in tatters. The attempts by Conroy to defend this thing on this "blog" are a joke. The whole response by the DBCDE is one of "we know it won't work, but we're gonna do it anyway whether you like it or not!" Pathetic work. And to think I voted labor - I'll never make that mistake ever again, and neither will anyone else I know after this debacle.

h

23 Dec 2008 1:59pm

"Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content." If that's the case, will you be legislating specific exclusions as well as the inclusions to the blacklist? If not, why not? You cannot leave such things to "intention". You can intend all you like but what counts is what goes into law, not what's in your head. You must specify that anything not specifically listed as a reason for blacklisting is excluded - that includes politics, religion (and all faith-based value judgements) and other aspects of a life of freedom. Don't leave this to chance, don't be vague. Also, please tell us why the filter is opt-out rather than opt in? The mandatory blacklist is one thing; but the "not illegal but you've got to tell us you want it" filter is ridiculous. Let those with children AND faith in the filter opt in, let the rest of us manage our own lives.

MattR

23 Dec 2008 2:00pm

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.

Stu

23 Dec 2008 8:41am

I am sure that many posters to come will continue to point out the severe deficiencies in your filtering plan, Mr Conroy. Along with almost every expert in the field, they have been telling you all year that this plan is dangerously ignorant and ill-advised. And just like those experts, these comments will undoubtedly be ignored.

It will be expensive, it will be ineffective, it will potentially be extremely damaging to IT infrastructure, it cannot be implemented without being draconian, oppressive, and a severe security risk, and so far it has been only poorly defined and amateurishly handled.

All these deficiencies will be demonstrated in due time, but for now, let's focus on how counterproductive the filter will be...since you have been so keen on accusing your opponents in this debate of supporting child pornography, have you considered how much worse off children will be under the plan?

At present, the ACMA blacklist is secret and not available to the public. In theory it is a list of some of the most offensive illegal material on the internet - since it is a secret we cannot confirm this, but if it is, the government would be sending the filter to the hundreds (possibly thousands) of Australians who will need to implement the filter. The risk of the filter leaking because of this is very high. If not, experience with British and Finnish filters shows that the filters can be reverse engineered to find the content. Whether the filter is leaked, or whether it is hacked, the government will in effect be providing the country with a list of the most dangerous material on the internet.

It is often said that the internet interprets censorship as network damage and attempts to route around it. While not only reinforcing the notion that effective internet censorship is theoretically impossible, this rerouting very frequently has unintended consequences.

Firstly, in something called the "Streisand effect", censored content can become much more widely available and widely accessed as news of censorship efforts is published. This is precisely what happened when the Internet Watch Foundation added a relatively obscure album cover on wikipedia to its blacklist - a page with at most a few hundred page views per day instantly became the most popular article for the online encyclopedia, with close a million page views in the space of a few days. Even the IWF backed down after it realised exactly how counterproductive its effort was:

"IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect."

Also, the "rerouted" traffic often uses technologies which make it harder to track people online. Technologies such as proxying and Onion routing not only defeat government censorship, they conceal the activities and identities of people who use them.

This is likely to complicate police efforts. Also, delicate undercover work, such as that which recently busted an international child pornography ring (none of which would be caught by the filter, incidentally), runs the risk of being exposed by an overzealous and ill-considered filtering approach. Some filtering technologies (such as the BT cleanfeed) even use proxying as a part of the filtering process, hiding the user's IP address and making it more difficult to identify users online.

The filters also offer only a false sense of security. We keep hearing from pro-censorship advocates that parents shouldn't need to supervise their children online 24/7, or that schools and libraries shouldn't need to perform filtering when the government can do it for them. In doing so, they are severely letting their guard down. The filter won't work, people have been screaming this from the rooftops, only to be ignored, but if people THINK it will work, they will no longer take the measures online which actually do help to protect children.

This is only a fraction of the idiocy of the filter - but if your very efforts go against everything you are trying to achieve, maybe it is time to save political face and quietly drop this nonsense.

Eddie

24 Dec 2008 10:15am

"I can assure everyone who is participating in this debate that the Government is taking an evidence-based approach"

You and the government are doing nothing of the sort. Your cherry-picking the Tasmanian trial results and your deliberate ignorance of and refusal to listen to ISPs and the IT industry is hardly an evidence-based approach.

"We are happy to have an open debate about these technical issues"

If you're so happy to have an open debate why do you keep spouting lies and policy lines instead of directly answering people's questions?

Also, if you are so happy to have an open debate why did you attempt to silence Mark Newton?

"However, the Government does not view this debate as an argument about freedom of speech."

It IS an argument about freedom of speech as filtering infringes on that. Your wanting to block unspecified "unwanted content" is one reason why the free speech argument comes in because you refuse to specify what "unwanted" is.

"In this context, claims that the Government's policy is analogous to the approach taken by countries such as Iran, China and Saudi Arabia are not justified."

It's perfectly justified. Your behaviour and your and the government's refusal to specify exact details regarding the censorship scheme is why Labor's policy is being compared to that of China and Iran's censorship regimes.

I have some other questions I'd like you to answer. I'd appreciate actual responses and not policy or pro-forma responses like the ones you've spouted off on this site, in letters and in parliament.

1. Will you personally apologise to Mark Newton for attempting to silence him?

2. Given that part of the ISP-level trial will not involve any customers and that no benchmarks for success or failure have been set, how can any trial results be credible?

3. Why are you completely ignoring ISPs and the entire industry?

4. Will any sites recommended for placement on the blacklist be reviewed first?

6. Why are there no appeals processes in place to get sites unblocked should they wrongly end up on the ACMA blacklist? This is another reason why Labor's censorship policy is being compared to the censorship regimes in countries like China and Iran.

7. Why do you want to dictate your morals (or lack thereof) and beliefs upon us by dictating what we can and can't see on the 'net?

8. How on Earth did you come up with the conclusion that the previous government's Net Alert was a failure because it wasn't mandatory?! It was a failure because NO-ONE WANTS CENSORED OR IMPEDED INTERNET ACCESS!!!

As has been said already, net censorship will not work. It will not protect the kids as you so claim, and it will not prevent criminals from accessing illegal material. It'll just be one huge incovenience for Australians.

Just kill the censorship policy already. It's not doing you or the government any good, and it will most certainly cost Labor the next election.

h

23 Dec 2008 9:26am

hot_pastrami

23 Dec 2008 9:30am

Erect this national firewall, and be the laughingstock of your international neighbors. It is a horrible, misguided idea.

liquid

23 Dec 2008 9:34am

This is nothing more than a shameful attempt at social engineering using children as bait.Conroy you were not mandated to do this.

Korny

23 Dec 2008 9:40am

A government controlled filter with no rights for individuals to know what has been filtered - but you suggest that this is not a freedom of speech issue? What happens when we next get a Howard, or a Hanson, into power? How can we be assured that this blacklist won't be abused, when we aren't even allowed to know what is on it? And the "it's just about child porn" excuse is feeble. Surely you are also planning to block sites promoting terrorism? And promoting racist violence? And future governments can extend the list. We've just voted out a government that would deport folks like Mohamed Haneef and Scott Parkin without trial - how can you assure us that future (or current!) governments won't abuse a hidden internet blacklist?

Brad

23 Dec 2008 9:43am

"To achieve our goal of maximising the participation of Australian businesses and individuals in the digital economy, it is important that the Government and industry collaborate to ensure that people are as confident to interact and engage via the internet as they are offline. Consumers with digital confidence will increasingly find information online, communicate and interact via the internet and shop online. Businesses that have digital confidence will expand their online service offerings. The question we need to ask is 'how we can all work together to inspire online confidence?' " You are kidding right? Not one single proposal you've made will influence your apparent aims. It appears now that you've re-written your policy aims to cover-up the complete train-wreck you've created, and to re-frame the argument into a new, made-up nonsense-phrase "confident-online-society". Trust in online-commerce is not related to "unwanted content" online, nor is it related to "protecting the children". What actual, serious, online threats are you targeting? Phishing sites? Spam? Hacking? The answer - none. "However, the Government does not view this debate as an argument about freedom of speech." We do. Thats exactly what *everyone* - the voters - are concerned about. Yet you make no attempt to even acknowledge the point, nor do you actually address our concerns. There is a secret blacklist, created by an unaccountable bureaucracy, with no formal guidelines, with no appeals process or judicial oversight and the Government has specifically exempted the list from FOI requests. How is that *not* an attack on free speech?

Matthew

23 Dec 2008 8:17am

"The Government's $125.8 million Cyber-Safety policy includes programs aimed at improving education, research and law enforcement as well as ISP-level filtering." Senator, please... First up the Howard government allocated $188.7 million over four years for its NetAlert programme, far more than your plan. Not only that, Mr Tanner's Razor Gang has shaved $2.8 million off the budget of the AFP's Online Child Sexual Exploitation Team (OCSET) AND you delayed them from getting the 90 team members that they needed to catch paedophiles for THREE years. Instead of hiding the problem with a filter, give the AFP the money and resources to actually catch those who create, distribute and consume child porn. Please. What you are doing makes no sense.

Daniel

23 Dec 2008 9:13am

Is the Senator aware that his answers actually agree with many of us? IE: Q: "Internet filtering won't stop peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic; Why bother?" A: "Oh, we know its not a magic bullet." ... which cheerfully omits dealing with the fact most child abuse imagery is distributed over non-web protocols, such as peer-to-peer. So; what's the plan? Filter the web, stop nothing, then what? Claim you never really thought you'd stop anything anyway? I don't need you to spend millions of my tax money on this farce.

notaconroyfan

23 Dec 2008 9:32am

Mr. Conroy, Please supply detailed answers to Senator Ludlum's questions. Stop saying you are consulting with the industry because they all say the idea of your filters is ridiculous. Is the Government planing on becoming Totalitarian to stop the immediate circumvention of your filters? Who is it that finds all these unwanted sites? I wonder if they enjoy them, and how come I never see them. Maybe I need to get one of those new fangled computers that let things just "flash up"

ex Labor voter

23 Dec 2008 9:36am

Stephen Conroy, you seriously have no idea how the internet works both on a technical and on a social level. To quote you directly "The Government understands that ISP-level filtering is not a 'silver bullet'."....Damn right it's not because it will actually achieve the opposite of what you are trying to do. Every attempt to censor information on the Internet has failed. There is a very common social phenomenom on the Internet called "the Streisand Effect". A recent example of this is the attempted censorship by IWF UK (an organisation whom you will be collaborating with) of a 30 year old album cover entitled "Virgin Killer". This album cover lay in the depths of obscurity until UK ISP's filtered this and subsequently stopped UK citizens from editing Wikipedia. The day users found out about this, "Virgin Killer" had gone from a little known album to the most searched and viewed item on Wikipedia. I urge you to please do your research on Internet censorship and the Streisand Effect because your ISP filtering policy will NOT protect anyone. It will only seek to bring child pornography and "unwanted" content into Australian lounge rooms.

Boris

23 Dec 2008 9:53am

I'm still trying to work out whether this whole "digital economy blog" debacle is comedy or tragedy. On one hand it's funny because of the staggering cluelessness, on the other hand it's tragic because it reveals just how little Minister Conroy cares about the quality of his policy.

I wasn't going to bother commenting. I know that you'll never read my post and that it'll just get lost among the hundreds of others all saying the same thing, but I'm here because the "answers" you have given to previous comments have made me really angry. Let's just look at a couple of them.

"As we have said in our main post, the Government does not view the ISP filtering debate as an argument about freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content."

Maybe you're not suggesting it, now. But parliamentarians are already calling for things like gambling sites and legal pornography to be blocked. Portrayals of political corruption are already part of the OFLC censorship criteria for an R rating. The copyright industry would love to have more control over the Internet, and they will start lobbying within 24 hours of the filter starting. I could go on, and your public statements about blocking "inappropriate" content are not helpful in clearing up the questions here.

Sure, ConroyFilter v1.0 may not block these but there is no guarantee that v2.0 will not. This is a policy direction that anyone who cares about freedom of speech needs to kill before it takes root.

In "Why aren�t PC-level filters sufficient?" you say "We understand that ISP filtering is not a 'silver bullet' for this purpose."

Great, thanks. Now explain why, considering that all of the evidence points to the filters being trivial to bypass (what, are you going to block every open proxy on Earth? Do you even understand what that means?), slowing the internet down, costing money, etc etc, the cost/benefit analysis still tells you that filtering is a good idea.

The best part of this is thinking about how much fun the bureaucrats in your department must have going through hundreds and hundreds of comments all saying basically the same thing. They must be laughing quietly to themselves as they page through the acres of furious nerd rage.

PS this comments form desperately needs a "preview" function so I can see whether my HTML tags are working.

chaddles

23 Dec 2008 9:59am

"Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content." This excerpt was from a reply to another comment. But it is not the case! We have been told the filter will prevent "unwanted content" and "illegal content" and that the list of banned sites will not be made public. But sedition is illegal. So is libel. Legislation like this could easily be used to declare a site illegal. When you think of all the content that Australia's government could categorise as "illegal" (pro-euthenasia sites, pro-choice sites, piracy sites, anti-government sites, plus any new legislation they decide on) - and the fact that this will be hidden from public scrutiny - it really seems to be the antithesis of democracy and liberty. And that will not earn you my vote.

Shagata Ganai

23 Dec 2008 10:06am

Censorship, in any form, is repugnant to a free and open society. Government freedom to censor "pornography" today is the freedom to censor information tomorrow. This is the nature of power, and all honest people admit this.

AusMan

23 Dec 2008 10:10am

Are you serious? Internet monitoring has been only proven to hinder progress and expansion.

Verity Pravda

23 Dec 2008 10:12am

A very comprehensive response - pity that all this material wasn't provided elsewhere before the DE discussion.

I still have a couple of quibbles. How do I know to complain about a website being on the list if I can't see the list? I understand that the list shouldn't be available pre-filtering, and I also understand that since the filter will be so easy to by-pass after filtering, that it is not practical to publish it. But is it possible to construct a process around interrogation of the list? That is, if I type in a Domain name (or URL) into an appropriate form on the ACMA website I can get told whether that specific URL is on the list? (And I get told by a reply e-mail so the inquiry isn't completely annonmous and it can't be accessed by a robot of some kind).

Also the replies aren't quite right - the current prohibited list does include R18+ and X18+ content that should NOT be subject to the mandatory filter - service providers usually only sell services to people they can enforce their contracts against - i.e. over 18.

The voluntary ISP filter for the 18+ stuff remains a great idea for those who don't know as much as their kids.

Ash Kyd

23 Dec 2008 10:25am

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.

peggotty

23 Dec 2008 10:28am

Sylvia Else

23 Dec 2008 10:39am

Once you enter the realms filtering peer to peer traffic, you're embarking on an arms race with those who want to hide their activity from you. The mere fact that technology might exist today that can filter peer to peer traffic doesn't mean that it will still work tomorrow. In any case, on the face of it, filtering attempts would be roundly defeated in the first battle as traffic becomes subject to public key based encryption. Of course, those wishing to sell the technology won't be admitting its limitations. They'll just sell you (by which I mean the ISPs' paying customers) a lemon.

Callum

23 Dec 2008 10:42am

How about instead of wasting this multi million dollar investment, put it to good use back into Education or health. Perhaps help out the students being stuck with thousands upon thousands of HECS debt? Might be a little more constructive than what the average parent/guardian could by from a local software store.

Sean

23 Dec 2008 9:13am

Great Firewall of China / Australia A free and democratic society does not need censorship. This is about political control.

Andrew

23 Dec 2008 9:20am

Senator Conory's lack of understanding of Telecommunication, and his priority of protecting families at the cost of our freedoms, is completely obvious here. The censorship debate even for films is just and abomination of ignorant politicians subjugated by the religious right of this country. Classification is meant to include an R rating for adults, where has this gone. No consent required. This issue is just another notch on the belt of absolute ignorance that this politician has shown to the rest of us. For example the Telstra debacle is another. Telstra was sold with its copper network intact to the general public, to exclude Telstra from the useless NBN, is to fail to see that upgrading of the copper network and the NBN is one and the same project and that it requires Telstra. This is just unbelievable. Add this to the censorship debacle just shows us this man is in the wrong job.

Choked

23 Dec 2008 9:23am

Given that that this type of filtering: -is easy to circumnavigate (any 14 year old that knows how to google will be able to find a way) -won't affect other issues, such as cyber bullying or online predators, file swapping, encrypted data, low IT technical abilities/awareness among parents, etc isn't it possible that this will give parents a false sense of security regarding the safety of the internet for children? Wouldn't this extraordinary money be better utilised in educating parents on how to effectively monitor their children's internet use?

Mike

23 Dec 2008 9:26am

Sure K Rudd and you know a thing about public opinion. The overwhelmingly high response is negative to any mandatory filtering, so surely K Rudd wouldn't be comitting political suicide over this issue??? You will never have my vote again if this goes ahead, and I am sure many people feel the same, so why do it? Its not because of the children. Unless your polsters are telling you that the majority of people don't care about this anyway... in which case you need to seriously consider your advice.... The people of Australia don't want this, and remember the young people of America put Obama in, the young people of australia will put you out over this!!! They do understand, as most do and don't want it.

David Havyatt

23 Dec 2008 9:27am

@ Stainless Steel Rat. Wow. How about not reading all those lovely answers the Minister put in. 1) There will be live users. 2) The metrics are in the technical testing framework and include effects on speed (and latency), accuracy, user experience, circumvention and cost. 3) The Government has adopted the approach of a live trial to assess the reality - if they weren't listening they'd just impose a rule. 4) Read the responses and item 2. Massive reductions in speed only occur if all content is scanned dynamically not just sites blocked. 5) Read the Broadcasting Services Act - prohibited content is defined there. 6) One of the outcomes from the trial will be an assessment of cost. 7) Actually it is exactly the policy presented at the election. 8) The questions referred to are the debating point of whether other countries have mandatory or voluntary filters. Quite frankly it is irrelevant - if we worried about whether other countries acted first we wouldn't have given women the vote. 9) See answer to 8. 10) The Government is - follow the last link. @Simon. Hmm, how should a inister consult with an industry? Sit down with their industry association or engage in whirlpool threads? Tough question. Should I ask industry professionals in a setting where they have to follow-through on their answers or should I just get buffeted around by every extraneous thought and piece of senseless abuse that I can find.

TS

23 Dec 2008 9:38am

You say: "Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content. In this context, claims that the Government's policy is analogous to the approach taken by countries such as Iran, China and Saudi Arabia are not justified." That's because you cherry-picked the context. It's not just about political content: it's about ALL content. If you can block one thing, there is NOTHING we, Australia, can do to stop [insert government of the day here] from blocking ANYTHING ELSE. And just because you feel *your* government is magnanimous and beneficent enough to only block things the rest of us don't need to know about (and there is considerable opinion to the contrary), DO NOT make the mistake of expecting every single future government to never ever abuse the marvellously convenient infrastructure put in place by The Rudd Labor Government. I say this again: just because YOU won't use the filter to suppress freedom of speech, does NOT mean someone else won't either. There will be absolutely no way for any member of the public to tell (or prove) if some faceless bureaucrat 10 years from now gets bribed by the then-in-power Liberal government to just "accidentally" slap "alp.gov.au/*" into the blacklist. No oversight, no transparency, no chance of review, no say whatsoever. Think I'm paranoid? Ask yourself how much you *REALLY* trust your political rivals. If you unleash this infrastructure upon the nation, you WILL be damaging freedom of speech, whether it is your intent or not. And in THAT context, Mr. Conroy, the comparisons to China, Iran, Burma, Saudi Arabia and other such shining examples of Freedom and Democracy are justified, earned and deserved. If you make this bed, you will have to lie in it.

fitorelp

23 Dec 2008 9:39am

Rather than spending all that time and money on throttling the internet, why not rather spend resources on educating parents?

Andrew

23 Dec 2008 9:41am

Unless you are talking about only filtering out illegal websites, which you are not, then back the hell off. It is not up to government in this country to monitor what children view on the internet. It is up to their parents. Any type of censorship from government on this level, even with the best of intentions (which I do not believe this is) is setting far too dangerous a precedent this country wants to see.

Alan in Sydney

23 Dec 2008 9:42am

With the greatest possible respect, this is evasive nonsense. What is the name of this technology? Where is it in use? Are you talking about DPI? If you're speaking about some other technology, we'd like to consult about that as well. The more specific you can get, the more useful this exercise will be. If you are seriously proposing to add DPI to the filter how are you going to guarantee the privacy of online users? It would be good if you can confirm that you're considering DPI, because it will allow us to show what a catastrophe that would be. Until now I'd simply assumed this was a fairly crass level of incompetence driven by an understandable and sincerely held opposition to the exploitation of children. I discounted comments in these threads about privacy and free speech for that reason, DPI would make the issue of a threat to free expression and privacy not only serious but extremely grave. PS Can we have paragraphs please?

Choked

23 Dec 2008 9:52am

"I'm aware that this proposal has attracted significant debate and criticism�on this blog and at other places in the blogosphere." -Is it possible that you have forgotten criticism from an ever-growing number of IT Subject Matter Experts, IT industry leaders, CEO's of major ISPs, etc?

Steve

23 Dec 2008 9:53am

It'll be a dark, dark day in Australian history if this ill-conceived plan to "protect the children" ever becomes implemented and affects every single Australian with Internet access. The proposal has been widely panned from IT experts and the general public, and this so-called "live trial" (with participating ISPs still left in the dark about the details) is doomed to fail. If you're looking for a genuine vote loser, you've got it in mandatory ISP filtering. This Department should stop with the spin by fudging the facts and start listening to the experts and the vocal majority who DO NOT want such a filter to be implemented. Democracy is something we can't afford to lose.

Mark

23 Dec 2008 9:56am

Already we are beginning to see scope creep with this web censorship program. Now we find out that bittorrent is in the minister's sights. Are we going to have legitimate bittorrent content filtered? I work with Internet filtering technologies every day for some of australias biggest companies, and legitimate content is blocked on a daily basis. When will the minister catch up with the facts? Internet content filtering is a blunt instrument to fixing the problem. Just ask any IT security professional.

Nemesis12

23 Dec 2008 9:57am

Is it your intent to kill every instant messenger service, skype, VOIP, internet radio, ftp's??? ALL OF WHICH ARE LEGAL????? NO CLEAN FEED.

Danielk

23 Dec 2008 9:58am

Pity there's no technology available to filter out stupid politicians!

Phill Parker

23 Dec 2008 9:00am

I am amazed at the excessive cost to tax payers the Australian government (both former and current government) has spent on providing second class Internet filtering software, and promoting and testing Internet filtering at the ISP level. This cost will only escalate, and the government has not demonstrated even a plausible reason as to why they need to waste so much of tax payer's dollars. How many tax dollars will be spent on this project? - please provide something more realstic than your estimations to date. Why should the tax payer foot this bill? The Internet is a global network, and it should not be policed by any national government. If mandatory ISP filtering is legislated, an extra cost will be required by ISPs just to maintain this. The consumer will have to pay for this extra cost too. Enough is Enough. If this government wishes to spend an enormous amount of tax payer�s dollars, spend it on education - not on redundant Internet filtering technology. Education is the best means to providing a more user friendly Internet environment. This proposed filtering system will never effectively work. It can't, because the Australian government does not control the Internet.

Democracy

23 Dec 2008 9:02am

I'm against totalitarism. It's the responsibility of parents to protect children. First Rudd spends all the governments money on giveaways and doesn't invest in infrastructure to create jobs. Now he wants to take away freedom of choice and democracy.

Andrewmac28

23 Dec 2008 9:02am

It is obvious that people such as Senator Conroy have no idea about the way the internet works and if they believe that forcing the Australian public into a Chinese based system will work then they should wake up and get proper technical advice Let me make this clear: Filtering sites from at the ISP point WILL NOT stop people accessing illegal images/video�s etc. These will still be able to access through different technologies and methods. Applying filtration at the ISP point WILL make the connection speed slower for all Australian users than what it already is (that are currently well below global standards to start with). Questions: Who will be paying for the implementation and maintenance cost of Senator Conroy hair brain idea? Will the Australian public be so lucky that the Government will, or will the Australian public have to pay more for their internet access which already one of the most expensive in the world? Has Senator Conroy investigated and reported the costs that this will have on Australian industry, if so where can this be found? Has Senator Conroy investigated alternative methods to address these illegal sites and people undertaking illegal activity such us addressing the issue at the source.

Joel

23 Dec 2008 9:03am

The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. --Adolf Hitler

Tanya

23 Dec 2008 9:04am

My, what a hornet's nest! Caution, anyone who is an atheist will probably not want to read the rest of this post. This filter raises an interesting theological issue. Would God prefer that we be confronted with difficult moral choices, or would He prefer that we be protected from them? If we consider Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, for example, it is clear that not only does God want us to be presented with moral choices, He goes out of His way to ensure that that is the case. In fact, moral choice is the overwhelming central theme of God's interaction with mankind. Why? Given that the only part of us destined to survive our brief mortal existence is our soul, I would venture to suggest that moral choice is an essential part of its development. Consequently, it would seem that any attempt to take away our ability to exercise moral choice is not only an attempt to thwart God's will, but may be detrimental to our eventual salvation. It may be suggested that there are already many opportunities for us to exercise moral choice - but are there, really? In our 'civil society', immoral behaviour is actively thwarted by laws and regulations, and what should be a moral choice becomes a choice based on the probability of detection, and the severity of punishment. The only moral choices we face are those where there is little or no fear of detection or punishment - for example, whether or not to park in a spot reserved for people with a disability. Compare that with the kind of moral choice that confronted our ancestors. For example, should I steal my neighbours' food so that I can feed my children, at the risk of causing their children to starve? That is the kind of moral choice that impacts the soul. So, given the restrictions imposed by our 'civil society', where do we find the opportunity to exercise pure moral choice, uninfluenced by a high probability of discovery? One answer is an unfettered, uncensored internet. By all means, fund whatever police resources are required to find and punish those who choose evil, but first allow them to make that choice, for surely that is God's plan.

nofilter

23 Dec 2008 9:05am

"The Government takes the issue of cyber-safety extremely seriously and welcomes public debate" No you dont. And no you dont again. If you took it seriously, this would never have been on the table to take off the table. Wasting this obscene amount of money in todays fragile economic situation on something which every expert gives facts to tell you it wont work.... only a retard would continue to push this. Please, do us all a favor, and resign, and take this stupid waste of taxpayer money with you. Let someone who actually knows what they are doing look after it. it will take them about 5min to shelve it permanently. Spend the money getting pedo's at the source instead. That would, im sure, be considered a decent expenditure by any person.

Grant Ed

23 Dec 2008 9:06am

Mr Conroy. How can you be so egotistical and arrogant to believe that your judgment is what is good and right for the people of this country when the overwhelming response has been public outcry?. By attempting to push this through, the following quote rings true.... "The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, and pride and arrogance.� - Samuel Butler.

you will not number me.

23 Dec 2008 9:06am

before there was TV there was a country that started out censoring what you could find in the library, then they monitored what you could buy in the bookshops, read in the newspaper and what you could hear on the radio, not long after that they started rounding up all presumed troublemakers under laws not too dis-similar to todays anti-terror laws, eventually they put some 10million people to death and apparently managed to keep that fact largely a secret even from their own citizens. allow the net-nazi filter to decide what is truth, and what is not ? no, we risk too much.

KEVIN 07 Fan

23 Dec 2008 9:07am

I'm kevin07, I have brain, People vote me in, I cause them pain.

mrd

23 Dec 2008 9:07am

"All the Government is now seeking to do is to examine how technology can assist in filtering internationally-hosted content." All? Talking about censoring everything on the internet is not "all". It is a disgrace. Let parents parent. Let adults decide. Quit with this ridiculous nanny state that no one asked for before voting you in. You lot are out-Howarding Howard.

Celestial Orbit

23 Dec 2008 9:08am

The backlash from this proposal will amount to a tidal wave in negative public opinion. Supporters and backers of the software have very little understanding of the basic fundamentals that govern the internet. 1) It will not work. 2) It will annoy alot of people. 3) It is not an ethical position. 4) The catastrophic failure and subsequent embarassment such a system. 5) (Most importantly)... Who do you think you are ?

Mitch H

23 Dec 2008 9:09am

My question is: what exact data does the Australian Govt. have on the current, non-censored/filtered internet in regards to our childrens safety and/or business losses. How many children are affected at the moment? No really, how many children are killed or scarred for life by stumbling across pornographic material on the internet? Everyone is concerned for our children and should be wary of 'internet predators' but do you truly, honestly think that our children will benefit from this? I use the current pool fencing requirements as an example. Australian Standard (AS) 1926.1 stipulates the requirements for pool fencing, where the intention is to save lives. In recent weeks there have been a handful of unfortunate deaths of children in Queensland alone. The cause of which was not the inadequacy of the current pool fencing legislation, but poor parental supervision. The children merely found another way to circumvent the measures set up to save them. I cannot stress that point enough. The internet is like a swimming pool - it can provide education and entertainment, but because of its dangers, ADULT SUPERVISION is required. The QLD state govt. are rushing through new stricter legislation for pool fencing, which are unique to the state. This is a short term fix for a problem that will continue to occur without supervision. In this case, adult supervision is required, not by our 'Big Brother' Australian Govt. Please do not patronise us by bringing legislation in to protect us. It is offensive. Please instead spend your, no, OUR money on more sensible tools such as education on supervision of the internet. So going back to my question, what exactly is wrong with the current situation to warrant such drastic measures? Do you really get that many complaints from us peasants to require protection from the dangers of the internet? Or is it something dreamed up by idle politicians trying to justify their wage. From the bottom of my heart, please consider what you are doing is working backwards to our progress. Read George Orwell's '1984' and understand that the overregulation in our Nanny State is becoming absurd.

zhongguoren

23 Dec 2008 9:10am

There is a strong parallel to the situation in China. The Government tells the people that there are certain things that are not suitable for them to see, hear or read, and blocks access to them. However the list of items that are blocked is not available to the public. In order to justfy the rhetoric, at a mimimum the sites that are blocked should be open for public scrutiny. This is not without problems, but leaves the responsibility with civil society to contribute to the details of debate. This is not a discussion that can be held behind closed doors without significant risk of the rules and regualtions that have been put in place being slowly relaxed to cover many areas that were not within the original intent.

Chris

23 Dec 2008 9:10am

Grow up, Senator (and staffers). He says, she says... is that as good as your responses get? Picking and choosing what's right in your own book hardly furthers our legitimate claims against this policy. You've caused nothing but trouble with your half-attempt at getting the NBN planned out, and the filter is now beyond ridiculous. Take your head out from your lower, rear anatomy and do you job as a public servant. We're the customer here, so listen to our demands... and drop this mess before it drops you out of favour with the general public.

Scott

23 Dec 2008 9:12am

A few questions for Senator Conroy: - Do you really believe this is a good idea or was it an attempted vote winner, and now you are stuck trying to find a way out now that it has been shown to be a poor policy? - Can you not entertain the idea that you are being misled by the vendors of the filtering software? How long can you continue to put your fingers in your ears and ignore the experts? Are you just hearing what you want to hear? - When you talk about other countires implementing similar systems, except that they are optional, do you not know that Australia has these options too? (have you not heard of Webshield?). You are giving us examples of what Australia already has and implying they are examples of what you are proposing. This is misleading at best. - You stated "Similarly, over-blocking of sites has reduced�with most falling below three per cent up to a maximum of six per cent. Again, this represents an advance since the previous trial." I am amazed you would even attempt to put that in a positive light. Those overblock rates (on all the tested filters) are completely unnacceptable. Who will compensate legitimate online businesses that may get blocked as a result of this overblocking? - Can you really be suprised that people are raising issues of freedom of speech? You are proposing implementing a mandatory filtering system that blocks "unwanted" material (unwanted to whom?) and the list will be kept secret. This is an obvious recipe for a system that will be abused. - Do you not understand that the reason people are comparing this to China, Iran ect is because these are examples of countries that have mandatory ISP filtering? I have not found any examples in Western countries. I am glad you are attempting to engage the community in this discussion, but your post raises more questions that it answers.

Jacob

23 Dec 2008 9:08am

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.

Dennis Nelrum

23 Dec 2008 9:08am

Filter In = Labor Out

Mark G

23 Dec 2008 9:10am

Comparing this filtering scheme to the non-mandatory schemes adopted by other countries is disingenuous. The only nations with mandatory filtering are Saudi Arabia and China. The government wants to copy that approach while claiming it has no plans to tinker with the filtering for political ends. But in the absence of safeguards, can it assure everyone that no future government, perhaps under pressure by zealots in the senate, will adapt the blacklist in any way?

The other disingenuous comparison is with censorship of films & books. Film & book censorship doesn't overblock or underblock, it doesn't slow down people's ability to read or watch the products. And because the products are a physical commodity censorship has at least some prospects for actually working. The broadband minister needs to grasp the fact that the internet is not just another form of media. It is different.

Chard

23 Dec 2008 9:11am

No matter how much you talk up your filter at the end of the day it is exactly like what China does and robs the Australian citizens from his right to freedom of speech! (freedom of speech doesn't only apply to "political" content) I wonder why Mr Conroy is pushing forward with something so universally opposed? Maybe he would like something for the Australian public to remember him by once he has left office? "Conroys E-Gestapo" maybe? or maybe just like most politicians he has been easily persuaded by a large sum of money from a powerful third party entity to do whats right by them to the detriment of the common person.

kangarubicon

23 Dec 2008 9:12am

Bring on the next election. Time for you to go. Labor has no idea. Stop wasting taxpayer money on a system that can be bypassed with ease anyway. The people you are trying to filter already know how to bypass these measures. Spend the money on improving our internet speeds and data limits.

I was in China and easily bypassed their filtering systems with the use of proxy servers. Your government is a joke ranted on how much you would do with an internet super highway well where is it?

Russell

23 Dec 2008 9:13am

What do you have to say about the fact that of 5866 people who where asked "Do you support the planned internet filter?", 5371 people voted "NO!" (thats 91% of all respondants)

I think thats a pritty strong voice of the people who you are just ignoring "in our best interests"

Heath M

23 Dec 2008 9:16am

Not an argument about freedom of speech? Well, Mr Conroy, I�m afraid it is not up to you or the government to pick and choose what exactly the argument is about. That is the job of the Australian public, whom you are supposed to serve, and it has already being established by tens of thousands of people that this is indeed an issue of freedom of speech.

Of course, it isn�t just ordinary citizens who have voiced their opposition to the proposal largely or wholly on the basis of the threat it poses to freedom of speech. Do you honestly believe Amnesty International, the worlds largest human rights organisation, has formally voiced its opposition to mandatory ISP filtering on the basis of technical concerns? No. They are opposed to the plan because they see it as the significant threat to freedom of speech that it truly is. You may disagree Mr Conroy, but it is highly irresponsible of you as a public representative to dismiss the concerns held by a large number of Australians as irrelevant, which is what you have essentially done here.

As you are well aware, it is not only illegal content which will be blocked by this censorship scheme of yours. Content which is currently legal for Australians in most states and territories to possess, namely X-rated pornography and R-rated content which is not subject to an age verification system, will also be blocked.

However, the greatest threat to freedom of speech relates to material which would otherwise be classified RC by the Australian Classification Board, seeing as so much of this contentious material is political in nature. Websites advocating euthanasia are just one example of the kinds of sites which WILL be blocked. This is not senseless fear mongering � IT IS FACT. Various books relating to the subject have already been banned in Australia. You are proposing to apply the same content requirements used to ban these books to online material. Therefore, the outcome will be exactly the same! Special interest groups will undoubtedly hunt down all the pro-euthanasia websites they can find in order to submit them to ACMA, which in turn will be legally bound to add them to your ever-growing blacklist.

Now, try telling any euthanasia advocate that this is not an issue of free speech and censorship. I think you�d have quite a hard time, don�t you? What this demonstrates is that whilst you may not be concerned with the threats this plan poses to free speech, the argument undoubtedly exists. You cannot claim otherwise. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, the argument is still there, and it is your duty to address it in full, which you simply have not done!

Do not for a second assume that this is the only sort of material which will pose a political nightmare for the government when it is inevitably added to ACMA�s blacklist. Many pro-anorexia, pro-drug and event ANTI-abortion sites also contain material which would easily be classified RC by the Classification Board. Then there are the multitude of sites which contain frequent and/or aggressive use of the C-word, which would be rated R by the Classification Board if it were part of a film. How many of these sites are protected by an age verification system? I can�t think of any which are, but I know several which aren�t � there�s Myspace, Facebook, Youtube and Wikipedia to name a few. You�ve probably never heard of them�

Of course, you will claim that this is a non-issue, seeing as such material is already illegal to sell of distribute within Australia, or to host of Australian servers. This argument fails to recognize the fact that most Australians are willing to accept that the internet may contain material more explicit/controversial than what would be allowed on film, just as most Australians are willing to accept that films may contain more explicit/controversial content than what can be screened on television. People are going to accept material being on the internet that they wouldn�t accept being published elsewhere, and this is precisely why you are seeing such a backlash against your filtering policy.

So please, Mr Conroy, listen to reason and stop banging your head against a brick wall. This failed policy is not helping you, it is not helping the government and it most certainly will not help the Australian people. Many of the people protesting this policy are the very same people who helped you get over the line in 2007. These people will not return the favour in the hurry, but there is still time to salvage some of the damage done to your party�s reputation. Bloody mindedness gets you nowhere in politics � just ask John Howard!

kangarubicon

23 Dec 2008 9:16am

Still to read any support for your hair-brain scheme.

Dave

23 Dec 2008 9:17am

I do not understand why the National Classification Scheme should apply to the entire internet. The internet should be considered a form of speech not media such as tv or DVDs. My phone calls and conversations do not fall under the National Classification Scheme why should what I say online need to be classified?

Secondly I think you have greatly overestimated the Australian publics support for the current rating system, you only have to look at the constant public backlash to various video games being banned only in Australia and no where else in the. Despite public outcry nothing is ever done, they even have a note on their website demanding people stop complaining. How can we trust the government to classify the entire internet when you can't even manage to classify computer games without becoming the laughing stock of the world and infuriating Australians for years on end.

mark

23 Dec 2008 9:18am

Please dont do it. This money would buy more votes if it were spent on free public Wi-Fi.

Stuart

23 Dec 2008 9:19am

I do not understand how you could possibly think this is a good idea. It is up to parents to educate and monitor there children on inappropriate content. All you are going to achieve by going through with this plan is slowing down and already slow network and blocking freedom of the people you are supposed to be serving.

Citing other media as having censorship powers is not a valid argument as many actually view Australia's stance on such subjects as a negative thing and view it as an embarrassment compared to the rest of the free world.

The answer to the problems you are trying to hamfistedly solve is education and not censorship at the cost of our network quality. Please stop this or at least make this an optional service before I become more ashamed of this once great country that is quickly going down the tube.

Jeff

23 Dec 2008 9:20am

Censorship of any kind is asthma to a free society. Who decides what I get to use the internet for? Individuals views of what is right and moral will always differ. The harm comes when one individual tries to impose their view forcibly on another individual.

Why does the government spend so much effort to control what we do? Now that we are entering a tough economic time, let's build a wall around Australia based on out dated morals and ideas. Good idea.

Disgruntled

23 Dec 2008 9:21am

I feel let down by what amounts to Internet thuggery by the government and will look very carefully at the next ballot paper.

neilmc

23 Dec 2008 9:22am

In relation to the response regarding PC based filters......

Could it actually mean that rather than 98% of the population being idiots as prolcaimed by the senator that maybe 90% + just can't be arsed or don't want to be filtered. The home PC products are pretty bloody simple. Certainly not beyond the abilities of 98% of parents.

Nice logic by Conroy. How does he know that 98% of parents had technical difficulties with the PC filters. Did the 98% originally download from Netalert and then send the previous govt a letter saying that it was all too hard.

What does he expect the 98% of the population to do when his filter blocks matierial that grownups need for work or study research? Or what about the large proportion of households that have no kids? What about the parents who what to selectively unblock some sites for their teenage kids?

So I guess the govt leaves them with the option of opting out to a point. I can see a situation where most people opt out over time making the scheme a really big white elephant.

FrostySonic

23 Dec 2008 9:23am

Listen to your constituents Senator!

This policy is fast becoming the 'WorkChoices' for the IT industry and for anyone who uses a computer!

Stop wasting our money on a pipe-dream and start spending it on things that will actually help protect our children: like extra funding for the AFP to hunt-down and prosecute child-pornographers.

Antipodeon

23 Dec 2008 9:24am

Some well made points here already. Site level filtering is one thing, but listening in on peer-to-peer traffic is quite another. Really what is stopping you from 'filtering' my skype chats or sending my mum a photo via yahoo messenger?

It's a bit of an insult to say that parents don't have the technical skills to apply pc level filters. It's more likely that parents chose not to impose such measures because they are no subsitute for parental supervision and education.

I've been using the internet now for over 15 years. Back then, I could call a bulletin board phone number and be exposed to whatever was at the other end. For 15 years, there has been no politician telling me what I can and can't see. I might have been exposed to some things that I would rather have not seen, but I was equally appalled at scenes from Athens last week.

As a 14 year old, I used to walk into a public mobile library every friday and borrow books. The librarians occasionally raised their eyebrows, but never banned me from reading materials that had been approved by the government censors - not for children, but adults.

I understand that the government feels the need to protect me from things it believes to be offensive, but I would really rather make up my own mind. If the government is doing its job - and providing a culture that is tolerant and an education system that works, then I should be able to determine what media I want to consume - on any media.

James Ellison

23 Dec 2008 9:25am

I can not believe this filter is still receiving the green light. I have worked in the IT industry for the past 15 years. I have not spoken to one individual in the industry that believes this filter is the correct solution to removing unwanted content from the internet. Dangerous, dangerous precedents are being set and the major problem is when this system fails, which it will, it provides a base platform for further ill conceived censorship and totalitarian governance.

Rubens Camejo

23 Dec 2008 9:27am

Dear Stephen

This will be your Work Choices and it WILL lose you government. Mark my words on this You will be affecting, at least psychologocally, more people than that misguided policy by the Howard government ever did. It will also be much easier for the opposition to run a scare campaign on.

NO ONE LIKES BIG BROTHER, ESPCIALLY WHEN THEY'RE POLITICIANS.

Pete Allan

23 Dec 2008 9:29am

Why is the Government taking away the role of the parent?

It is the parents responsibility to monitor their childs use of the internet. If I knew this was part of the Governments policy I would never of voted the way I did. Shame on you.

Who determines what is not appropriate? I know a certain Tasmanian Politican would see everything censored.

How many companies are going to suffer as they use the internet for file transfer. How many of these files will be stopped. Why should someone I don't trust look even closer at my internet traffic. Even the best vetting of staff does not stop people stealing stuff.

whiteb

23 Dec 2008 9:29am

Dear Mr Luddite/Conroy (You pick).

So you claim to have been offered technology that will filter Peer to Peer (Most of which is now encrypted). how do you propose to filter encrypted content ? considering that the military uses STRONG encryption on communications.

I seem to remember a school student breaking the 'Net nanny' software in what, 5 minutes. Using Encryption, your filters are ALREADY broken, before being implemented.

By stating that the entire population needs protecting from 'unsavory' content, are you saying that the Federal police does not do a good enough job with the help of Interpol, FBI and Scotland yard (Among others) ?

Martin

23 Dec 2008 9:30am

I still cannot believe you are going ahead with this....

My challenge to you Mr Conroy is to upload a video of yourself using the internet and a computer by yourself without the assistance of a pen pusher admin person. By the sounds of it you haven't a clue what your on about.

But prove me wrong and I'll stop winging mate.... your time starts now.

xis

23 Dec 2008 9:31am

I dont think anyone who voted for a "Rudd Labour Government" last year knew that we would be abused like this - stop treating everyone like children, wasting government time and taxpayers money and do something responsible that you was voted in for.

I have yet to read one comment that supports any of this in its entirety at all on any website.

Its an abuse of power, unsupported by the electorate and indicates to the rest of the world that Australia is no better than China - no wonder Mr Rudd can speak Cantonese so perfectly - shocking, really shocking.

Jay

23 Dec 2008 9:33am

We have a society that has largely been left behind and is being washed away under new technology and the Internet.

Educate the people on how to help their children, help themselves and not do it for them. Funny how those skills they may learn may help them more in future than any restriction in the name of protecting the children.

Does this Government even know what they are doing?

Cynic

23 Dec 2008 9:34am

This is the most idiotic idea I have seen in a long time. This won't do anything except slow the net down to such pathetic levels most business won't be able to operate. How about spending this money on more police and IT to track down the illegal sites, close them and prosecute the people that create them. Instead you implement a stupid, knee jerk reaction (kinda like the Libs would) and waste a bucket load of tax payers money on it. Dumb, dumb, dumb!!!

stewie

23 Dec 2008 9:35am

[quote]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. Technology is improving all the time. 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.[/quote]

This is going beyond protecting children from illegal pornographic material to censoring a vibrant and creative open-source community. Many users of non-Microsoft and non-Apple operating system will no longer be able to effectively and efficiently share their computer code between users. This, of course, will be of no concern whatsoever to the International conglomerates who currently dominate the world of software. So P2P filtering is a good thing for the 'big end of town' but a disaster for the 'Free' software community.

I thought that this Government had pledged to speed up the internet not slow it down to a crawl with this deep packet inspection.

And who will be paying to install this equipment to decelerate internet connections and to examine every packet I send out/receive ? I expect that I will have to use some of my tax (Senator Conroy will divert it on my behalf from more pressing matters) and I'm guessing that my ISP will be charging me extra for the privilege of having slower broadband

I look forward to hear what your filter-sales teams will say about how they will also be able to inspect data being sent therough VPNs. When this Government then says that they will be able to do it I shall cease using the internet for any commercial transactions - it will become too dangerous for me to send my personal details through the various filters and I don't think I'd like to share my credit card details with disgruntled ISP employees, nor do I relish the prospect of identity theft if someone manages to get enough of my details by intercepting the already-intercepted stream of data I need to send.

This is a bad idea Let parents be parents and stop trying to be a nanny to the adult population

sjmcc

23 Dec 2008 9:36am

Regardless of any economic situation in the next 3 years, or any diplomatic situation, this un-democratic restriction of rights will see my long held vote for the ALP go to the Coalition no matter who is leading-such is my disgust. These turgid charlatans in their ivory towers should abandon this ridiculous idea before offering it any more thought.

tahpot

23 Dec 2008 9:39am

No Clean Feed.

This filter is an absolute waste of time and money. Not only that, but it can be circumnavigated by those with the right expertise. We have real issues to solve like having world class broadband, not introducing a communist style filter.

uglybugga

23 Dec 2008 9:40am

the concept of censorship is dangerous to the free flow of ideas, while admitting some content is totally unacceptable once introduced who stops the next minister or the one after decoding to add to what is proscribed, there has to be another way.

C Robbo

23 Dec 2008 9:44am

This so called plan to make the internet safe for children will not work. Despite your limited knowledge of how to operate a computer, children these days are born with the skill to operate them and will only relish the challenge to bypass it, much in the same way they manage to circumvent school myspace filtering through the use of proxy sites. This plan = EPIC FAIL.

Glen

23 Dec 2008 9:45am

1) Is monet being put aside to cater for law suits from legitimate business' that loose revenue?

2) "evidence-based approach" implies metrics. yet you side step any questions in parliament about these metrics. Yes Mr Conroy, we do see this.

3) The ACMA allows for filtering of content which doesn't meet the clasification, what about the rest which are blocked unintentionally?

4) Whilst "their never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content" - there never was any suggestion that this "filter" would be mandatory either.

Come "clean" with the public, stop the filter.

Hobbes

23 Dec 2008 9:47am

"Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content," Senator Conroy said.

Doesn't freedom of speach cover more things than just political content? What about pro abortion sites? Or pro euthenasia sites?

And filtering a bit torrent connection? Performing deep packet inspections on every chunk that flows through EVERY ISP in the country?? The degredation of speed would be staggering. Bit torrent is an extremely effective means of distributing content (OS distributions, games (Steam uses BT)).

Besides, won't these filters just drive the real criminals (child porn, etc) underground? All they have to do is encrypt everything and then they're safe?

Right now I can buy a US$50 account in the US, and use an SSH tunnel to bypass any potential internet filter. If the filter is so easily bypassed, I can only assume that the point is so that little Johnny can't go to some porno site. If thats the case, why can't little Johnny's parents do their job as parents?

John

23 Dec 2008 9:49am

Congratulations Minister on following through with this proposal. Until the practical issues are resolved how can people say that they will lose any freedom. There is a lot of exploitation by those with money of the poor and young taking place in the world. It is about time our government took a stand against powerful vested interests on behalf of the weak and powerless. If people want to opt in to the world of no regulaion let them but not at the expense of those of us who want to go about their daily surfing without being confronted by the porn and violence that manages to get place at the top of the list on many searches.

Lee

23 Dec 2008 9:51am

Mr Conroy,

You have completely misunderstood the comparison between your filter and the filter in China. The comparison is not made on what is filtered, rather on the fact that a government body regulates what people are allowed to see on the internet. In this respect, your plan is exactly the same as those in other countries.

By limiting our internet, you imply that the people of Australia are unable to control what we see on the internet are unable to control the action of our children, which is simply not true. There are many, many tools available to help parents block unwanted content, while those without children enjoy the freedom the internet brings.

Please Mr Conroy, listen to the people you represent. Listen to the people that voted you into power. Listen to the people of Australia. We're speaking loud and clear.

Lee

Disgusted

23 Dec 2008 9:52am

The real criminals will just use programs like TOR to bypass your filter... This is a stupid idea and as pointed out you will have a better chance of boiling the ocean! I am a labour supporter, rather I was until the ludicrous proposal was put forward, even Johnny Fascist was not stupid enough to impliment such a ridiculous policy...

Cam

23 Dec 2008 9:54am

Professionally, I'd like to what your justification is for proposing to reduce the productivity and therefore reducing profit of many Australian companies (large and small) who rely on the internet to do business?

Personally you've lost my vote already because I don't look at child porn but you're going to degrade MY online experience... Good luck in 3 years, I'm sure those aged 15-35 will remember this and be happy to censor you and Kevin in return...

JJ

23 Dec 2008 9:58am

The so called Live ISP testing that's about to begin will be closed which means it will not involve customers of any ISP trialling the software....forgive me but any software developer, system or network admin will tell you that unless something is tested under load you'll only get dud results. Open a free way with a couple cars and its a raging success, put 300,000 on the freeway and look again. Just ask anyway one in Melbourne that uses citilink or eastlink.

Trial the software with Optus's thousands of customers (including business) and let's what happens

And ACMA has worked out an agreement with the UK Internet watch foundation (IWF)? This is the lot that added wiki to their block list recently and then had to unblock it after the outcry.

I guess you have no response to this?

mshagg

23 Dec 2008 9:59am

Senator Conroy, your views regarding the debate being one of technical merit rather than one of moral merit are quite concerning. Who are you to define the debate and what is out of bounds in terms of the topics to be examined? Is that not what debate in the public arena is all about?

I suspect your colleagues in the Senate may not be quite so willing to allow you to set the terms and conditions around what is up for debate and what is not.

I would also invite you to provide more information to the Australian people regarding the type of content we can expect to see flitered under the banner of "unwanted" content. This appears to be the point where your comparisons to the classification scheme fall over and your office's silence on the topic is near deafening.

texinick

23 Dec 2008 10:00am

I take issue with a few of your replies.

Firstly, in several responses you mention the National Classification Code. I don't think I need to point out how out of touch national classification is. While the average age of gamers is over 30, there is still no R rating for games. Instead, adult gamers are punished. If there is no respect for adult gamers, then how can we expect to be respected in terms of internet content?

"Secondly, Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content."

It's not the blocking of political content that concerns me. It's the blocking of ANY content. It's the blocking of content that one person deems unwanted, that may not be unwanted by many others.

It's nice to see some answers, but I have a few further questions:
a) If you know that illegal child pornography is distributed via P2P type networks, and your primary concern is to protect children, why isn't this an OPT-OUT filter for those over 18? Why is it mandatory that EVERYONE be 'protected'
b) People don't trust the government when it comes to censorship. Why not appoint a company to maintain the blacklist, much like the system used in the UK?

By forcing this filter on EVERYONE, I find it hard to swallow some of the answers you have provided, and feel that we are being treated disrespectfully and with contempt.

If you are fair dinkum, then you need to do the following:
a) Bring in R ratings for games to show that we can trust the National Censorship Code
b) Offer some kind of opt-out
c) Give control of the blacklist to a third-party, that has no connection with the government of the day.
d) Clearly mandate that the only 'blacklisted' url's will be those containing child pornography.

If those points are considered, you'll get my support. But I will NEVER support the scheme where censorship is forced upon me as an 40+ year old, game playing father!! I'm old enough to determine what is 'unwanted' content, and I'll happily supervise my kids on the internet. What is 'unwanted content' according to you, may not be unwanted by me, but ONLY I can make that decision.

Chris

23 Dec 2008 10:02am

"We are happy to have an open debate about these technical issues. However, the Government does not view this debate as an argument about freedom of speech.... there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content."

Firstly, Freedom of speech is not restricted to just political content. Artists generate content that is controversial, take Bill Henson as a classic example. Secondly, why is this only a debate about the technical capabilities of the filter? Why can't Australian's have this debate? Introducing the filter is one of the most draconian and offensive pieces of law to be introduced into parliament and should be widely discussed throughout the whole community.

Technically the filter is fundamentally flawed. It is not possible to block content. Off the top of my head the following technologies could all be used to circumnavigate any filter: SSH, GPG, PGP, Tor, Google cache of websites, Archive.org of websites, Anonymous browsers that obfuscate the URL. If anyone in the government wants me to demonstrate, just send me an email - it's not very difficult.

Additionally, what mechanisms will be in place for those incorrectly filtered? What rights will those have to challenge the decision? What right to compensation will they have if incorrectly blocked by the filter? How can Australians check the list of blocked content to verify if it should be blocked?

This is one issue that will change my vote and the vote of many other young Australians.

Dan

23 Dec 2008 10:03am

I did not vote Labor to have the internet censored. You will force me to vote Green if you continue.

Steve

23 Dec 2008 10:06am

This a continuation of the previous Government's debasing of democracy in Australia using any pretext to ensure those who oppose the changes are demonised. Similar to Nazi Germany.

debra

23 Dec 2008 10:08am

Google has a thing called SafeSearch Filtering - select "Use strict filtering (Filter both explicit text and explicit images)" and voila, our children are safe.

AdamK

23 Dec 2008 10:10am

Whilst I agree that something needs to be done to protect our children and generations ahead of us in the current digital and technological revolution, I feel that the Government pressing ahead with the current idea of an overall filtered feed of all Internet data to be very illogical and flawed. The day that the Government becomes the parent for all Australians is the day that the core essence of what is the Internet is destroyed for all Australians. In addition the Government is failing to clarify some of the key issues that many Australians have with this scheme and this is making it easy for it to be ridiculed as a scheme to make Australia become the new China, as well as making us the laughing stock of Western society.

I urge the Rudd Government to reveal the details of this scheme so that the public can be fairly involved in the development of any such scheme, with the aim of it becoming a win-win situation for the public and everyone else concerned. If the Government cannot consult with the public in an open and fair manner then I, as an Australian citizen, cannot and will not support any scheme to censor anything over the Internet. Additionally the fact that the filters have already been proven to provide numerous false-positives will open ISP's and therefore the Government to many and large litigation cases that could cost the public purse hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention many votes at the next federal election.

Alex12

23 Dec 2008 10:11am

The average age of a typical video game player in this country is 26.

The highest rating available for video games sold in this country is MA15+.

If you guys are so in touch with what the people want, give us an R rating for video games first, because there is a snowflake's chance in hell that I'll trust you lot again unless I see some kind of token gesture that you're actually listening to us.

Mortified

23 Dec 2008 10:15am

When my family and I voted for your government, it was for change from an arrogant and almost totalitarian liberal government, that wanted to introduce the same infringement on its citizens fundamental rights ie protecting from the evils of the internet.Who is going to protect the citizens from the evils of its intrusive government?What ever happend to the opting in or out option you promised.Another government LIE.This government is no better than the previous government.SHAME LABOR.What next????

Atomik

23 Dec 2008 10:18am

Fighting crime, with crime, is not the answer.

Fighting crime by violating ordinary citizen's freedom of speech, violating one's constitutional rights is not the answer. Fighting crime is what the police is for. Fighting crime is acheived by education, not suffocating avenues for education. Fighting crime is the answer.

Arresting Clown Conroy is the first step.

Jodes

23 Dec 2008 10:24am

I do not want this ISP filter.

a) Won't work - saw a brilliant comment today on Crikey which said basically it would be like trying to filter all the bogan drivers off the roads.

b) Will significantly slow down an already very slow internet (when compared to other first world countries).

c) Freedom of speech. Im very very very concerned about the possible implications of government-led filtered communications. If not this government, then some other government in the future may use it in a way that we do not want.

d) GIANT WASTE OF MONEY. Seriously, spend that money on health and education. These two things alone are significantly more important and will not be wasting our public funds. ISP filtering is pointless.

If there was one significant reason not to vote Labor at the next election, this is it....don't make me vote Liberal for the first time in my life.

Felicia

23 Dec 2008 11:09am

Senator Conroy, I fear I am beginning to sound like a broken record. Your proposed filter will not work, will not work WILL NOT WORK! However we all know that you will claim your upcoming trials an overwhelming success, regardless of how poorly the filter performs in reality. We know this because this is EXACTLY what you have done with the results of lab trials in Tasmania. I'm asking you, as an Australian voter, and, as such, someone who could very well hold your political future in her hands come 2010, what will it take for you to abandon this poorly-thought out proposal. I would like an honest answer to this question because the majority of Australian citizens ARE against this filter, and to knowingly go against the wishes of the very people who have put you where you are, is akin to a dictatorship. Are you waiting for someone to suggest an alternative?? Well this your lucky day: here's one for you, how about you use the money you are throwing at this filter to combine the soon-to-be-defunct Net Alert filter with professional installation by trained IT personnel. This will allow those people who lack to skills to install a filter themselves, to ensure they are able to avoid material *they* consider undesirable whilst leaving the rest of us free to surf the internet unfettered; the very manner for which it was designed. I am fed up with being ignored Senator Conroy, and I fear what will happen to our society if you allow this asinine idea to reach fruition. PLEASE reconsider!

robert

23 Dec 2008 11:14am

Mr. Conroy there is not a single survey in Australia that supports your plan. My question is , why won't you listen to public opinion ??

Ellinoz

23 Dec 2008 1:51pm

Will content providers be required to pay the Review Board the $8000.00 it costs to get a film decision reviewed if ACMA decides their online content must be banned?

quokked

23 Dec 2008 1:56pm

Minister Conroy, if you look at the trials we've seen a significant slowdown in the speeds of the feeds that have been filtered. Now you're looking at putting in a filtering regime that is as restrictive as bastions of free speech like China and Iran. And when you filter out 'undesirable' sites where will it end. Will you filter out political dissent & extremist leanings? Leave filtering in the hands of individual families and parents to make their own choices. Andrew C, B.Eng (Software Systems) Grad Dip. Education (Secondary)

Sat2008

23 Dec 2008 1:57pm

As a parent and a proud Australian citizen I completely reject your concept/trial/proposal, (whatever you want to call it) Senator Conroy. The very idea of you or anyone else censoring the web or anything else for that matter is completely unacceptable for me and many Australians. Who made you responsible for what we see, read and choose to allow as acceptable material? Educating our children on proper and responsible use of the net is the parent�s responsibility and not yours. Of course the government should make available proper resources and information to the parents in order to widen their understanding and thus provide the right advice and guidance to their children. I will never support any sort of censorship by you or the Government. And what you're proposing is taking away our freedom to choose and our freedom to decide.

Adam

23 Dec 2008 2:01pm

One thing I an curious about is how if the senate is currently 32-40 (30 labor, 2 independents vs 35 coalition, 5 greens) on the filtering that it would get through, stretching the coalition govt legislation act to fit the new glove?

JustLookin

23 Dec 2008 3:16pm

I am disgusted, just when i was thinking Australia was one of the last free places in the world to move to. Well i might aswell stay in the UK. Supposed democracy, its communisim. No where is free anyomore. Roll on anarchy.

Randall Starbuck

23 Dec 2008 2:17pm

I do NOT support this filter. It is flawed at its most basic level. Please do not go ahead with it.

James

23 Dec 2008 3:45pm

"...there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content" Mr Conroy, your Government may well have no intention to censor websites for political gain. But once the facility for Internet Censorship, (please stop using soft terms such as "filter" and "clean feed") is in place, you have no means of guaranteeing that a future government will act in the same manner. The idea that we should simply trust this Government and *all* future Australian governments not to abuse their new power to tightly control information is ludicrous. For example, how long before a future government, (or even your own) is tempted to start adding morally ambiguous content, (gambling, pornography, drugs) to the black list under pressure from ultra-conservative senators whose votes you need to pass legislation?

Jason

23 Dec 2008 4:50pm

Our government already knows that these filters will only be slightly effective, will degrade speeds and lead to a lot of public backlash. Right now it's just Conroy not wanting to admit that he made a huge mistake. Why are we all paying for the government's ignorance? I'm really regretting my Labor vote right about now.

Ellinoz

23 Dec 2008 4:52pm

Will content providers be required to pay the Review Board the $8000.00 it costs to get a film decision reviewed if ACMA decides their online content must be banned?

Blissirritated

23 Dec 2008 4:56pm

Conroy, you've mentioned the classifications board and ACMA several times -- will the filters you implement be working under or in line with the backdated and essentially useless 'classification scheme' currently in place? (see the R18 debate). And once you've sufficiently crippled the internet and cut us off from the rest of the world, what is to stop people from creating their own wireless networks across suburbs -- "mini internets" if that makes it easier for you to understand -- and bypass your filters that way?

In what way does your internet filter "protect" anyone? How does it do anything but force people to take their 'illegal activities' further underground - making them harder to catch?

How on earth can you make the comment (as reported on news.com.au) that you are aware of the 'debate' - or claim to be acting for the people when it's easy to see the vast majority oppose what you have planned? Even as a vote winning exercise it makes no sense! The 'young people', the new votes you're trying to win -- they're more politically aware than they have been in a long time and not one of them has one supportive word to say about this decision.

I'm appalled to think that such blatant stupidity has been allowed to thrive for so long.

cdinoz

23 Dec 2008 5:01pm

$10Billion "speeding" up the net to 12Mbps and then a further few billion on web filtering slooooowing down the net.

Mr Conroy....sorry but I am confused. If you leave now - we can all forget what have have been saying over the past few months.

Dave

23 Dec 2008 5:05pm

This whole idea is so backward, we are becoming the laughing stock of the technical world.

All you are going to achieve is hurt legitimate users, and once again the people you are trying to stop will just work a way around the filtering.

huymanutd

23 Dec 2008 5:37pm

Well , well, well. I'm 25 years old and I do NOT need internet filtering. I'd like to see what I want to see. If I'm a disgusting cyberspace criminal then the government needs to get better at tracking me down; not making the others to suffer. Instead of this stupid trial you should really invest more for the online police force.

When I have kids I'll do the filter myself in my home network because I'm able to do so. I'll also educate them on what is good and what is bad (just like the CDs from the previous government, an excellent idea)

Your plan is an absolute crap Mr Conroy. You government should have asked your kids before even suggesting it. ^_^

AndrewG

23 Dec 2008 5:38pm

The stupidity of politicians never ceases to amaze me.

To attempt to filter the Internet simply beggars belief, it will never stop what they want it to and it will make it a misery for all.

Get your uninformed, technically retarded noses out of things you do not understand.

The Net must remain free or we are no better than China and other backward dictatorships. Education is the only way forward.

marcus

23 Dec 2008 5:40pm

Evidence based??

The clear evidence from trials conducted in the past is that filtering slows the internet, has poor sensitivity and selectivity, poor positive and negative predictive values, and ALL slow the internet. Obviously those that block more slow more.

The EVIDENCE is therefore that the filters are ineffective, largely unwanted (netalert takeup low) give a false sense of comfort, cost a lot, filter averagely, increase latency (delay), slow speeds and introduce one point of failure.

Or is it just me - the government will continue to do trials until they get the result they want, at which point they will adopt the technology.

This is bad testing science, and, as someone with experience in evidence based medicine, this is a foul misuse of the process.

The minister's reply is unsatisfactory, as it states that the filtering technologies tested blocked more than what is being proposed (whatever the 'clear as mud' block list now is!). So, even if we ONLY block the ACMA blacklist, the performance will be affected, just proportionally less.

On top of this, measures to filter other traffic, like P2P is totally ridiculous. Not only is it technically challenging, especially if people use encrypted packets, but how is it going to protect anyone? If kids are smart enough to use bit torrent, they're smart enough to tunnel out of this ridiculous scheme.

There is no good reply to these statements above, hence why I and others have seen Sen. Conroy sidestep the questions liberally.

It's a poor solution desired by a vocal minority. Send it to the grave.

Nourn

24 Dec 2008 10:28am

You disgust me. You tout the line "save the children" as some kind of stop-all argument to press the infringement of civil rights onto the Australian public that allowed you to gain office in the first place. You sicken me with your twisting of democracy into tawdry shapes, and I intend to do everything I can to obfuscate your broken, degenerate policies IF you manage to force this "protection" onto the population.

Tor Guy

23 Dec 2008 5:41pm

Im not entirely sure you fully understand the internet Conroy. It is reality. It is not a videogame or movie that you can classify as PG, M and R. It is not an 'email' or a 'website', as all those things can be masked, shrouded and liberated. Right now, Im bouncing out an exit node in some far off land. The internet does not have borders. You can make all the analogies you like about it being uncivil, the fact of the matter is, its not a civil world we live in. Thats why we have a Department of Defence. If you dont like the honest truth of the world, maybe you should get out of it.

alex

23 Dec 2008 5:42pm

This was funny at first. Now it�s not. Someone please tell me this is a huge prank being pulled by the government! Censoring the internet will bring no benefit whatsoever for Australians and Australia�s economy. With regards to keeping children safe on the internet, is that not the parent�s responsibility?

Regieg Nahtanoj

23 Dec 2008 5:43pm

Please don't do this.

Wotuseek.com Guy

23 Dec 2008 5:46pm

I agree with the concept of a filter. We run a site Wotuseek.com which we discribe as a Family friendly and business friendly seach engine.This search engine has a perminant adult content filter. Its my experience that by removing the 200,000,000 or so porn sites from our listings we have found that our speed has increased. I would hope to see this happen with what the government has in mind. If this happens business will love it.Removing the access to porn sites will decrease viruses that seem to go hand in hand with these sites.

I like the idea of an opt out register because I have stubled across many adult sites listed as example: nusery rhymes or kids sites and I don't choose to see porn I am looking for content thats suitable for my daughter. So a content filter would help my freedom to choose what I see. If I didn't care I could opt out and have access to anything I wanted to but it would be my freedom to choose.

I still believe that we as people should in the mean time not wait to protect our families. This filter could take along time to be passed, if it is passed. I recommend people use sites like Wotuseek.com to protect their families today, its really not the governments responsibility to baby sit us. As grown ups we should take some responsibility. There are tools we have access to today that can protect our families . If you need them there lots of filters on the market. You can get a free one through the Government or Wotuseek.com (*Under need help with computer addictions) nothings perfect but its your family so any protection is better than none.

Wotuseek.com Guy

freedom

23 Dec 2008 5:50pm

Not happy.........................Jan

BryceR

23 Dec 2008 5:49pm

This government's contempt for expert knowledge, and the opinions of its constituents is truly disgusting.

Mr. Conroy, when will you finally stand up to Australians and answer the questions that need to be answered.

Jevon

23 Dec 2008 5:53pm

Hi,

I strongly, strongly believe that Australia should not implement Internet filtering.

1- It is technically infeasible. As you mention the only likely option is to create a black list of sites. How will you synchronise a blacklist to block billions of Internet connections created every second throughout the whole of Australia?

2- It is easily circumventable. It is trivial to use external proxies to access the same content, with very little additional configuration required (one-click proxy setup).

3- Preventing the easily-preventable circumventions will, also, be technically infeasible. Proxies can go through additional proxies. High-level encryption can be added to any level. Services like Tor are impossible to block or prevent.

4- It destroys privacy. If the government starts blocking proxies, you are blocking the ability to surf the Internet anonymously. If the government starts blocking encryption, no information will ever be safe. No longer will whistleblowers or anonymous tipsters be able to use this free form of communication.

5- It is easily exploitable. How does a site get "blacklisted"? How does a site know it is on the blacklist? How many perverts will Australia hire to search the Internet for child pornography? How easy will it be for a company to blacklist its' competitors?

6- It will be expensive. Who will manage such software? Who will manage complaints? How often will it be updated?

7- It will reduce technology investment in Australia. Why would an Internet-based business set up in Australia when there is the ever-present risk of accidentally being blocked by the mandatory filter? Will companies be able to "buy" their ways past the Internet filtering guards?

8- It is the beginning of a dangerous, slippery slope for Australia. Once you have the framework to block something, there is no incentive not to block everything that some higher power deems offensive. It is not a far fetch from child pornography to state-run media. Where would society be without the printing press? (We would still be in the feudal ages!)

I strongly implore that Australia follow the example set by the rest of the world, rather than the example set by dictatorships and China. Otherwise I fear Australia will be left behind.

Markus

23 Dec 2008 5:54pm

As an Australian citizen currently living in Europe, I am deeply disturbed about this filtering proposal, especially coming from a labour government.

I fear paedophiles, pfishers and spammers as much as the next person, but nothing compared to the thought of a government filtering my source of information.

If even one piece of legitimate traffic is blocked, then the filter has breached the democratic freedoms of the entire country. The way in which digital protocols and encryption mutate, will unlikely keep up with "online threats", with ordinary citizens being the most likely to suffer. And once filtering begins, where does it stop?

No country in Europe has yet seen the need to introduce such internet filtering, so why should Australia be worried? I fear that Australia's geographical isolation has disavantages as well: Its more difficult for it's citizens to compare political measures with equal neighbours.

As the filter will extend to P2P traffic, please excuse me for thinking the motivation is more commercially based than a concern for welfare.

Comment #94647

23 Dec 2008 5:55pm

An "evidence based approach?"

I think Mr Conroy is overlooking the overwhelming response to this bit of public policy (censoring the internet). Nearly every blog on this site, regardless of the topic, has people talking about this one thing. The evidence clearly states that the public does NOT WANT THIS, and is VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO THIS.

Just because the government "does not view this argument as a debatement on freedom of speech," does not make this the case! We DO think that this is COMPLETELY a debate about free speech - an absolutely outrageous one!!

Censorship of the internet in Australia (which is supposed to be a free, democratic society), should NOT be implemented unless it's on a voluntary basis.

A voluntary basis would be a good compromise - this gives those that want adult material etc filtered out, and gives the rest of us our internet without Big Brother.

That said, given how relentless Mr Conroy seems to be with pushing ahead with this, it breaks my heart to think that our internet will have the same freedoms as China's in the future.

robdub

23 Dec 2008 5:56pm

What is this guy on? Why aren't you listening Senator? We don't want your censorship. Put this to the people at the next election Senator. Because it wil be your last election if you're brave enough. You said you would be a government that would listen. It's taken less than 12 months for you to stop listening. At least the Howard government took about 5 or 6 years before they stopped listening. We don't want you're stinking Labor Party censorship laws. Cease and Desist Senator. Now. If it looks like censorship and smells like censorship, Senator, it is censorship no matter how you and your spinnnnnnnn doctors spell it out. You are a public servant, start behaving like one.

ilandrah

23 Dec 2008 5:57pm

2) No one that I know of is seeking to be able to view illegal material from their computers, but it would be nice to have some assurance that adults living in a supposedly democratic nation will have the same access to adult content online that many now enjoy on television and DVD.

Games such as Silent Hill have been denied classification based on current gaming laws that are designed with only 15 year old children in mind. This matter needs to be clarified immediately.

3) Parents should be capable of supervising their own children and implementing end user filters if they so desire. The money assigned for developing this censor would have been better spent ensuring that technically incompetent parents are capable of protecting their own children rather than expecting all of society to yet again be responsible for parenting their children for them.

4) Legislation will also need to be written, perhaps as part of an overall constitution that protects our rights to freedom of information and speech. Many Australians take it for granted that these rights are already protected under our constitution, but this is not the case and also needs to be rectified.

Whilst an assurance from one senator that political speedch will be protected may be seen as comforting by some here, it does nothing to ensure that this type of censorship will not be mis-used in the future.

5) Australia already labours under some of the slowest internet speeds in the world. With the filter further reducing those speeds, what will be done to improve the lag and attempt to get us to a stage where we can lay claim to a modern internet infrastructure? Once again, this is an area where the money allocated to this program would have been better spent.

6) Lastly, just how much public outcry will it take for the government to abandon this ridiculous scheme and actually represent the people who voted them into office rather than making arbitrary decisions that are supposedly for the benefit of us all?

seanmeir

23 Dec 2008 10:01am

It is not your internet to filter!

Rastko Petrovic

23 Dec 2008 10:03am

If government is going by evidence based approach and your study has deemed that it doesn't work ( chapter 1 page 15 executive summary) of your closed testing of 30 computers WHY ARE YOU KEEPING AT IT? Do you have point to prove or election promise. Do it as opt in/ opt out not mandatory? Why don't you make ACMA black list open to judicial process? How do you do live pilots without actual customers. If Telstra has refused to participate doesn't it say something?

Andrew

23 Dec 2008 10:05am

this goes against freedom of speech remember this you were voted in and you will be voted out as adults we can make our own decisions without big brother you are not ORWELL and this is not China or Animal Farm you remind me of petty small minded people who complain about what is shown on TV if you do not like it DO NOT WATCH IT

John Smith

23 Dec 2008 10:09am

Soon you will find yourself without power, in a country where your private life is under the scrutiny of strangers. You will now be able to be punished by their perceptions of what you are thinking, rather then what you do. They - being the government, or even the IT contractor drafted in to do some work.

Matt

23 Dec 2008 10:10am

Welcome to the People's Republic of Australia. Censoring it all this way will destroy the career(s) of anyone pushing forward with it. I websurf and I vote - like millions of other Australians.

Ralph

23 Dec 2008 10:12am

Well let's see what the government has done with this blog so far. Step 1: Set up a blog. Step 2: Totally ignored the near universal disapproval of their ill-thought out scheme & continue to vehemently defend that exact same totally flawed and discredited scheme Step 3: Something about underpants (a South Park reference there). Step 4: Success. The question a lot people will be asking is why set up a blog asking for public consultation when you're just going totally ignore anything anyone has to say?.

Tony

23 Dec 2008 10:15am

All I can say is that I never voted for this and if i had known this and the Defacto Relationship Act amendments were planned Labour would never have gotten my vote and will not in the future even though I think it was time for a change of govt.

alex

23 Dec 2008 10:18am

the internet shouldn't be censored in the first place.

third world apricot

23 Dec 2008 10:21am

And you thought we had it bad under the world's biggest luddite, Richard Alston. Mr Conroy can't be that ignorant that he actually thinks this method will work to achieve the stated policies. The only conclusion that ANYONE with any experience of the internet can arrive at is that the intended policy is a sham: that the motive behind internet filtering is not to 'protect anyone', which is highly patronising anyway, but to implement the technological apparatus to carry out a hidden agenda. Sorry to sound conspiratorial, but is there another conclusion based on the (lack of) information? Time and time again we have seen institutions spend millions trying to control the internet only come out looking like idiots (RIAA), while those who are semi-successful are tyrants (China and Saudi Arabia). Great way to become globally competetive, Labor. instead, here's a brainwave: please spend our money more wisely, like on education, infrastructure improvement and law enforcement. Filtering will NOT WORK. How many times must you hear this to understand?

ZacherySame

23 Dec 2008 10:23am

Unfortunatly, all the minister is doing is blowing on his lunch cause he thinks his bagel is hot... I do believe a court challenge using terms such as "compulsory subscription" "No OPTOUT" or "sanitation of freedom to express, experience and learn" and what sort of a field day are the suits going to have with "Where does [subject] meet Censorship and why"... As the song says; "better get yourself a Lawyer son... better get a real good one!"

Neil

23 Dec 2008 10:25am

I read in the press that you are now expanding the scope of the trial to include P2P. There are two ways you can filter P2P and neither of them will achieve what you want to. The first way is through caching: Every P2P file is sent around the internet in little bits. You can't look at a single piece and see if it's smutty. So to look at what people are downloading on P2P, you have to cache every chunk of every file that anyone downloads on P2P networks (and there are dozens of different kinds of networks) on some magic super computer, long enough for you to assemble whole files then you check these files against the fed's database of whatever it is you want to block, assuming you have one. Lets assume for a moment that you can actually make such a device. There are a few things that would happen straight away: 1. Actual Australian Child porn downloaders will no longer use P2P. Not the ones with a couple of brain cells anyway. You would have already caught the idiot ones from looking at the http logs :) 2. Actual Child porn 'sharers' within Australia will move to some unfiltered, encrypted distribution method. The ones will probably remain unaware of your cunning plan. They however, will remain as difficult to catch as ever, but they will be far easier to identify than domestic perverts. Congrats, you've just taught all the domestic perverts how to anonymise themselves. Feds will love you mate. 3. You will force every ISP in the country to somehow cache all P2P content for examination. AFACT will love you mate, the kids can now steal music way faster :) The other option you have is to block P2P. That's right. You have the power to shut down P2P in Australia. Feels good doesn't it. What happens next? Well the file-sharing mob migrate like a school of fish to encrypted P2P or newsgroups, or SSL file-share sites, or whatever comes next. While you've been trying to figure out how to use your blackberry, the file-sharing population has been adapting to censorship and take-downs immediately and effectively, every time it happens. A bit like what Mum's and Dad's will do the first time your filter breaks wikipedia, or some other popular site. One last point; the only possible effective way this filter can help people is to prevent innocent people from bumping into distasteful porn. If you've ever user Peer-to-peer services, you'd know that you just don't accidentally download a porno. P2P is massively selective. You just won't achieve your stated objective. So it's no surprise people think that you've got a hidden agenda with this filtering lark.

Anotherconcernedcitizen

23 Dec 2008 10:31am

The question here is broader than 'freedom of speech' - it is freedom of choice. What Senator Conroy seems to be saying is that because many parents are not technologically competent to use the PC filters already available, then adults will not be allowed to choose what they access on the net. No matter what weasel words this is dressed up in, the simple fact remains that the government is proposing to restrict what adults can choose to look at online. Fair enough, but I can still choose not to vote for them if this ludicrous nanny-state censorship is introduced. You've lost my vote Senator.

Graham

23 Dec 2008 10:31am

Senator Conroy, this was my last time I will be ever voting labor. I thought..."No they wont do anything stupid this time around". But was I wrong. Same old labor, same old stupidity. Never again.

NonSequitur

23 Dec 2008 10:46am

Janie

23 Dec 2008 10:49am

Dear Mr Conroy, Please don't ruin my internet with your mean filter. You and your government are very silly if you think this is a good idea. From Janie (aged 7).

oheels

23 Dec 2008 10:51am

Worst. Minister. Ever. You sir, have successfully destroyed the internetz. I won't allow myself to believe my country that i love and have done a TONNE for will let this happen.

Very Unhappy

23 Dec 2008 10:55am

I've seen your responses to some of the other comments on your blog, and would like to address some of these. 1. To compare your proposed scheme to those in the UK, Sweden, Norway and Canada is rather inaccurate. In all these countries, filtering is OPTIONAL, unlike your proposal, which is COMPULSORY, and similar to those in China and Iran. And in the countries with optional filtering, only a small number of sites are blocked, unlike your proposed list of 1300 - 10000. 2. 'Given that MOST of this material relates to child sexual abuse'. You stated this in your response to a question on releasing the blacklist. What does the other material relate to? And with all the questions about this blacklist, I would say that this information is clearly in the public's interest. 3. You stated that network degradation is less than 2% for one product, less than 30% for 3 products and in excess of 75% for 2 products. Is it not true that network degradation increases the more effective the product is? and that the ones with greater network degradation have the most decreased amount of false positives? How are you going to balance speed with effectiveness? 4. How are you planning on filtering P2P networks and Bittorrent? are you planning on banning them entirely? What about the totally legal uses for them? and is that going to further slow down internet speeds? 5. Do you have ANY IT qualifications at all? Who are your advisors? I'd like to know who came up with this seemingly random scheme.

Mike

23 Dec 2008 11:00am

What a foolish waste of money, money that in this day and age could be put to much better use. Give it to the farmers, find a solution for our water shortage. If this goes ahead you have lost my vote and I trust that you and Mr Rudd are in the queue at the Employment Services at the next election. Australians who don't want this waste need to vote these "twits" out.

Hugh

23 Dec 2008 11:04am

After reading the online articles today, I did not find any information about the original plan to stop paedophiles or children vulnerability. Today Senator Conroy has announced that P2P networks could be included. This government refuses to accept a comparison to China, but OVER THE LONG TERM, through very small increments and sneaky tactics, the government could potentially block 'political' material. This is a deeply un-ethical and shameful act, and for the first time I am going to vigorously protest about this issue. Shame on you

Aik

23 Dec 2008 11:10am

Look - children don't *need* protecting from harmful internet content - it's really that simple. Yes, children need to be protected from exploitation by pedophiles, but as to what they see online, it both doesn't matter and isn't the government's business. The majority of the people talking about this filter are digital natives - we grew up with the internet, full of all the horrible things. We've been goatsed and tubgirled and you know what? We're okay. It's just not that bad in the grand scheme of things.

k

23 Dec 2008 11:09am

what a terrible shame. you should be embarassed of yourselves.

Chuck N.

23 Dec 2008 11:22am

As a child I was approached over the popular MSN Instant Messenger by a paedophile who tried to convince me to give my phone number, address, etc. After talking for 10 minutes 'She' wanted to meet up. Had I met up or naively responded to her requests for contact details, I doubt that I would be writing this comment today. What saved me that day? Was it a behemoth web filter preventing me from accidentally stumbling upon sites that the government deems "inappropriate"? No. It was education. My parents educated me well about the possible threats that the internet holds, and taught me to be vigilant and not to give out my contact details to those who I did not know. As far as I am aware, there are two types of paedophiles: 1) The majority know their victims. They initiate contact, work their way into the child's life as a trusting figure. 2) The paedophile of 'opportunity'. Please explain how your proposed web filter will protect children from the dangers of child abuse by either of the aforementioned child abusers. Please explain how your web filter will protect children from the most common form of internet exploitation: Chat rooms and IMs. It appears to me (and by reading the comments in this blog, everyone else in Australia agrees) that your plan for internet filtering is short sighted at best. Your filter will not protect children as I clearly exemplified above. Why not ditch the plan now and spend the money on education - more money funding the development of the future generation, rather than money inhibiting the development of the present day.

Michael Knight

23 Dec 2008 11:26am

Please do not make us the laughing stock of the developed world!

james

23 Dec 2008 11:26am

This is the most ridiculous idea i could imagine. As soon as these restrictions come into place, proxies will be able to get past them. So then whats next. Ban the proxies and encryption, ban peer to peer, ban state run media, This is blatant disregard for freedom of privacy, you're ruining the only free media outlet we have left. Spend the money on teaching people about the internet and child pronography, teach the parents, the supervisors. The internet is the future and its a dangerous path you're taking us down, australia will be left in the dark ages.

Fred Nerk

23 Dec 2008 11:31am

Totally ridiculous idea. Australia is one of the most open societies in the world and should remain that way. There is no justification for big brother to decide what is or is not appropriate. There are individual means allready available to restrict child access to inappropriate content. What a pity this censorship is instigated by a Labour government.

Eden

23 Dec 2008 10:26am

I did not vote for labor to take away the right of a free internet. There is no mandate for what your proposal is. I challenge you to find anyone who is in agreeance with your "clean feed" internet filtering that isn't a) a religion nutjob or b) someone who doesn't use the internet. Industry are against it. Users are against it (check your blog responses if you don't believe it). We didn't vote for this, we voted for an end to work choices, that is what won labor the election, it is _NOT_ a mandate to introduce this chinese style big brother knows what you should and shouldn't be seeing internet filtering..

The whole concept is an affront to the people in this country.

If you think you will be able to circumvent P2P, there are much smarter minds out there on the users side then there are on the governments side. Just look at all of the copy protection schemes out there today and tell me how successful they are.

P2P is so proflific in this country because we do not have access to what the people want to watch.. People do not want to watch what is being shown on TV. It is out of date by the time it gets here and popular shows distributed on the internet end up at some god awful timeslot on free to air tv and mostly cancelled quickly after.

Instead of applying this band aid solution to appease the big industry lobby groups who probably funded your anti workchoices campaign (and being a fully paid up union member, so did I), accept that p2p is the obvious solution for distribution of tv shows and movies. People would be happy to pay the right price to watch... and not $30 per movie like the DVD's are in the shop.

N

23 Dec 2008 10:28am

I have come hear from abroad. I love Australia but the provision of services is noticeably behind the curve and I know R&D investment is below that of other first world nations. You now wish to actively cripple us!?

If your measures affect me, I will find ways round them as will those with more nefarious intentions.

Invest in awareness and easy, opt in filtering so parents can protect their children.

Stop mothering us all.

PR

23 Dec 2008 10:30am

This is retarded. I didn't ask for this, I don't want this to be implemented...WHO asked for this? I haven't seen a comment supportive of this yet.

Who asked for this, really? Who's for this?

Because I, for one, am against it.

Miranda Geoghegan

23 Dec 2008 10:36am

I'd like to thank you for at least partly answering some of the questions that were presented to you about the filter, and for acknowledging the topic, at last. The main issue I have with the proposed filter, however -- and what I think is the main issue with most of the Australian population, or those who *disagree* with the proposal -- is the increasingly ambiguous explanations on how the filter will function.

You say that the filter is and never has been about the restrictions of free speech. That would be fine, were it not for one thing -- we are not in a free country. That's not to say that we're in some sort of gaol, either, simply that the term "free speech" doesn't constitute what it might. At the 13/12 Melbourne "No Clean Feed" rally, it was highlighted that the "think of the children" argument is being exploited in much the same way that the country's fear of terrorism was, and this brings me to Australia's 2005 Anti-Terrorism Act -- one that legally restricts any everyday person from "urging disaffection" of the government, the law, etc. The rest of the bill goes on to explain how it's also legal for suspects/witnesses to be held without evidence, explanation or criminal involvement. Anybody unable to see the potential for this to be exploited is an idiot.

"Urging disaffection" -- if that needed further clarification, that shaky phrase is what reminded me of the other -- "unwanted content". Many of the concerns that online political material will be banned over this are legitimate; as I've just explained, if the aforementioned material is encouraging or expressing dissidence, it could be claimed as illegal. Though the cornerstones of our society -- laws, ethics, etc. -- are subjective at best, we shouldn't have so much to fear from them.

I think educating children on the Internet is -- though still a good idea -- not the correct one. Would it not be more useful to first educate the parents? I don't want to claim that strong supporters of the filter number any less than people who hold strong views against it (though it is my personal perception that they do) but it can't be argued that those against it are -- at least here -- the more represented in numbers. Why could this be? Perhaps those people who spend more time on the Internet (expressing their views on this blog, for example, in contrast to radio, the newspaper, etc.) have a better understanding of how it works. Would it not be wiser to trust them?

From your ISP "Clean Feed" FAQ --

"Is it true that filtering can be easily circumvented?"

--You go on to say that "motivated people with sufficient knowledge" will be the ones able to bypass the filter. I'm a newly sixteen year old who's taken one semester worth of IT -- if you do want to circumvent the filter, Google is pretty much all that's needed. On that same train of thought, I've already explained to my eleven year old sister how a VPN works and she doesn't find the concept particularly difficult to grasp, either; if you're going to stand by your idealised "Clean Feed", then please give parents at least a somewhat realistic view of the shortcomings of the plan.

"Is it true that ISP filtering is unable to filter non web-based traffic such as peer-to-peer and chat?"

--And your answer: "ISPs in other developed nations that have introduced filtering have done so mainly to help address the proliferation of child pornography on the web using a blacklist of mainly child pornography sites." While not directly related to the topic, something did occur to me while reading this -- though China may not be on the CIA's developing countries list, I haven't heard much talk of it at all. I can understand the need to disassociate from China in this issue (or more accurately -- Australia's view of China and their filter) but I for one would like to hear it at least acknowledged, even if it's only in the context of (yet again) denying the link between China's filter and the possible Australian one.

"Shouldn't parents take responsibility for their children's internet use?"

--Even though I would like to, I honestly can't say anything about your answer to this question, for one very simple reason: nothing in the answer you've provided-- well, answers it. The only correct answer is "yes" and it's such an obvious one that you haven't even attempted to rebuke it, simply skirt around it.

"Have ISPs in comparable western democracies moved to implement similar ISP filtering systems?"

--What makes a country's system "comparable" with ours? I think it's unfair to bring the term "democracy" into this; as I've already stated, the only clear link I can see between the potential Australian filter and any other country's is, as before, ones such as China and Iran.

snakedoctor

23 Dec 2008 10:41am

Unfortunately, like most things the government does, they start of small and it just gets bigger. Like taxes, the content that will be filtered will only ever increase over time, and at the same time our ability to reach new "legal" content will be hampered. I applaud when governments try to do the right thing (as they are in this case), but unfortunately, this is the right thing done the wrong way. Effectively, the majority are being impacted, to stop the minority. And as with everything, it won't get rid of the problem - those it is intended to stop will adapt.

By the way, how do you filter encrypted data? Surely the plan isn't just simply about blacklisted sites. We all know how accurate those blacklists are (or, are not).

Colin of Perth

23 Dec 2008 10:43am

I have written before and gotten the standard gobbledygook reply �We respect freedom of speech blah blah. Total rubbish, censorship by any other name still stinks. Your job is not to control us but to serve us or have you forgotten that? I have made the commitment to never vote for your party ever again as have my family and a lot of my friends and with a large facebook, MySpace and Twitter campaigns maybe enough people to show you the door next election and to remain you that you are servants of the people.

Chuck N.

23 Dec 2008 10:46am

As an additional comment:

Your filter will not prevent encrypted traffic. Your filter will not prevent encrypted traffic to unfiltered proxy sites, nor will it prevent the return of unfiltered webpages through the encrypted tunnel.

Including P2P traffic in the filter seems to be a knee jerk reaction to one of the many criticisms of the plan (lack of P2P filtering).

Ignoring for the moment that the P2P traffic I assume you are targeting (Movies, TV, Music, etc) can be encrypted and hence cannot be filtered...

Assuming you have the 'skeleton key' to all encryption ciphers and therefore, can view the contents of P2P traffic, I am wondering under what guidelines will you be filtering P2P traffic given that P2P traffic will not be website requests and hence the ACMA blacklist will not be relevant in filtering this traffic?

Above I mentioned that your filter would be unable to filter encrypted traffic and that using encrypted tunnels out of the country would provide an easy ('One Click') bypass of the filter.

Before the filter scope creeps once again (like it has with P2P) to "block any encrypted tunnel" or "make it illegal to bypass the filter", consider for a moment the following uses of encrypted tunnels. All of these examples will, as a side-effect of the encryption, bypass your filter:

1 - LEGITIMATE) Business with multiple offices in multiple countries uses an encrypted VPN to securely and easily share data between offices.

2 - LEGITIMATE) Banks/Financial Exchanges/Financial Switches use encrypted tunnels to transmit transaction data globally.

3 - QUESTIONABLE) HTTPS/SFTP to an IP address (DNS cannot be blocked).

Should 3 be blocked? The IP is not on the blacklist, but due to encryption the packets cannot be analysed....

4 - ILLEGAL) Child abuse ring uses an encrypted VPN to securely and easily share 'data' between members.

Refer to usage 1, the phrasing sounds familiar. To your filter, both traffic 1 and traffic 4 will look identical as they are both encrypted and hence cannot be filtered.

Given that child abuse rings are (as far as the media would have me believe) fairly sophisticated, I think it is reasonable to assume that they use encrypted traffic, or will convert to using encrypted traffic once the filter is implemented. Just a reminder, encrypted traffic cannot be filtered, encrypted child abuse rings cannot be filtered.

Please address how your filter will cope with these gaping inadequacies and obvious security flaws.

Kind Regards,

Chuck

Greg

23 Dec 2008 10:48am

I used to work for a child-friendly filtering company (kidz.net) in Sydney, and that idea, while highly flawed, was still leaps and bounds ahead of the internet-crippling, draconian scheme Conroy is proposing.

Kidz.net was a dial in service back in the modem days that would only allow access to sites that had been pre-screened by the company. Everything was blocked until OK'ed, providing a secure, but vastly reduced online experience.

Of course, Kidz.net rapidly crashed and burned, but at least it was opt in.

This plan of Conroy's, however, is far more flawed, has large amounts of data already stacking up to show that it's not going to work, and has the added bonus of infringing on our rights - despite Conroy's belief that it doesn't.

Stainless Steel Rat's questions are excellent, I'd like to see some answers from the Senator.

I can't help but think that this is being seen as a "magic pill" for all kinds of problems raised by the internet. Sure it's being pushed through under the premise of "protecting the children", but if the firewall goes up how long will it be before copyright holders are pressuring the Government to cut off peer to peer and bittorrent tracking because of their association with piracy, despite having many valid uses?

ImmigratingBrit

23 Dec 2008 10:51am

I had planned to move from Britain to South Australia in 2009, bringing my profitable technology business with me. Now I'm not so sure.

I wanted to get away from a censorious, increasingly authoritarian government that only thinks of technology as a means of catloging and controlling its citizens. Internet filtering will only mean that Australia falls further behind in using the Internet for business and commerce and I don't want to be stuck in a backwater.

Marchpig

23 Dec 2008 10:55am

Mr. Conroy,

Perchance you might allow the puppeteer to remove his hand and speak for yourself.

This whole filtering debacle IS the biggest single threat to freedom of choice.

You protect your child from inappropriate material by supervision. This filtering proposal is abrogating parental responsibility, removing their duty of care towards their offspring. I did not vote for you, you do not have my permission to censor MY internet use. Please refrain from believing that you do, and for heaven's sake, sack the person/persons who keep telling you that this is a good idea, they have ulterior motives.

Gail

23 Dec 2008 11:00am

Why does the government of a liberal western democracy need to censor and monitor the activities of all its citizens? What is the government scared of and needing to control.

I am very concerned about the secrecy surrounding this proposal. Whatever is the intention, the proposal in its current form is no different to the systems used in China, Iran, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Burma and North Korea. It bears no resemblance at all to the systems used in the UK and the western parts of Europe. It should not be presented in that way. It's blatantly dishonest. It is public knowledge that several European blacklists have been made public and all have included political material and the lists have not been restricted to the child abuse material that was originally used to publicise the proposals.

There is no substantial, independent, peer reviewed body of academic work that supports this proposal. Most of the academic work that is available does not support secret censorship as a method of dealing with the issues when it's obvious that education is the only way to ensure a safety the 1.5 million internet connected households that have children. Education and parental supervision. No parent would let their child run around a major shopping centre without parental control. The internet is no different. There are nearly 7 million connected households that don't have children. There are many business that shouldn't even be a part of this. A system suitable for children is not suitable for adults and completely unsuitable for businesses. I see no such proposals for television broadcasting and most children are exposed to many hours of television a day. The television and radio broadcasting industry is able to function as self-regulated. One could ask why, although without a doubt it has a lot do with the size of the lobby group

It would appear that this is policy developed in an evidence free zone using moral outrage and moral panic to develop policy. Policy by fearmongering and encouraging witch hunts isn't conducive to honest, open government.

The vendors are secret and only identified by code names. There is no independent, expert scrutiny of their claims. The members of the Cyber Safety Working Group are curiously restricted to multinational corporations, special interest groups, industry groups and public servants. Each member with blatant vested interest, not a moral interest, a financial interest in the result. It has nothing to do with the good of the children. Many of the members have a significant financial relationship with the government in the form of government grants or government purchasing. All these groups have access to the highest levels of government that aren't available to Australian citizens. There is no member with a legal background in protecting the rights of Australian citizens and no member of any organisation representing the rights of Australian citizens. Perhaps a High Court judge or someone of that calibre should be invited to join or oversee the proceedings .Perhaps the secret meetings and discussions should be disclosed in the public interest.

The current publicity handout from all Labor members of Parliament is identical and contains many factual errors. Most of the factual errors have been drawn to the attention of the Minister and they have been ignored. To those that have written to their elected members these responses are insulting. Protestors should not be treated with contempt.

Australians have the right to oppose government proposals and advise their elected representatives that they are opposed. In this case for good reason.

The blacklist is prepared in secret and has additions and removals carried out in secret. ACMA is completely unaccountable to the general public and isn't required to have the involvement of the OFLC. There is no details of what is proposed to include on the "unwanted" or "inappropriate" content list. There is no appeals procedure and the public have no access to the secret list compilers. These procedures should be open for public scrutiny. Documentation prepared by the Department in relation to the technical side of the requirements is amateur and none would stand up the scrutiny that standard tendering procedures would require. There should be no part of such a system that isn't able to be opened to scrutiny by the Auditor General.It appears that the blacklist has no checks and balances to protect it from malicious or nuisance abuse. Unless it is subject to public scrutiny, it will populated entirely by items demanded by lobby groups. Many of those lobby groups using government funding to lobby with. It is wide open for corruption on a huge scale.

Censorship is a tool of social control and this proposal will give a faceless group and special the opportunity to include anything that can be agreed to at a political level. Historically this level of censorship has only been used by totalitarian regimes or regimes that intend to be in that position.

If there is an acknowledged social problem, why is it assumed that a technical or mechanical contrivance can rectify the situation. The crime of child abuse and child pornography is already illegal. Law enforcement agencies should have the resources to deal with these crimes. However, the AFP had budget funding in this area reduced last May. Why?

If this is really about children, then the premise is dishonest. Most children are harmed by members of their family and friends. These are the abused children. Several have died in horrendous ways in just the last 12 months. These children wouldn't have been protected by anything done to censor the internet.

I am 59 years old. I am female. I have no interest pornography. I simply believe that accurate and honest information about government activities should be available in a transparent way to the general public. I am technically literate and I am a respectable citizen and I take great offence at the witch hunt type responses that have been used in this debate up to date. That is a mean and tricky. A label that should have stayed with the previous government.

Australia's technological development simply can't proceed while there is a hidden control agenda and wholesale censorship by lobby group.

The vendors are secret but have access to government at the highest level. The small but very vocal supporter groups have access to government at the highest level. All special interest lobby groups have access to the government at the highest level. All other Australian are cut off from this access and treated with contempt. The material to be censored is secret but available to a wide range of interest groups that are supported by government grants. This material is also available to corporations that operate from outside Australia.

Future governments, many years in the future, can use this system in any way they please because you've built in no checks or balance and no independent scrutiny. While it is secret and decided behind closed doors it will be abused by the government of the day.

TheWorldIsLaughingAtAUS

23 Dec 2008 11:19am

I'm embarrestralia'd for us all.

What the frick is going on here, how has this got to this stage already ? Rudd was all promises of "fibre to the node," but instead we get the privilege of paying an arm and a leg to access an embarrassingly weak half-net. W. T. F.

Anubis

23 Dec 2008 11:21am

This is getting ridiculous. What is wrong with this government?

Promoting a civil and confident society online? HA.

Can the government even do that in reality? Offline...

Let's look at all the porn, prostitution, abductions, rapes, murders, theft, arson, etc etc.

The government can't even stop that and there're *only* 20 million people in Australia.

Good luck censoring the internet with trillions of bits of information coming in per second.

Whack on some encryption algorithms, SSL, tor, VPN and proxies and your internet filter scheme will be all but useless.

All you'll do is slow the information transfer rate down, not stop it. Australia will become even more of a broadband backwater and the labour government and Senator Conroy will be the focal point for every internet users angst at the huge backstep in useability and accessibility of the internet in Australia.

Please don't be stupid, please don't waste taxpayers money and please don't even begin to *think* you can censor the internet or stop information being accessed through it.

Honestly, I'm begging you. If you don't listen - those in the know will show you just how stupid this government has been and carry on as if nothing has changed.

Technology... learn about it (i.e. the encryption point earlier)!

Denney

23 Dec 2008 11:25am

I'm totally against this filter for all the technical and ethical reasons that have already been stated so I won't repeat them all here. What I will do though is ask a few simple questions and wonder what your thoughts are on a few points...

1. The idea of this filter is to "protect our children viewing harmful content". Everyone I know, including myself, have NEVER just "stumbled" upon a child porn website... How do you expect a child to do that? Everyone knows child porn is not hosted on websites. How easy would it be to track these people down if they did...

2. Secondly, this filter will make law enforcement HARDER because all the people that WOULD view these websites will no longer be able to, thereby forcing them to learn new ways (eg. P2P) to access this content. This makes it harder for the police to find these people, let alone prosecute them. The numbers of people viewing child porn will not change and may even grow because the police department won't be able to find these people.

3. I can see the child porn trade actually growing because, if people who have children were viewing child porn online and can no longer access it, well, take away the online aspect and you know where this is going...

4. Onto the more technical aspects that haven't really be touched on. How can you say the ACMA report you had prepared DOESN'T count towards your Tier-1 blacklisting?!? If this is the case, shouldn't you have prepared ANOTHER ACMA report testing your Tier-1 blacklisting then? How can you expect us not to take your word with a grain of salt UNLESS you provide us with FACTS that state otherwise?

5. You say that Tier-1 blacklisting won't slow the net down but your optional Tier-2 will... Does that mean that if I enable Tier-2 blacklisting I will be compensated for the slow down? Or even notified, BEFORE I opt-in, that it will have a detrimental effect of my connection? I'm sure my nephew with his child would LOVE to hear how his internet will be even SLOWER than it is now if he wants to protect his child!!! But then again, my nephew is smart enough to TEACH AND MONITOR his child!! You know, actual parenting...

6. With most parents now becoming younger with the inherent technology being pushed into our schools, do you see a stage that this filter will be removed because these parents will be smart enough to know how to install a PC based filter? I find your statement about not being able to install a filter quite a bit insulting and I'm sure my "non-technological" parents would also.

7. Lastly, why have you presumed that everyone against the filter is "pro-child porn"?!?! How can you justify that people wanting a free and unrestricted internet connection are somehow involved with child pornography? I know plenty of parents against this filter.. does this make them all child pornographers? I can tell you right now that they aren't and they are quite offended by those insinuations.

So, any thoughts or answers to those questions Mr. Conroy?

Audacitor

23 Dec 2008 11:26am

If I'm a responsible adult or parent, why do I need someone else to tell me what think is and isn't acceptable in my home and in front of me and my children. Internet users are armed with a tool far better than any filter will ever be at deciding what content is and isn't appropriate- our brains! Kindly step aside and let us use them, thank you very much.

Michael

23 Dec 2008 11:36am

Don't you think that with this filter there is potential for an egregious abuse of power?

You guys never read 1984 or something?

Bobby

23 Dec 2008 11:38am

If you claim to be a free society; if you claim to be a democracy; then you are lieing to your people.

Censoring -- on any scale -- is the dark road to nowhere, and you are fascist cowards if you implement this. You have no right, so I beg you to refrain from doing this.

Alan

23 Dec 2008 11:39am

Stephen Even the best of intentions can be corrupted by future less ethical governments. Your recent experiences with the previous government should have taught you how any media can be manipulated 'in the best interests of all Australians' Once you move in this direction there is only a thin line between censorship and manipulation for political purposes. Is the cure worse than the disease? Stephen you may look back on this with regret as your biggest political mistake in the naive belief that it was done with good intentions but without appropraie legislative safeguards. Alan

Jakki

23 Dec 2008 11:49am

"Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content. In this context, claims that the Government's policy is analogous to the approach taken by countries such as Iran, China and Saudi Arabia are not justified."

Ha. You say that now, but when internet filter IS introduced, you can bet it will most probably be used sometime in the future to the government's advantage. Its the same old story every single time, and to say it wont be used to further political means just reinforces how ignorant Conroy really is.

Stuart Anderson

23 Dec 2008 11:45am

You have been told what the people want, and it's not your censorship system. We DO NOT want it.

Quite aside from the manifold technical issues repeatly raised by many, and falling on deaf ears, there is the matter of civil rights. Regardless of whether those rights are enshrined in law or not, you where NOT put in government with ANY mandate from the people to impinge, restrict or nullify those rights.

If you are unable to respect the wishes of those that put their trust in you to do so, then resign. You have failed us on the NBN, and you are failing by forcing an unwanted and unworkable censorship system on the Australian people. I have no confidence in you, and the confidence I have in the Government is rapidly eroding - I never thought I'd say this: I wish we had the Howard Government back, they look positively progressive compared to puritanical Victorian morals the ALP seems to have suddenly developed.

Your pandering to religious interests, not in good faith, but in a desire to shore up the votes of the independents in parliment, is frankly quite disgusting. Which of our rights are you planning on frittering away next?

I find it particularly telling that Robert Merkel's statement hit the nail exactly on the head: "... the inevitable conclusion will be that the "blog" is just a venue for press releases.". He's right, you aren't listening and you never intended to when you dreamed this sham blog up.

You claim to want a discussion, but the reality is that the discussion has been going on without you for a very long time, and has raised many, many, issues with your ill advised plan, and with your ham fisted political attempts to flog this dead horse. The debate is over, your plan has been rejected by the majority, trying to fluff it up on your own blog is a giant waste of everyone's time.

Considering that the Australian public is footing the bill for your salary and your department, I'd prefer the money be better spent on addressing real issues, not on manufactured moral panic. What are you doing about rescuing the NBN after letting it die? How are you going to make internet access cheaper and faster for ordinary people? How are you fostering growth and competition in the industry? How do you intend to increase Australia's intercontinental links, in speed, capacity, and quantity? These are REAL issues - and you've done nothing about them. Stop wasting our money, get off your backside and do some real work, you aren't been paid to be a policy shill on this blog.

AlliePower

23 Dec 2008 11:48am

You cannot censor the internet. Its just not right.

Hoggs

23 Dec 2008 11:51am

On a technical side, this is horribly flawed. How exactly do you plan on blocking websites?

If you block via IP addresses, you may end up blocking several other "appropriate" websites that are hosted on the same IP. (Possibly hundreds of sites, in some large data canters)

Or will it be simple DNS filtering? In such a case it's as simple as changing DNS servers to ones such as OpenDNS.

I mean seriously. Who are your IT "Experts"? They obviously have no clue.

Mark

23 Dec 2008 11:57am

I do not understand why proposed measures target all Australians when the objective is purportedly to protect only children, something that can be achieved more simply by responsible parents through programs installed on family computers. It seems to me that there is a subjectivity involved in determining the appropriateness of content for general consumption that should be the protected right of an individual, and such subjectivity could result in opening up a significant grey area to abuse by those in power. I do not believe that a more powerful group of adults should be given further powers to decide for a less powerful group of adults what information that less powerful group should and should not have access to. The excuse of protecting children strikes me as similar to the burning of works of literature deemed to be licentious or profane. I find myself unable to accept these proposals.

Niteowl

23 Dec 2008 11:59am

I'm a little confused here, if I have understood everything that I have read so far, this means that content I can, if I choose to subscribe to (IE adult movies) will be blocked by the internet filter. Does this mean that any (if I have them) subscriptions should now be considered for cancellation, as I would no longer be able to fully utilise a subscription.

Note: Whether I have a subscription or not is irrelevant, however information needs to be disseminated so that for those of us who choose to subscribe to legal sites which may soon be considered illegal.

How are we supposed to find out if our existing subscriptions are from sites that are to be blocked, and in addition if the sites we subscribe to are blocked, ( and the only way we find out are by attempting to log on and finding the site blocked) how are we to unsubscribe if we are unable to get to them after the filter has taken effect?

Does this mean I should be rushing to cancel currently legal subscriptions, so that monies currently being debited will not be debited for a non-provided service, or are password protected log on sites to be considered safe under the internet filter proposal ?

Inbilla

23 Dec 2008 12:07pm

I must admit, I am quite distressed by the thought of our Internet being put through such blind filtering. As a computer engineer, I fear for our industry in Australia, because undoubtedly sites that help workers across Australia to do their jobs will be blocked in some way, not to mention the speed of browsing/file sharing that will be lost.

Personally, I already feel like rights to democracy have been violated in the way that this filtering system has been proposed and implemented with regard only to specific social consequences, and no regard given to how this will affect workers, and Australia's economy and industry. This appears to be a purely retaliatory reaction to the Internet, with limited information on your options of attack and only one goal in sight.

Almost every large company workplace has attempted to implement such changes to their access to the Internet, and particularly in the IT industry, these filters interfere with the day to day work of their workers. And as such, productivity within the work place is reduced where the worker attempts to solve a problem that has already been solved by many before them.

What�s more, slowing down our already *relatively* slow and expensive Internet (compared to other countries) is a ridiculous proposal. We are already behind in the ways that we can share information with our international neighbours. I do believe classification is needed on the Internet, and the motivation behind these proposals is quite valid. Agreed, the Internet is a form of media that the government doesn't have much control over at this point. However, the implementation of this classification system through an ISP based filter is flawed in so many ways (as outlined by many of my peers), and once again will be a huge waste of tax payers money.

Another concern, how do you propose to filter BitTorrent/P2P networks? Believe it or not, but these networks are not specifically used to transferring illegal material around the Internet. Agreed, they are the primary location for the acquisition of such material, but they are actually the latest technology in transferring large amounts of data across the Internet. They were designed - particularly bit torrent - because they promote efficient propagation of data from a source to a destination, using available bandwidth in an optimal way. Many applications use these new technologies, including video games. For example, the popular World of Warcraft game uses BitTorrent to transfer game updates to its customers. We can't expect international companies to make allowances specifically for our small country. If we block ourselves out from these technologies, we will be left behind.

Unfortunately, the decentralised nature of these protocols will make it near impossible to filter out without blocking them completely and even then, any IT Administrator - particularly school administrators - will tell you their students constantly bypass the measures implemented against them. Even university level networks are constantly hacked by their students. Ultimately, these filters will become ineffective, and are most likely already ineffective.

As taught to every engineer, every engineering situation is governed by trade-offs. The key to good engineering is manipulating those trade-offs to achieve an optimal outcome. This implementation is far from optimal, and I strongly believe that there are alternatives that would turn out better for everyone. The proposed implementations don't even appear to meet your goals nicely. So why are we even considering this?

If I could make my voice heard, I would, but I fear the damage has already been done. I imagine it would be quite hard to be in your position, with a strong passion for what you are doing and so much opposition from the public. However, I beg you to realise that, although there are so many people out here raising their voices, trying to be heard and adding to the confusion, ultimately, we are all saying the same thing - please don't make these changes. There are better ways. That democracy out there is trying to tell you something.

Soon to Ozzie Brit

23 Dec 2008 12:13pm

This will only cause an annoyance. People will find a way to get around it regardless. Stop wasting your time planning this project, you have missed the biggest risk of all. If people cant see what they want on the internet they will

A) As stated find a way around it

B) Not use the internet

A results in this governance being policed at the cost of taxpayers money

B results in companies failing as people unsubscripe from the services ISP's provide meaning increased costs to businesses for connections and eventually a massive debt being built up.

In the event of world economic breakdown I would have though this would be the last thing on the Gov's agenda....

Kipp

23 Dec 2008 12:11pm

youtube video

this man puts a strong case forward i think he is a voice of some of us people!

basically internet filtering is a really bad idea it should be up to the parents to decide to filter their own internet the options are out there why not just fund people $20 to get the software its cheaper and more effective and you are not hindering the average user porn and terrorism and other such things are i guess bad but i dont care about porn about the kids well... kids will be kids and i really dont want to be on par with china as far as internet goes i enjoy my freedom i enjoy not being hindered and i love the internet if this goes in place i can guarantee 60-70% of the users on the internet will just not use it and cancel their accounts this in turn means loss of jobs, money and taxes now we all know how our govt loves its tax because it need it to run so are you willing to risk loads of money on this filtering? and are you even listening to the population theres probly 1000 people out of 20 million that are saying yes to this abomination its like we're heading into being a police state this filtering is going to hinder my work and my career i want to be an audio producer im currently doing a collabaration with someone from canada and this filter will clog up and slow the internet which means i cant do my work properly and if i cant do my work then i have a serious problem with the govt! and this i dont want im all for kevin 07-15 and more but this idea this concept its ridiculous and shonky i dont like it one bit nor does the majority of the population of australia i think you need to cancel the idea and also read and research what the people want it shouldnt be just up to you lot in ur offices and saying whats best for australia its not best and i think its un-australian! dont put this to vote thats just silly and if you do dont LIE do not lie to use tell us the facts now like the man in that video i linked. 1% fail rate is just too much consider all the websites on the internet and think about that there is 20 million people and probly 18 million are users of the internet and the amount of sites they look at and then think what that 1% amounts to.. probly well over 40 million blocked sites that dont need to be blocked.

the idea is a failure the fact that this is getting next to no public information is an utter disgrace i think this whole thing should be scrapped and then send out pamphlets and explain the dangers of the internet to parents and children so they know the risks and what can happen and detail what measures can be put in place to "protect" their children rather than making my life and many others a misery i voted for kevin rudd and this is making me wonder why stop this abomination before the streets are running wild with angry people

Dave

23 Dec 2008 12:17pm

PROTECT THE CHILDREN PROTECT THE CHILDREN!!

If you yell it loud and long enough, it becomes true. SENATOR SENATOR!!! car crashes kill children every week! We need to take away all the cars to save our children too!!! You want to know another politician who used "protecting children" as a way to take freedoms away from the people?

Hitler.

I know it's a long way from Nazism, but when you introduce the filter, you pave the way for the government to introduce new, more harsh restrictions to freedom in the future.

PARENTS NEED TO PROTECT their children, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

I don't have children, and I am not a child. I am confident with use of the net, but I'm getting it anyway since it's not opt out!

I am yet to see ONE PERSON in the last two months, on the net and in life. parent and not, who is FOR this FILTER.

Get your filter out of my country, Conroy.

Sams

23 Dec 2008 12:26pm

"Promoting a civil and confident society online"

Even the title smacks of an arrogance right wing "I must be right because its just common sense" attitude. I'm sorry Mr. Control, but what you call "civil" and what I call civil are two different things. In fact, most people here find you to be un-civil, so why don't you go and censor yourself?

"However, the Government does not view this debate as an argument about freedom of speech."

Whereas we do - and that is exactly why we are worried.

"there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content."

You said you are going to block content about euthansia. I have two words for you: lying, toadie.

Jono

23 Dec 2008 12:29pm

You and I both know that this will not achieve anything but further reduce our ability to compete in a technologically driven world? We are already struggling to with our national adsl speeds and you want to reduce it further?

I will do all I can to oppose this. Gen Y got you into power now we will do eveything possible to remove you from it.

Adam

23 Dec 2008 12:29pm

It's interesting at the very least to see a blog created so very later in the progression of this scheme. Aren't blogs normally started with the scheme? Also, if this is so important and desired by the majority of Australians why isn't a referendum held? The Government has done that previously (twice if I recall correctly) with the issue of independence from Commonwealth. I'd dare say this would overall affect Australians more than independence from the Commonwealth.

gav

23 Dec 2008 12:30pm

Having watched far too much of the British comedy series Yes (Prime) Minister, I always thought that politicians sought to be vote winners. Whenever Sir Humphrey tells Mr Hacker that a policy is a 'vote loser' Hacker looks aghast and quickly changes his mind.

If your departmental Sir Humphrey has not yet told you the policy you are pursuing is a 'vote loser', then perhaps he should use the rather more serious term: 'ultimate vote loser'.

On the other hand, perhaps this is your insurance strategy incase the NBN fails. If you filter the web traffic (massively slowing speeds) AND filter peer-to-peer (massively reducing traffic volume), then there really wouldn't be any need for an NBN, because nobody would have any use for it! YouTube would make even more of a killing off Australians though.

Greg

23 Dec 2008 10:49am

This proposition is simply absurd: removal of illigal material simply cannot be done this way. Maintaining a blacklist for the internet is technically feasible, but is akin to keeping a blacklist of sweatshirts that criminals are wearing. It is downright silly. This is not even considering the freedom on speech issue, which cannot be dismissed like this: certainly the intent is not to restrict freedom of speech, but that intent is based on a flawed understanding of the outcome of this kind of technology.

Michael

23 Dec 2008 10:53am

Don't you think that with this filter there is potential for an egregious abuse of power? You guys never read 1984 or something?

Nick

23 Dec 2008 11:08am

There are so many innovations and solutions around that parents could think about to protect their own child from internet threats. Parents could easilly buy them far below $1000 rebate they have from the goverment rather then spend this money for the extra LCD Screen or drinks or else. They just DON"T WANT to. As the result, kids are left unattendant in front of the PC watching news, horrifying stories, pictures of crime scenes, soaking in it and destoying their mentality. Sadly enough porn is outside if you look closely enough. If you just listen what parents talk in front of their kids what politicians are arguing against on the TV. Freedom of ... everybody to do everything they want no matter who with whom. Just be reasonable. Interestingly enough, the same princip doesn't apply to the Internet. So why have you decided for us what the real issue is? As the matter of fact, lots of software designed for P2P networks and some VOIP solutions will not work. Therefore, people will need to find the alternatives. Why don't you bring at the first place the plan to make Australian's Internet speed up to half of the Internet speed in Europe? Why didn't you ask people in business or even parents what they want to do and provide them with an individual filtering plan which can be implemented at ISP level and so leave businesses alone as they have been struggling to have their internet stable and fast for years???!

NoISPFilter

23 Dec 2008 11:14am

The ISP filter is a horrible idea. Its only result will be a massive slowdown of internet speeds since it will not protect anyone due to it being easily bypassed. What a waste of money...

kemo

23 Dec 2008 11:25am

Censoring the internet is not the answer. This catch-all approach could very well be used to oppress the population later. Instead, why not implement a flagging approach, similar to Cragislist? If the Australian government wants to "protect" its citizens, then let them do it--but only at schools, libraries, and other public institutions. The implementation should just be a portal that connects to google's API, where users can flag content that is objectionable (according to the Terms of Use). If other people disagree, then they can dispute the content that has been flagged. Think about it...

drm

23 Dec 2008 1:16pm

Have there been any cost-benefit studies done for this proposal? What will the operating cost of this national filtering system be, and what will the cost per blocked access be? AUD100 million was spent on providing PC-based filtering software to 3 million households with children. You mention that there was only a 2% take-up rate, for a cost of around $1600 for each family. Does this not seem extraordinarily wasteful? Given the low take-up rates for government provided filtering, have there been any studies on whether or not other forms of filtering are in use by or wanted by families? I am sure you understand the instinctive revulsion at secret censorship lists. If secrecy is not necessary in the physical domain, why is it necessary in the internet domain? Could the list not be made available for review by interested parties (newspapers for example) under a non-disclosure agreement? To what extent is illegal material an actual problem? Are there any estimates of how many Australians are accessing illegal material? Once the technical capabilities are put in place for filtering, there will be effectively no limits on the amount of material that can be filtered. Does it not concern you that, over time, the tendency will be for more and more material to be added to the list of unwanted content? Does it not concern you that any commitments to limit the material to be filtered can be abrogated by future governments, and that the lack of transparency (secret lists) makes this difficult or impossible to monitor?

dequeued

23 Dec 2008 1:06pm

Has even a single comment here been supportive? Has anyone, anywhere, supported this? Does anyone under the age of 30 not think this is a really stupid idea? Get some perspective, dude.

Belzecue

23 Dec 2008 11:44am

Thank goodness the Government is willing to take this burdensome role of protecting children away from parents. I have kids. Thanks to Senator Conroy, I will have more time to play golf and go to the pub instead of having to spend time with my kids and supervise their internet usage. Supervision is definitely something the Government should do more of. Hopefully we will have cameras installed soon in all homes, so the Government can supervise all of us 24-7. Because clearly Australian parents can not be trusted with such an important task as raising their children and protecting them from harmful books and movies and songs and interwebs. Why do we have government if not to control every part of our lives? THAT's the Australian way, people. We elected Conroy, so why are we complaining?

Jim Gardner

23 Dec 2008 11:46am

This is completely ridiculous. The entire rest of the world looks to the UK, the US and Australia to set the standard. Once you restrict the internet, no matter your legitimate intentions to "clean it up" you give a green light to China and other totalitarian regimes to interpret what cleaning up of the internet means in their locale. China needs to fix it's internet access policy, not receive tacit encouragement to continue with a policy of censorship. Shame on the people who formulated this horrid plan.

Matt

23 Dec 2008 1:03pm

"...'network degradation' of less than two per cent for one product, less than 30 per cent for three products and in excess of 75 per cent for two products ... however, this laboratory trial did not test ISP-level filtering against a blacklist only�the solution proposed for the Government's mandatory tier of ISP filtering." Unfortunately, the result for blacklist only filtering is unlikely to be a significant improvement on the 2% figure. It is also important to remember that the testing conducted as you've mentioned was under ideal laboratory conditions which do not even begin to come close to real world conditions in which instances the extent to which the degradation would be much higher. This proposal will not only degrade internet performance but it will also increase its cost. This is due to the fact that if it is implemented, ISPs of any significance will need to invest in some very expensive hardware to make it operate correctly. That same hardware will increase dramatically their power consumption and the cost will be passed on to consumers. As a direct result, a product of lower performance will be sold at a more expensive price. If the NBN manages to come to fruition, this problem will only be exacerbated. As the total potential bandwidth increases, so too does the load on the back-end technology, the weakest and slowest point in which will be the filter. If the average speed across the country (factoring in some upgrades from dialup, some from low speed ADSL1, etc) increases by even as little as 50% and uptake of the average speed increases by as little as 20% (if a true 98% of the population gets access to 12Mbps, those percentages would be significantly higher than that, but with those very conservative numbers alone) that will represent an increase in server load of approximately 80%. The notion that the filter might even hope to keep up with the load which would already be placed on it, let alone that level of increase or its higher real world value is entirely laughable. Also, it is important to remember that just because some individuals can opt out of the more agressive tier, that doesn't mean that it will cease to effect their connection. The same routers they are going through will still be routing the fully filtered traffic. As such, every person in the country, whether electing to go through the voluntary level of filtering or only the mandatory WILL be effected by the (even) slower speeds caused by the voluntary level. The mandatory level alone might just hope to acheive a slow-down of only 3 or 4% in real world conditions. If the voluntary level defaults to "on" and one must specifically request it to be disabled, most will through apathy (and not acceptance of its premise) leave it switched on. The result will be that the far higher levels of degradation will be present across the board. On a non-technical note, applying the voluntary level of this filter will only give parents the false sense of safety for their children. It will cause parents who are already too relaxed about their childrens access to the internet to become further relaxed. It is akin to telling the average person that their child is perfectly safe sticking their hands in a bee hive because you've put a nappy on each and every one of them. Never mind the half of them that you missed and the remainder who figured out how to sting through the nappies. (yes, that analogy is terrible, but it's about as poorly thought out this filter).

Cliffe

23 Dec 2008 1:09pm

“Technology is improving all the time. 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.” - Stephen Conroy As a musician who shares my music using bittorrent and other peer-to-peer protocols I hope that the filter does not filter out legitimate uses of what is a legal protocol! As a computer security researcher I will point out that as bittorrent traffic can be encrypted there is no way to actually tell if the traffic is legal or not. That does not justify denying use of the technology altogether. The same goes for web traffic – using encryption (and/or proxies) defeats any filtering in place. There are always ways to circumvent content filters. As you know*. This scheme is a waste of money, infringes on my ability to act legally, and is completely useless at stopping any informed user from accessing whatever content they want. * http://www.theage.com.au/national/internet-censor-scheme-flawed-20081222-73ne.html?page=1

IRead YourEmail

23 Dec 2008 1:10pm

I'm more concerned that the Australian government thinks blocking Child Porn is a valid action. If so much child porn is being found, why aren't you focusing on working with other governments to find the producers of the CP? This should be a much much higher priority than just simply blocking it. Why spend so much money on something that will be nothing but an inconvenience to regular users, while forcing the actual people you are "trying to stop" to use ever more complex methods to avoid detection. With a solution that will be trivially simple to circumvent I question the validity of the technology providers - how have they been chosen, what was the tender process? I've "done a lot of internet" (been online since about 1995) and I have NEVER seen child porn, I know that doesn't mean it's not there, but it's one of those things that doesn't just come up. Seriously these people DO NOT want to be found by accident - that leads to arrests (I can hope). Good luck blocking Bit Torrent traffic. A simple click of a button enables encryption on any decent BT client, which will make it all but impossible to detect what I'm sending/receiving. Any technology (company) claiming they can detect it are lying or deluded. Not to mention even if they can detect it now, give it a month and someone will release a new version of the BT client to get around your filtering process - In much the same way that DRM does NOTHING to stop copying of DVDs and computer games. To me this shows that the Labor government doesn't understand the internet or the Australian public.

Alexvalentine

23 Dec 2008 1:11pm

Australia's Internet polices make it look like a backwards country to the rest of the world.

Joshua Stewart

23 Dec 2008 1:12pm

No clean feed. This is a waste of my taxpayer money that would be better spent on law enforcement or education. The clean feed will _not_ protect children from actual real dangers on the internet such as cyber bullying or grooming/predatory behaviour occurring in areas such as a IRC, myspace or msn. I am growing tired of this nanny state attitude. Parents should be empowered with education and choice, without lumbering the rest of us with the draconian filter. If you think that there is resistance to this plan now, imagine how quickly you will be tossed out of power when Joe Blogs who isn't currently following the news of this plan, suddenly cant access his favourite blog because the filter incorrectly blocked it (maybe the blog referenced a youtube video of some Russians swinging there baby around?). That is the day that Joe becomes a -1 vote for Labor.

sean Fabar

23 Dec 2008 1:13pm

Dear Communications Minister, Senator Conroy, although i doubt you yourself will respond to this (if it's even posted at all) my question's are of course like many other's 1 this second blacklist not the ACMA's blacklist the other one listed only as containing "unwanted content" What is this "unwanted content"? will the sites on this list be broadcast? who decides whats on this list? 2 we are to trust the those who maintain this list with protecting us from this "unwanted content" what controls are in place to ensure that those people get it right? will there be an indepented third party to review this group's decision's? is there going to be a right of appeal to anyone who's website's are blocked by accident?

Grant Petty

23 Dec 2008 12:33pm

I have always voted labor, however if this filter goes ahead it will severely damage our business that is already struggling under very low internet speeds in Australia, and this will only make it worse. I will not be voting labor again as a result.

4Filters

23 Dec 2008 12:46pm

I congratulate you on setting up this blog as the public needs to be able to air their views, hopefully in a constructive manner. I am keen to see filters in place at ISP level that block web sites containing child sexual abuse images, just like what is happening in New Zealand, the UK, Canada, Scandinavia and Switzerland and no, it does not slow the Internet down in these countries. These filters cover the majority of ISPs in all of these countries, and they take part on a voluntary basis. Blocking these types of web site is helping in the fight against the abhorrent practice of sexually abusing children for the purpose of placing their images on the Internet. I am also keen to see ISP filters being made available to those in Australia who wish to make the Internet safe for their families, schools and workplaces. ISP filtering is by far the most effective and cost-effective method of filtering. It is already in place with some ISPs in Australia as well as in most schools usually through their state education networks and in many corporate networks. Again, these filters, if implemented properly, do not slow down the Internet. Filters are only part of the solution for Internet safety, however, and education pays a key part as well. There are those who argue that filters will be able to be bypassed and don't filter everything (such as P2P and IM). This may be so, but if a filter covers 95% of the traffic, then it is still going to be effective in what it is designed for. There will always be a small percentage of people who will bypass them. Just because seatbelts in cars don't save everyone in a crash is not a good reason not to wear them. I congratulate the ISPs who have the wisdom to be involved in your filtering trials, and look forward to the results of these that will address the concerns and debunk some of the fear that is being promoted by so-called "Internet Experts".

ddssg

23 Dec 2008 12:47pm

I can't take fault with the goal of getting child porn off the internet, but I find the idea of trying to filter it ludicrous for several reasons. The first is historical, namely prohibition in the United States. As just about everybody knows, it was an abysmal failure. This is because as long as someone wants something strongly enough, they will get it. If someone wants child pornography (or any kind of pornography, for that matter), they will obtain it. This is especially true if you only ban sites which people have complained about. Let's take a hypothetical situation in which you implement a complaint-based ISP filter against pictures of teddy bears, while I and some of my friends want to see pictures of teddy bears. If we set up a private, password-protected site with hundreds of pictures of teddy bears, not only will your filter be completely ineffective (since nobody who would complain would even know it existed), you would hide the problem from yourselves, and be unable to combat it. You pointed out in your blog that a very small percentage of families used filtering software the government made available, and that the government had determined the problem was that people didn't have the requisite technical knowledge. Again, I point out that if someone wants something, they will figure out how to get it. Regardless of that, the solution to poor technical knowledge isn't an ISP filter which affects every single user of the internet negatively by lowering speeds significantly. The answer is easier software, which I believe would be mind-numbingly easy to implement. There are many different operating systems, but it is easy to have software distinguish between them and install the appropriate files, so I will use Windows as an example in another hypothetical situation. A parent receives a filtering CD from the government and inserts it into her PC. The CD determines that the computer is running Windows XP, and installs a very simple program which checks the government blacklist once every three days, then modifies the windows hosts file to redirect traffic from blacklisted sites to a notification page. There is no dynamic filtering, which is unacceptably error-prone, no significant reduction in the speed of service, and no mandatory filtering which I believe would only mask the problem. This also solves the problem with dynamic filtering of program complexity, since it is a simple black-list, just like the proposed mandatory filter. And if someone does not have the technical knowledge to insert a CD into their CD drive and hit "Run", they will most likely be unable to use the internet anyways, and thus will not be viewing inappropriate content. I have one final problem with the proposed filtering idea, and many other people seem to have the same problem. I don't like the unpublished list. I understand the argument that posting the list would allow people in other countries to more easily find the material you object to, but I don't believe it's a very solid argument. People who try to access such sites will surely post lists of which sites they cannot reach anyways, so the list will be at least comparably public either way. And referring back to the uneven distribution of technical skills, those people who wish to view a site which has been accidentally/improperly blocked (it is inevitable) but who do not possess much in they way of technical skills may not know what is going on, and will likely not be able to protest the block.

Marcos Caceres

23 Dec 2008 12:48pm

Seriously, this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. How the hell does this protect children? Are you going to block google images search too? If kids are looking at porn and other inappropriate material, then the parents should deal with it. Not the state. The tools won't save the children, because if they want to look at porn or other inappropriate material. And how the hell are you people to decide what is inappropriate? This is thinly disguised censorship. You are turning Australia in a laughing stalk and a backwards religious state (yes, just like Iran!).

Malrec

23 Dec 2008 12:48pm

Good luck building your police state Australians.

It's to late to undo it once it's done so I hope you guys know what your doing.

whytwolf

23 Dec 2008 12:50pm

The statement about parents being too technologically illiterate to run filtering software is RUBBISH. Have you ever looked at K9 filtering software. This is FREE software used by huge corporations to filter what happens on their networks. We have been using this software for over 2 years now. This software is designed SPECIFICALLY to block all adult and porn site but it also blocks anything else you would have it to block. There are also time restrictions available to parents and it is EASY to use. By default it is set on almost the highest setting so parents wouldn't need to fiddle with it. If the senator is interested in finding out about he may go to this website i suggest if they want to force everyone to use a filter that THIS be the filter they use. For one its FREE it wouldn't cost the government a cent to use. You can also use it to block peer-to-peer as this is one of the other worries the government has. I challenge the Senator to have a look at this software and rethink this total waste of money.

jerrysinful

23 Dec 2008 12:51pm

Well, I guess I can scratch Australia off of my list of places to visit.

The present is well out of hand

23 Dec 2008 12:53pm

The filter is not limited to pornography. Interestingly the scope should include the following from the national classification code:

Publications and Films that promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence.

Now from the criminal code:

80.2 Sedition Urging the overthrow of the Constitution or Government (1) A person commits an offence if the person urges another person to overthrow by force or violence: (a) the Constitution; or (b) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or (c) the lawful authority of the Government of the Commonwealth.

It appears that the filter will be sanctioned to censor a website containing, for example: the opinion that Australian soldiers involved in the invasion of Iraq are legitimate targets for an Iraqi resistance organisation involved in armed hostilities.

Irrespective of the blacklist's criteria, the only healthy reaction for an individual to choose would be to circumvent this filter. I will do so using the same actions taken by criminalised Chinese and Iranian 'politicals'.

LB

23 Dec 2008 12:53pm

I'm trying to be as civil as I -can- be... but just stop and think about your actions for a second. Stop being a global attention whore and realise that filtering content will slow our progress as a nation and makes us look completely and utterly foolish to overseas Net geeks. Also, using the term "blogosphere" is having a negative impact from what you wanted. It's a completely outdated term that should never have existed in the first place. Only those who are out of touch would use it in this day and age.

tothouch

23 Dec 2008 12:55pm

Mr Conroy,

The only legitimate purpose government has is the safeguarding of individual rights. Preventing people from making decisions about what they see online is fundamentally inconsistent with that. The fact that the filter won't work and that it will slow down internet access is completely irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. Your argument about freedom of speech not being at issue here because 'Australian society has always accepted that there is some material which is not acceptable' is horribly flawed. We are a society of individuals and not some sort of body that can make collective decisions at the expense of the people who comprise it ��'individual rights are not subject to a public vote'.

I do not wish to be prevented from viewing content online because it might 'harm' children or any other person. Their well-being is not my concern, it is the concern of their parents or of the individual. Irresponsible parenting and poor personal choice are not valid reasons to prevent me from viewing content that I decide is appropriate for me. This is quite plainly a freedom of speech issue that you must address. However, the fact that you subscribe to a collectivist view of the world where individual rights mean nothing if an action which denies them 'benefits' the group will mean that you can quite easily avoid the core of my argument. This does not bother me so long as you acknowledge that this is what you are doing and therefore that you do not value the right of man to live freely without his rights being infringed by others.

4Filters

23 Dec 2008 12:55pm

I would also like to congratulate you on kicking Telstra out of the NBN bid process. I get very angry when dominant telcos think that they can make their own rules and expect governments to bow down to them. The next time that you talk to Telstra, you may wish to ask them why they are unable to be involved in the ISP filtering pilot in Australia when their New Zealand subsiduary is very much involved in an Internet filtering trial covering their whole network - see http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/75A0F2C47426F715CC25750B000FCFBD

CorporateGoth

23 Dec 2008 12:58pm

The problem with pretty much all filtering systems is they are automatic. Even spam filtering is not perfect, which is why most spam systems don't just delete mail, but put it into a quarantine zone so users may inspect it and determine if a false positive has been flagged and still receive their legitimate email.

Similarly a non-avoidable filtering system on a national level would be disastrous. First, you will easily get false positives - many web hosting services host multiple sites on a single machine, and while ONE of those sites may be objectionable or illegal under Australian law (but not in the country it is hosted in), blocking that machine or service will wipe out access to all the legitimate sites on that server.

Similarly, more fine-grained controls (blocking by URL or even page) are both easy to circumvent, a maintenance nightmare (to keep the list accurate) and require deeper and more complicated inspection of traffic, which will slow down the network on a national level.

Additionally, blocking cannot be done on encrypted page requests at a URL level, meaning the content will still get through. Even if the censors DID know of a URL that uses HTTPS (secure HTTP, encrypted), they could not block it using packet inspection, and if they blocked the server it resides on entirely, then you come back to my first point of using a chain saw when you need a nail file.

Then you come to the issue of non-HTTP (web) traffic. Is the government now going to be snooping on our emails and blocking them based on keywords? Talk about big brother, and what about legitimate discussion that matches those keywords - say, a child researching breast cancer or information about abortion when the child filter is on.

Not to mention the proposal to filter peer-to-peer traffic like bit torrent. Apart from the technical infeasibility of this due to it being encrypted and, as the name states, peer to peer (ie. you can't just block a server address), many peer to peer networks are used for legitimate purposes. For example the World of Warcraft uses bit torrent to distribute it's patches, and several other software vendors also use Peer to Peer networks to mitigate their own bandwidth costs for software distribution.

In the end this entire filtering proposal will only achieve the following aims:

1. No content that people actually want to see will be blocked, children (which after all, this is justified by the 'think of the children' bollocks) are tech savvy enough these days to know how to get around such trivial blocking. Heck, just using a simple web anonymizer like TOR (which are made to protect freedom of speech in oppressive countries that track and block internet access) will bypass these filters.

2. People who DO attempt to access illegal content will continue to do so, but in a much harder to track way. They'll simply start using encryption and encrypted firewall bypass services. Meaning finding and prosecuting people like pedophiles will become even HARDER because even if you GET a warrant to monitor their internet connection, no evidence will be gathered.

3. The internet in general will become slower. Australians already pay through the nose for some of the worst internet access in the first world. Part of this is the fact we are reliant on either satellite communications or undersea cables, which are expensive to lay and maintain. But beyond this, the limited amount of competition at the backbone level has allowed telecommunications companies to establish an unofficial cartel that keeps the prices inflated. Adding poor, inaccurate filtering and further slowing down speeds just ads insult to what already is a gaping wound.

4. It will open up the government to all kinds of lawsuits. I know I would sue the government myself if a site I wanted was not accessible because it was blocked by the national filter, but was merely collateral damage of a poor filtering system that was not optional and government endorsed.

And 5. More than likely, any government that actually implements this full scale in a mandatory way - with full knowledge of the studies out beforehand that show it as ineffective and having a negative effect on internet speeds will most likely not stay in power. It'll be the WorkChoices of this government - and don't think for a moment that it won't get media play - the media LOVES airing stories about conspiracies and cover ups, especially when they show the government is abusing the average Joe.

I believe this has just become another political thing. A point so Kevin can say "I helped protect children from smut online" next election. But even that will backfire when the opposition points out he also sent Australian internet back to the stone age, hindered law enforcement, became one of the few countries to have nationally endorsed internet filtering (which doesn't put us in very good company) and in the end, didn't protect children from squat.

Mitchell

23 Dec 2008 12:59pm

Also I'd like to say that there is P2P that is LEAGAL - so how can you justify blocking it? Your government promised upgrades to our already horrible internet and all you're doing is making it worse, I have no faith in you or our government and I don't believe for a second that you care less what people, REAL people, you know the ones you're meant to be governing have to say about this, you'll do it anyway and give some typical government response, I just hope the other party can pull themselves together for next election because you've lost my vote, this is ridiculous.

Menegus87

23 Dec 2008 12:59pm

You yourself have admitted that there shall be more content to be filtered under the prextext (it is only a pretext, not a genuine reason) of "saving the children". There is a whole lot of "scary" information floating around on the internet, including "our government wasting tax-payer money on inefficient programs", would that be "inappropriate for the children too?". NONE of us condone child pornography, but if you were that genuine in your mission to eradicate this filth, the police would be receiving this funding in tracking down the perpetrators, as has been executed in several past stings, you wouldn't bother with the slow, inefficient draconian regime you are trying to force upon us, that an adolescent with any knowledge of computers would be able to bypass. Time to save face & retract this ridiculous censorship notion now, while you still can Mr. Conroy, no fundamentalist Christian group will save you next election, NO-ONE in this free country will stand for censorship!!

newt

23 Dec 2008 1:00pm

The Minister keeps claiming that his censorship policy isn't an attack on free speech, as if repeated utterances is all that it takes to make it true.

If the Minister sincerely believes what he's saying, then that's one more piece of evidence to show how woefully out of his depth he is in the Internet world.

Mr. Conroy keeps talking about "evidence based policy." Great. Lets see it then: Where's the evidence that Australia _isn't_ a "confident and civil society" online? Where are the businesses who are too scared to dip their toes into the electronic world? Where are the citizens who don't use the internet for fear of some imaginary bogeyman? How, exactly, does the status quo provide support for the ALP's contention that we need sweeping regulatory changes to produce confidence and civility?

The Government is just plain wrong. That's all there is to it: Wrong. It may not like the way that we keep drawing attention to its wrongness, but what else does it expect? Are we supposed to just sit back and say, "Well, we think you're wrong but here are some good points in what you're saying..." No. Mr. Conroy and Mr. Rudd are going wholly and completely down the wrong track here.

altonius

23 Dec 2008 1:02pm

Please note that p2p or BitTorrents also have legitimate uses. This week alone I have used BitTorrent to download 3 Linux Distributions, which totalled in excess of 8Gb.

The use of p2p in this instance allows for the organisation distributing content to minimise their costs (of required internet connectivity) and allows for the community to assist in the delivering of content.

I do acknowledge that p2p can be used for illegal purposes, but so too can a video camera, dvd burner, mp3 player, mobile phones and the list goes on, merely because it can be used for illegal purposes doesn't mean the rest of us should be limited in our options.

I look forward to the test results being publicly examined and debated.

George

23 Dec 2008 1:02pm

Filtering is for fascist countries.

squaglar

23 Dec 2008 1:03pm

This is an absolutely absurd idea. It is in no way the role of any government to censor or restrict access to public data no matter the justification. This is inherently denying rights to freedom of the press. For shame Conroy.

Jim

23 Dec 2008 1:04pm

You're setting yourself up for miserable and humiliating failure to try and filter P2P. The protocols change constantly to avoid just this sort of contingency. It will be encrypted and/or with changing port numbers and thus invisible to any filters. But if you want to give yourself a warm and fuzzy feeling that you did something, without actually doing something, and lose the next election into the bargain, go ahead. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

disgusted

23 Dec 2008 1:06pm

When the inevitable sites spring up with software offerings enabling us to circumvent these communistic interference in our lives, will these sites be added to the banned site list as well?

Tim

23 Dec 2008 1:07pm

I notice one of the (sets of) comments you haven't responded to is those many people who asked that you conduct the debate with respect, specifically, that you refrain from equating opposition to filtering with somehow being in favour of child pornography. In that spirit, would now consider retracting and perhaps apologising for your intemperate comments when this debate started? Specifically, back in early January you said: �If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.� I think that until you specifically address such comments and accept the error of this approach to debate, people will continue to doubt your sincerity and willingness to engage in rationale debate. Over to you.

farang

23 Dec 2008 1:09pm

Your comment that it is similar to film censoring is wrong. Films are classified so that people who wont to watch porn can buy a X rated DVD.

Your proposal is to ban everybody from watching what you think is naughty on the web without exception!

Mike

23 Dec 2008 1:09pm

This is nothing more than an attempt to give more money to an industry than they ever deserved what they are currently given. Your agenda is identical to that is being pushed by American senators who have clearly accepted money to work against their citizens interests

Max Weaver

23 Dec 2008 1:10pm

I don't have any children. Can I opt out?

Why is Australia so vulnerable? Surely Americans are in need of such a filter too, and Europe, are they somehow safer than us here down under?

"Think of the children" is the repeated excuse meant to validate the proposed filter. Why just Australian children?

Put the money into closing down the child porn sites. You obviously know of such sites to create a list, so why not work with Interpol to close these illegal sites down and jail the people hosting them.

Stop it at the source.

Distributing lists of child porn sites around to hundreds of Internt Service Providers (ISPs) in Australia, what a stupid idea. All it takes is for a single employee of just one of these ISPs to upload the list to the web and now the Australian Government is promoting Child Porn.

bill stewart

23 Dec 2008 1:14pm

will the filter be a weapon of hollywood? i.e. will it filter bittorrent for copies of blockbuster movies that are "violating" copyright?"

will it be political? i.e. will it filter out crazy white supremacists from idaho?

will it be involved in ignorant and illegal prosecutions like Bill Henson had to endure?

the fact that there still is a censorship board here is WRONG! there is no censorship board in the usa. example-- Bas Moi, french movie, closed down by the cops in sydney-- completely banned in the country in 2001-- saw it in a video store in usa ( in the over 18 section)

the australian government cannot handle the power net filtering enables

Lee

24 Dec 2008 10:43am

This government is getting out of control. This is a complete violation of privacy, a waste of money and another death knell for any high tech investment in Australia. Conroy needs to go - labor is going to be a one hit wonder with this.

Claude

23 Dec 2008 1:18pm

Minister Conroy, you have responded to the many concerns about the secrecy of the blacklist by stating that the list would act as a distribution point for the banned material and therefore it is not in the public interest.

This is a narrow analysis. A wider analysis shows these flaws:

1. Publishing the list of banned movies/books provides a similar distribution point for banned material. Knowing the title of a banned movie/book informs of its existence and will assist greatly in making an illegal import from another jurisdiction. Why should the Internet be treated different?

2. It is also not in the public interest to have a list of banned material secret. I assert that our children's future is put more at risk by a government with the tools to control information than by the publishing of the banned list.

3. The filter you propose will stop casual access to the material on the list and therefore the list is not a threat. People determined to access what is on the list will do so anyway - an equivalent list & the technical means to access what is listed will soon exist in the underworld anyway.

Your response to this issue also says that the government will not block political information. How can I confirm this when the list is secret?

A free society will only remain free when it does not trust its government. Your request that I trust your government is denied.

a voter

23 Dec 2008 1:18pm

This "technology" is stupid to the extreme. The steps your party is taking just to appease a minority and get an extra vote in the senate will cost you dearly in the end. Should this filtering come in to being, I, for one, will never ever vote for your party again, no matter what.

John

23 Dec 2008 1:19pm

I would imagine that this scheme could be EASILY overcome. Surley, people who want to pass ANY of the illegal content can simply sign up to an Internet Service Provider outside Australia using SATELLITE ISP's

Warwick

23 Dec 2008 1:20pm

Here are a few points for you: * I am not interested in your filter * I don't want to be limited from what I can see or do online * I am not interested in offensive material * I don't need the government to tell me what is not good for me - I have my own morals and values thanks * Parents can supervise their kids, we don't need the government to do it * I don't believe that the community gets a non-financial return on the government's investment!

No Filter for me thanks

Warwick Merry The Get More Guy www.warwickmerry.com

Steven Holloway - Programmer & IT Consultant

23 Dec 2008 1:23pm

$125.8 Million of public money will be completely wasted on this unworkable plan implementing technology not capable of achieving it's goal.

A plan that will do nothing more than slow down our already slow connection to the rest of the world significantly. A plan that will do very little to actually block the "bad content" and plenty to block the good content.

Anyone with any IT savvy will know that those who want to can hide behind Virtual Private Networks, or Secure Shell Service Tunnels, such technologies are empployed by businesses and home users across Australia for secure data communications.

Deep packet filtering becomes useless because each packet is encrypted.

I suggest Minister Conroy take some basic course in computer networking security before spending hard earned Australian tax payers money on 125.8 millon dollar punt.

It is sad to see how ill-informed our elected officials are about technology.

TommyJ

23 Dec 2008 1:26pm

Please don't mistake complacency in voters as support. While I have spoken to a lot of my peers and received a lot of negative feedback about this plan, I am yet to meet a single person that supports and thinks it is a great idea. In fact, most people are quite outraged when informed of the current plan you wish to implement.

I would honestly suggest that you focus your energies on ideas that will be both warmly greeted when announced on an unsuspecting voter population and also ones that will provide real tangible benefits.

mad as hell

23 Dec 2008 1:26pm

Mr Conroy,

please understand the anger in the community about this issue, there is no mandate what so ever for this policy. I can not believe this is the Rudd gov't doing such a thing, very Howard esk. The back lash at the polls could be huge for the gov't and extremely career limiting for yourself.

Ben B

23 Dec 2008 1:28pm

Are you going to block things famous for harbouring child porn such as freenet? Oh wait... its designed to beat such attacks. How about you filter all encrypted traffic?

Oh wait that will launch Australia back into the stone age and destry any chance we have of moving forward on the internet.

So you are going to block bittorrent? What about the legitimate uses of it? If I can prove your blocking it has hurt my legitimate business can I get compensation?

Conroy, this is a stupid BAD decision and we will see you crash and burn for this.

Ivan

23 Dec 2008 1:29pm

We attack China for its civil liberty infringements, one of which is their vice-like grip on Internet content, and seek to replicate it ourselves???

Which part of being a member of a free and democratic society calls for a small group of overseers to be able to decide what content is fit for the population to consume? I would rather each person take personal responsibility for the content they access (and yes, that means parents being responsible for overseeing what their kids are watching - a novel concept!).

Given that it's almost impossible to get a clear black/white definition of good and bad content, much of what you people propose to do would be in you making a decision for us all in the grey area between.

Not sure I elected you for that purpose. But definitely sure I would NOT elect you back next time. Your move, hotshot.

luke

23 Dec 2008 1:40pm

Why arent we censoring Newspapers and Magazines, We need to be able to Arrest people who breach the Filtering once its up and running, We can call these people the Internet Police, Lets start censoring more stuff Any idea on what else we can censor

Deeply Concerned

23 Dec 2008 1:46pm

Senator,

I find it completely ironic you are assuring us of the transparency of the process, and moderating the comments on this blog.

This makes it next to impossible to trust your process, let alone your motivations.

Let's spend public money on education and equipping the next generation with knowledge and choice, not limiting their freedoms and potentially damaging their macroeconomic competitiveness.

While you're at it, shouldn't we consider putting more money into the cause of the problem, rather than the symptoms?

Where is your plan for funding law enforcement, rehabilitation, victim support, and psychological support services for those at risk of offending?

Don't you realise you're only solving one end of the equation, damaging our civil rights in the process, and wasting public money on things that could be solved outside of technology?

Given your ministerial portfolio, it's easy to see how "to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".

Try a different approach. We don't want or need your "assistance" in protecting our children from adult content. Can't we balance the innocence of children with the liberties of adults in a more even-handed way?

What exactly was wrong with NetAlert? To me, this was a very positive approach, as it puts the control and responsibility where it should be - with the parents.

If you absolutely MUST spend money on software, please do so in a way that retains an individual's right to choose.

Here's a framework to consider:

1. Provide parents with free software (a-la NetAlert), and promote it consistently and broadly

2. Provide parents with regular education options (hands-on workshops at schools, TV segments, and online videos, for example)

3. Integrate education about unacceptable online content into our schools' system (a-la "Stranger Danger")

4. Provide additional support services for victims and those affected by child exploitation

5. Provide a mechanism for reporting material and offenders that isn't tied strictly to ACMA

6. Provide a sociological framework and set of avenues for those at risk of offending

7. Radically increase the penalties for those who continue to offend despite the many avenues for prevention and support

8. Clearly delineate between "child exploitation material" and "non violent erotica" in both a legislative and sociological sense

9. Legalise the regulated distribution of non-violent erotica outside of the ACT at state level

10. Radically increase the penalties for willingly, knowingly, and deliberately supplying such material to a minor - regardless of the source (i.e. include parents in this equation)

Overall, we need to balance: a. The innocence of children with b. The liberties of discerning adults

I firmly believe we can do this WITHOUT an internet filter.

bill stewart

23 Dec 2008 1:47pm

oops, it was baise moi (2000) the french movie banned in australia this is recent history, not the 1950's we are talking about

ITworker

23 Dec 2008 1:49pm

Dear Minister Conroy,

I have great concerns about your 'clean feed' proposal and most of those have been expressed by many others here and elsewhere. But I am wondering about another issue, too. You are a politician, elected to represent us, the voters. Could you please tell the public who you are representing in this particular case? Who wants a censored internet? Is it the religious right, is it the working families? I talk to a lot of people as part of my work and most are (until I tell them) blissfully unaware of your proposal. Once they have been told however I have yet to hear from someone that they agree with the government (yours are any other) having total control over what we (the voters) can read/see/access on the internet. Once again - who gives you this particular mandate? And please don't mention child pornography, this is not what it is about.

Dez

23 Dec 2008 1:51pm

to quote you Minister Conroy you have typed in to your pc "To give Australian households the necessary confidence, the Government is working to promote an online civil society through its $125.8 million Cyber-Safety Plan"

well rather then waste the money on this garbage, why not spend it on giving all Aussies decent high speed internet access like you lot promised *BEFORE* the election.

oops!! your politicians. you lot could not tell the truth even if your life depended on it

Stephen

23 Dec 2008 1:55pm

mibus

23 Dec 2008 1:58pm

If you're really open for discussion, why did you not respond to my email, or respond to the letter my MP has sent you?

Why have your answers in parliament been so laughably absent of truth, and merely tried to "spin a line" when asked a simple and direct question?

You've also managed to ignore several pieces of criticism against your proposal:

* What about the inevitable blacklist leak?

* What about "unwanted" material - define "unwanted"! Who decides what is "unwanted"?

* What about SSL and VPNs? Bypassing this filtering technology is already simple, and will only get easier.

* What about faster connections? I have 100mbit to myself where I am right now.

* What about latency. URL-only filters will still impact latency, and Australia has enough latency trouble as it is!

* Why did your live trial become not about using real people's connections?

You've also been fed a line about P2P filtering - it can't be done for almost all P2P, for the same reason you can't do it for VPNs.

Maximus

23 Dec 2008 2:00pm

So the former East German stasi is alive and kicking, they are going to filter it all and there is nothing we can do to stop it (except vote them out at the next election). Attention Conroy, I don't need a nanny to determine what I can access or not access on the net. This is just another way of making the majority pay for those parents that are either too lazy or incompetent to monitor what their children get up to on the computers because they let them have them in their bloody bedrooms.

Here's an idea, make the parents responsible for their kids actions and increase penalties to the leeches that prey on them and lock them up for long terms in gaol instead of giving them a slap on the wrist. I'm telling you now it won't stop till the internet in Australia has been brought down to it's knees.

I'm a Labor voter and have been all my voting life but my objection to being forced to suffer because of lazy incompetent parents will make me vote against Hitlerites at the next federal election.

texinick

23 Dec 2008 2:00pm

@Matthew "What you are doing makes no sense."

Exactly. Combined with the responses from Sen. Conroy, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work out there is more to this than simply 'protecting our children' from Child Pornography and predators. If that was his sole agenda, he wouldn't be implementing this filter in this manner.

DC

23 Dec 2008 2:02pm

Senator Conroy,

Thank you for taking on some of the criticisms of your filtering plan. Below is a section of your response as to why PC based filtering does not work.

"However, despite an $84.8 million government program and $15.5 million in advertising, only about two per cent of households with dependent children are using a filter. Unfortunately, many parents do not have the technical skills or knowledge to install and manage PC-level filters."

Why have you assumed that a poor response to the PC filtering plan means that parents don't understand?

1. The software has been commercially available for years. How many families were using it before the previous government offered it for free?

2. How many families currently let their children use computers unsupervised, and therefore require a filter?

3. How many parents filter and monitor their children's use of the Internet in other ways?

Even assuming that your conclusion is indeed correct, why is your response to filter the Internet for all Australians, and not to educate parents in safe Internet usage practices? Such a program would be far more effective than a technically deficient filtering system.

The answer is education; not legislation.

sarina

23 Dec 2008 2:05pm

There already is a filter in Windows. The owner parent of a PC can designate him or herself as the administrator of the PC while other users have to log on separately. The owner has his/her own password. The owner then can permanently set the privacy settings from low through to high filtering regarding sexual material. Other users such as children cannot change the setting unless they know the password. That should be enough.

sleepy

23 Dec 2008 2:08pm

If the experts within the Federal Government believe that this will stop individuals transferring illegal files, then they have little or no knowledge of the Internet or its operation. You can't censor the net, you can't filter the net, that was/is the design of the Internet. It is self healing and by using the technology of the Internet you can get around any impositions placed on it by Governments.

Instead of trying to raise my kids for me, let me do it the way I want to raise them and you spend money on catching criminals. If this goes ahead I will be setting up a proxy to bypass any filters you impose and will be seeking compensation for any loss in transfer speed as a result of this ridiculous exercise in futilism.

David

23 Dec 2008 1:20pm

What an appalling, ugly abuse of power. Nobody voted labour to have our freedom of speech and access to information revoked. The claim there are no intentions to block "political" content is a joke! All content can be used to political ends. Euthanasisa discussion, for instance. And filtering peer to peer? The only way to filter P2P is to shape it to ridiculously slow speeds, and THEN do a hash comparison. Does the Senator not realise that there are many legal uses of P2P which would be heavily impacted by this slowing? Or does the Senator simply not care? Ah well - my concern is for the public, not personal. All my home net traffic is on an encrypted 10mb VPN tunnel to the states. Nice job on the useless filter!

Benjamin Carlyle

23 Dec 2008 1:19pm

Today the Web and Bittorrent. Tomorrow email and internet telephony. At what point does the Internet cease to be a medium for broadcast and become a medium for conversation? Parts of the Web are known as the global conversation, and still others are private areas for members to chat. Not all of these conversations are going to be restricted to content that is fit for broadcast. If they were, we would not live in a democracy. How is the government going to avoid privately-communicated "illegal" content from falling afoul of this filter? ... or is the intent of the government to restrict all conversation to that which is fit for broadcast? Despite no extra laws being written applying existing censorship law to the Internet is a radical expansion of it's powers into the lives of everyday people. Given the invasive nature of the Internet in our lives, I think that a mandatory and broad-based filtering activity is premature, and has greater potential for harm than for benefit in the Australian democracy. It will have little or no effect on the activities it attempt to target, and will have potentially serious effects on the ability for special interest groups to discuss problems that affect their daily lives.

dar1971

23 Dec 2008 1:21pm

If this is truly a democratic society then let the people decide if this is truly the way to go. The Government has put forward a proposal - now let the people vote whether to go ahead with it. Is that not democratic? Perhaps we should look towards our online presence and have an online referrendum on the matter. All to often it seems to me that politicians seem to forget that they were elected by us - for the people, by the people - yet parties seem to rule the roost in the seats of Parliament. Let the people have their say and let them vote on this matter which affects ALL Australians and make this country truly democratic!

Salo

23 Dec 2008 1:22pm

It's not just freedom of speech, it's freedom of *information* which is at risk. From your web site: "Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content," Senator Conroy said. You are asking us to trust the Australian Government with a secret black list that will block, in your words "other undesirable content". You feel OK about that because at the moment the Australian Government consists of YOU. Do you suggest we should also have put equal similar trust in Philip Ruddock, John Howard, Alexander Downer? You are asking us to put our trust in or all and every future government until the end of time??? Once a filter is in place what government will ever remove it? I am 61 years old. I've voted Labor since my Dad despaired at Calwell. I cannot believe that the Labor party which has so often embodied the best in intellectual thinking and social freedoms, has come to this. I am so appalled at this policy that I've called on my local Labor member in Bass personally and told her staff - very politely- that that I will do whatever it takes to bury this policy. 'Whatever it takes' means we'll embrace the Greens gladly (who we voted for in the Senate to take the balance of power away from the liberals). I can promise you that we will actively campaign with placards outside Jodie Campbell's Bass office, just as we did against the Vietnam war and the Franklin dam. My wife and I have already contributed financially to the GetUp campaign and will do so again. Read our lips.

Victoria this guy needs to get the boot

23 Dec 2008 1:26pm

I think this is fair reason for Victoria to get their act together and get rid of a guy who clearly doesn't understand the internet, TV, or digital content - something I would have thought is pretty important for the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. What a knob.

billie

23 Dec 2008 1:25pm

1. Why are you trialling the filter over Xmas, when Internet traffic is very low as users and content providers take holidays. Any decent project manager will tell you that you can't extrapolate the performance results of this test up to get timing estimates under normal working conditions. IE you are designing the test using a biased sample. 2. Cynically I have to wonder about the concern to protect the little children who make up a smaller proportion of our population. Less than 18% of the population is under 14 years, in the 1960s 50% of the population was under 14 years. 24% of the population is under 19 years old.

John Rosauer

23 Dec 2008 1:28pm

This is a direct attack on freedom of speech. It proves we need a bill of rights so governments cannot do fundamentally wrong things like this.

Robert

23 Dec 2008 1:44pm

Excellent Initiative. Strong Leadership Is Absolutely Vital In Restoring Compliance with Reasonableness & Decency. THis has been a long time coming. The Internet is an amazing medium yet it contains not only abhorrent and revolting phenemona but material that so debases the human spirit that it sinks to the depths of depravity. Such material has always been prohibited by law in many and most countries so why ought the Internet be able to circumvent such grossly despicable material. I am all for free speech, but this is ensuring the protection of the minds of all in the society in which we all live and interact in. Decisive, swift and strong action is required to limit the proliferation of content that seems to become more and more deprave at the hands of those who only operate with moral turpitude but who was their hands with impunity... Let's bring this in, and NOW!!!!!!!!!

Pablo Gates

23 Dec 2008 1:45pm

"Posted by Jacob / 22 Dec 2008 7:50pm" States quite well what I wish to say. Also, I concur that Filter in = Labor out.

Politik

23 Dec 2008 1:47pm

Since it is now being considered to filter p2p / torrent traffic, how will you determine what is legal and what is not? Even sites like thepiratebay (Most 'notorious' piracy tracker) hosts legal materials and has been used for legitimate purposes. The only way to determine what I was downloading would be to do a full packet inspection and report the details. Doing this will not only slow down ALL internet traffic, it will likely block legitimate files. So if perhaps I am downloading Radiohead's inrainbows (legal release via P2P) - it will be allowed.. but maybe if the very same files are named the same as a new release movie it will be blocked? There are a massive range of ways to bypass any filtering system, from encryption to leasing servers in other countries (Along with a host of other methods), please do not waste the time or energy attempting to block this. All you will achieve is wasting money and slowing internet access down for the vast majority. Those with the intent and the means will find a way.

Ruth Price

23 Dec 2008 1:51pm

Welcome to the New World Order, this was a predicted step toward controlling the people. I will never vote Labor again.

Sean

23 Dec 2008 1:57pm

Never would I have ever imagined this happening in Australia. Policy made from good intentions is not by itself good enough. The only thing this will achieve is for the internet community to bypass all constraints put in place. The internet was born from smart people wanting to share information. These same people will continue to find ways to make this happen, regardless of policy made from ignorant politicians.

Hands Off Conroy!

23 Dec 2008 2:01pm

Australians believe in freedom of speech and expression in absolute terms - no excption! We are not a Communist country. Hands off our freedom Conroy - it's none of your business what anyone accesses on the internet - it's called freedom of choice. If parents can't control what their children access on the internet they shouldn't be parents. Australians will fight you to the polls on this if necessary - just wait if you try to force censorship on us! I dare you!!!

drjule

23 Dec 2008 2:02pm

Who gives you and your government the right to put your set of morals on everone else.Church and state should be seperate and not bought into the political spheres. This is not china and the general population are not children. If parents want filtering so be it. Let them put filtering on their computers.

steve

23 Dec 2008 2:12pm

Protecting children is what this is all about even though it has turned into something bigger. Problem is it is the parent�s job to monitor their children's usage of the internet, not the governments. There is a much easier solution to this, a power on password and or users passwords and levels set for PC users. They can't get on while you not around this way. OR if they want to play games or do homework while you not around (another problem in itself) you can block the internet, or time restrict it until the hours your home via the modem or router and password protect them. Lock the internet out while you�re not around via the modem. Spend some money to educate parents on how to restrict computer usage, instead of imposing regulations on the majority. If this came from some parent groups originally to restrict the net, it is only due to them not spending the time to monitor their own kids usage. Maybe too lazy, let the government to do their job instead. And due to this laziness let everyone else be restricted for it. Anyway Modem restrictions is a better solution for kids, along with high content filtering at homes with kids.

MatTheCat

23 Dec 2008 2:46pm

This proposal, like the ones that preceded it, is a vote loser. It is a vote winner from an very minor but unfortunately very vocal minority. There is a smallish population that are neutral on the idea; and this leaves a large majority that finds it distasteful. They also find being labeled as "supporters" of child pornography distasteful and probably insulting as well. The proof in the pudding will be the next by-election. Then hopefully your other party members will _make_ you see the error of your ways.

DR

23 Dec 2008 2:48pm

This filtering scheme is foolish. It looks like it was cooked up as a sop to Family First in return for support in the Senate. I am totally disgusted in the Labor party. Where are the safe guards? Are we going to have an independent body over seeing what gets filtered? How can we be sure that the government will not use it quiet political dissent? I am just completely stunned at this stupid move.

MatTheCat

23 Dec 2008 2:10pm

The proof in the pudding will be the next by-election. Then hopefully your other party members will _make_ you see the error of your ways.

Jess L

23 Dec 2008 2:14pm

It doesn't matter if *you* don't view this matter as being about freedom of speech and internet censorship, that doesn't change the fact that, ultimately, that *is* what it comes down to. You only cite that you don't want to censor political content. What about other very sensitive, but not illegal, discussion about euthanasia, abortion, gambling etc? What guarantees will you provide to make sure that the filter is not abused? How on earth can we even trust the government on this when every step of this clean test process has been secretive and filled with misdirection? Don't forget that you yourself originally said that an internet filter would *not* be mandatory.

And please do not continue to feed us this absolute rubbish about the filter being for "the children". You're appealing to emotion in the hope that we won't protest and it's appalling.

Senator Conroy, I adamantly refuse to go along with your reasoning on this matter. Your thinking is limited in scope and by refusing to acknowledge the freedom of speech side of this issue you have missed the point completely.

Ex-Labor Supporter

23 Dec 2008 2:15pm

There have been excellent points made in these comments which I have not seen any answers. One question I also have is:

If the filtering will dramatically reduce our internet speeds, does that mean the Government will dramatically subsidise our internet plans and any additional ISP costs?

Adam

23 Dec 2008 2:16pm

30 June 2011, we will not forget! Conroys current term in the senate ends 30 June 2011...regardless of what happens with this filter, we must make it our mission as Australians that anyone with such orwellian and undemocratic views, someone that uses fear and insults to taint the political process, be removed from the political system entirely and forever. Conroy is a senator for Victoria...no matter where you are in Australia, give money to any campaign that will run against him personally in 2011. We must send a strong and clear message that if you try to oppress freedoms in this country than your political career will be over.

Captain Zig Zag

23 Dec 2008 2:19pm

No thank you. This is a terrible idea. I like the internet just the way it is -- and so do my kids. Leave the parents' job to the parents and mind your own business!

Joe Blogs

23 Dec 2008 2:20pm

Are you mentally retarded or just thick? Have you considered the possibility of ENCRYPTION? Which would make your plan an epic fail (just like you). Entire stream encryption is included in most Bittorrent clients and now getting enabled by default in some. So another well planned policy I see... However lets talk about more that just bittorent and P2P clients... what about VPN connections into the US, encrypted proxies and ssh tunnelling? This would just defeat your policy entirely and the only thing you will be accomplishing is slowing down the Australian ISPs even more. Huzzah you genius! Stop trying to obfuscate you plan of mass censorship under thin guise of "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children". Stop this idiocy now and stop wasting the tax payers money in times of recession.

Pravin Lal

23 Dec 2008 2:21pm

Free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last loose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he that would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Nelly

23 Dec 2008 2:33pm

Have Ii git this right?? Sites that someone has found offensive and complained about will be investigated. If the public servant, or whoever is in charge of this ridiculous scheme, also finds the site offensive then that web site will be blacklisted. What safe guards will there be to stop groups like Fred Nile or other fundy christians from constantly "complaining" about all sorts of topics that they find offensive like abortion, porn or anything gay and what safe guards will be in place to make sure these sites are NOT blacklisted?? Who will decide what is offensive? How will we know what sites have been blacklisted and why?? Who will make the final decision?

neilmc

23 Dec 2008 2:25pm

While the government has been reluctant to discuss details, details are being discussed online (in an unfiltered fashion).

An answer to the how question on P2P filtering may have been let out of the bag in a sales pitch a filter vendor are giving to media companies and US law enforcement.

Brilliant Digital are actively promoting CopyRouter in the US at the moment for filtering P2P. Their presentation highlights that they are about to launch a trial at an Australian ISP.

While the Power Point presentation is designed to impress the pants off politicians and media companies, they don't address one extremely important point.

Their solution relys in man in the middle attacks at the ISP to deal with encryption.

The Australian government needs to have a very serious look at the impact of doing this. I would argue that going down that route is actively undermining the digital economy.

How can you possibly expect business to trust a network when you allow or require encryption to be broken at the ISP. This is also a serious question for filters already examined in lab tests that deal with SSL (the tech that secures banking and ecommerce transactions).

Also an issue is Brilliant Digital also relies on a black list of sorts. The content in P2P is massive and very dynamic. Their tech relies on media companies and law enforcement submitting hashs for files they think shouldn't pass. The requested file is then substituted with an image or video containing an announcement.

This is likely to be a list that grows into the millions, not a mere thousand. How can there possibly be any oversight over that?

cruro02

23 Dec 2008 2:30pm

I would be very interested in knowing who is advising senator Conroy, my guess is that they are either IT illiterate, or are backed by the likes of the MS, or RIAA. As an IT professional with specific knowledge in networking it is plain to me that this cleanfeed scheme is barely workable, and easily bypassed by those who wish to bypass it (anyone heard of encryption & VPN's). The only outcome will be a significantly slower more expensive internet for Australia. We are already at 2nd world status as far as our online capabilities, 3rd world here we come...

argy

23 Dec 2008 2:33pm

I absolutely agree with Heath M's comments. This IS argument about freedom of speech and blocking political content and to suggest otherwise is na�ve. I have voted Labour all my life but if this half baked plan goes through I will be doing everything in my power to overthrow this government.

Kieran Hutton

23 Dec 2008 2:34pm

Where is the demand for this filter coming from? Right wing groups? Industry? It appears to be extremely unpopular with the people. This has to be a viable action for your re-election, and I'm sure numbers would suggest more ppl don't want this than do. Listen to us, take polls on this or watch as this Govt is removed next election. Vote Green people.

Sam Purchase

23 Dec 2008 2:39pm

You mentioned that the failure with PC based filtering was to do with parents not having the understanding and technical knowledge to implement themselves. Why not make the ISP level filter optional? When someone signs up to a new internet contract the ISP is required to ask them if they want to be subject to the ISP level filter. That ways its very simple for parents to implement and and users who do not want to be subject to the filter dont have to.

burnsoft

23 Dec 2008 2:47pm

thank you for protecting me from myself!!!!

Daniel

23 Dec 2008 2:54pm

The responsibility lies with the user/parents... not every single person in Australia. Don't turn us into a communist country. I will not be voting for this government again if this comes in.

Dusty

23 Dec 2008 3:03pm

So Mr Conroy didn't like the surrogacy laws in Victoria so he scampered across the border to get what he wanted. Do you suggest the same for Australians, that we circumvent the Labor parties filter because we don't agree with them? This stinks, the focus is on pornography, but adult content is not just images. It is also ideas and images which would not receive an R rating and therefore be blocked.

If you really do have the gumption to go ahead with this then at least have the testicular fortitude to legislate that your black list be reviewed by independent groups who can validate your concerns. I fear the next uber conservative government taking this and adding anything and everything to the black list.

Ditch the major parties people, fill the senate with independents and the Greens. At least dumb ideas wont make it past the lower house...

Dr Phil Bentley

23 Dec 2008 3:05pm

This is a very bad idea. Protecting children is one thing, but "protecting" adults is something else. Criminals will circumvent the restrictions in minutes. The people who will suffer are those who try to have a legitimate and informed debate about a subject that the authorities consider to be taboo. Furthermore, law enforcement will struggle because the taboo subjects will be driven farther underground. I can't believe you are seriously considering such immature and ill-advised measures.

Dennis

23 Dec 2008 3:25pm

Here is a solution, make it optional.

Here is another solution, use an �Internet content PC software filter�. If people can�t install it, then provide them with a solution to installing it.

And another, Get a proper software provider to provide an �Internet content PC software filter�

I know, I know, create a model where the government can control and monitor the content that goes to everyone, via every ISP in Australia and make it compulsory. Who cares if it slows them down �a bit� or they cannot see sites that they might want to get to. It is all for the good of the kids, that�s right, use the diatribe �doing it for the kids�, you will be able to get it past anyone. Of course we don�t care that you might not have kids or don�t want it, because it is not about �the kids� anyway.

brains95

23 Dec 2008 3:43pm

Hi All

There appear to be a number of questions left unanswered here.

1. Currently under the Guidelines for the Classification of Films And Computer Games state that video games are not permitted to exceed MA 15+. What restriction level will be permitted for web sites? Will this restriction level be part of the legislation or something that can be changed later without public debate.

2. The RC (Refused Classification) rating includes content that is "Detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or violence". This would allow the ACMA to block content which instructs people in non-violent civil disobedience. For example if the Brisbane right-to-march protests of the late 70s or the Franklin dam protests of the early 80�s were organised via the web then ACMA would be entitled to block those sites.

3. The RC (Refused Classification) rating also includes �Material promoting or encouraging proscribed drug use�. Could an organisation such as the Country Women�s Association which is lobbying to allow the medical use of marijuana find its web site on the ACMA blacklist?

While the present government may not use the ACMA classifications to control free speech there�s nothing to prevent this proposed legislation from being used to do that in the future.

Mark

23 Dec 2008 3:46pm

I start by noting the minister has failed to respond to the letter I sent him two months ago regarding this issue. Through out this process, the minister has revealed that he doesn't care about what other Australians think. He has received constant criticism about the scheme from the media, from ISPs and from concerned individuals across Australia - yet far from easing the scheme, he has recently announced he wants to extend the scheme to peer-to-peer protocols. The minister fails to grasp the issue is not about freedom of speech or child pornography. Rather it is about a technology that reduces the speed with which Australians access the Internet and a government blacklist that will not be subject to external review. The Howard government's PC-level filters, were good for business, good for parents and good for Australia. This scheme, by contrast, is bad for business and bad for Australia. That the minister chooses to defy the opinion of those in industry and of a large number of Australians makes this a very sad day for Australian politics.

Mark

23 Dec 2008 3:50pm

joejoeinc

23 Dec 2008 3:55pm

I think this filter concept is a bad idea it�s not right to punish the masses because of a few rotten eggs. Unlike others I intend to take responsibility for my own children�s future and not take rely on a silly Internet filter to protect my children.

Internet filter is a not a good idea and should not be moved forward.

margaret

23 Dec 2008 4:04pm

As a person who is not very computer literate this could well mean that I do not get access to stuff I need to look up in the course of doing my volunteer work because I may type in words that the big brother scheme finds offensive. I think the government has gone down a dangerous path and the worst of it is that once something is in place it is much harder to get rid of it, this should not be introduced at all. We are not chinese , we value our freedom of speech and the right to access all methods of information without fear or favour. To say it is going to protect children is a complete furphy there are already methods in place to do that.

Dennis

24 Dec 2008 10:57am

Conroy Censorship

tiffany

23 Dec 2008 4:36pm

come on this is just BS! u cannot possibly filter p2p! if that was possible then surely the record/film companies would have been funding and paying governements all over the world to block p2p! i don't like the idea that kids r being abused, however this does nothing for those kids who are abducted and used.. nor does it do anything for the huge rise in attempted abductions weve seen this year alone in nsw! incredible! Child abductions rates higher in my books than some kiddy accidently stumbing onto a gambling or porn site for craps sake! no kid should be on the net unsupervised and id like to ban every kid from the net.. go back to books for goodness sake! dont pull the its not like china on us.. uve said that this would block illegal stuff like banned films or banned video games.. well lets just get that whole 18+ r rating sorted out.. whats happening here? first video games and now the net.. we are the lucky country where nothing is more than a 15 year old can handle.. screw the adults that work and pay the politicians wages eh?!! this is a kids world?! dont bother with that 99% coverage of aust for broadband coz if this goes ahead then no one will want broadband in the end!!

Peterc

23 Dec 2008 4:38pm

Senator Conroy, I am a frequent and heavy user of the Internet. Speed and access to sites are critical for its function.

Personally, I don't have a problem with inappropriate content. I don't look for it and it does not impact me, except for some spam which I just delete.

Your proposal to provide filters is misinformed and inappropriate.

It will greatly impact everyone who uses the internet, and it will not provide any benefits.

It will not stop those who seek inappropriate content. They will find ways around the filters.

It will slow down the Internet and block legitimate sites.

Your efforts would be better directed towards:

* Anti spam measures - spam still impacts almost everyone and contains most of the inappropriate content that people get.

* Policing to track and apprehend paedophile and other criminal activities on the Internet.

Your filter is a completely inappropriate measure that will impact everyone except those it is supposed to target.

Dennis Nelrum

23 Dec 2008 4:41pm

Stephen Conroy, on the 22nd December you wrote:

"We wouldn't have set up this site (or published negative comments on it) if we were trying to close down discussion."

The next day, you write:

"This is the last post and we will be turning off comments across all topics at 3 pm tomorrow"

Is this not a little convenient?

kavzee

23 Dec 2008 2:51pm

I am curious as to the reasons why this filter is mandatory and not something a user can opt out of by choice as previously was the case. Many people believe it is an attack on their rights on what they can or cannot access and to what extent content on the internet will be filtered, with that being set in stone as well as leaving no option for the general public to unsubscribe to the service it's no wonder there is such widespread distaste for this proposal. If there was any amendment made to this proposal, it should leave the public with a choice to turn off the filter as is the case with any other filtering schemes or programs. I have to say that I completely disagree with the proposal and would rather see the money spent on this filter or something more valuable, such as contributing to the broadband infrastructure or increasing the funding to the relevant law enforcement agencies that fight illegal activites/hosted material.

Daniel

23 Dec 2008 2:53pm

Remember how the goverment promised before the election that anyone would be free to opt out of the filter completely? The government might claim not to be planning to use the filter for any political agenda... but they have been less than honest up until now and their claims certainly don't bind future goverments. And now there's threats of filtering peer to peer, which goes beyond even what China and Saudi Arabia are doing. This thing is getting scarier with every passing week. As to the blacklist being kept "secret" - in order to have an ISP level filter the list will have be released to about 700 ISPs, every one of which will either oppose the policy outright or will have employees who oppose it. The list will be leaked, with consequences the government has conveniently spelled out in this blog. The filter policy will enable child abuse.

SHL

23 Dec 2008 3:17pm

I would like to share a fantastic statement with you from the 2008 Horizon Report Australia New-Zealand Edition. A research paper put together by Australia's leading e-learning practitioners and innovators in tertiary education. This is noted as the No.1 Critical Challenges for the education sector (relating to the Internet/Education Networks): "Protectionism limits access to materials, ideas, and collaborative opportunities. Security concerns too often go too far. Both policies and firewalls are severely limiting access to � and hampering the utility of � the Internet, the use of digital materials, and many benefits of social networking. Adding to this, the mindset of central network planners and administrators is often at odds with the increasingly user-centric nature of Internet applications and tools, limiting innovation." See http://wp.nmc.org/horizon-anz-2008/section/critical-challenges/. I think this says it all. I hear now that you are considering blocking peer-to-peer software. That is truly pure madness. Do you know how many common web applications use peer-to-peer technology? I don't think you do. Probably most of the new social communication and collaboration technologies use peer-to-peer in some way. Skype is one example. Do you know what Skype is? Do you use it? So, what, ban Skype because you someone could use it to send a file to someone? I am sorry Mr Conroy, I am just in shock and so frustrated about your plans. I honestly can't believe it. Expect protests to increase in numbers and intensity. I honestly hope that your department drops this nonsense and focuses on providing faster and more affordable Internet to Australia instead of wasting your time with this.

MeMeAndMe

23 Dec 2008 3:27pm

You people are EVIL!! Can't you what you are doing?? DO NOT CENSOR THE PEOPLE!!!!

Daniel

23 Dec 2008 3:39pm

The goverment promised before the election that anyone would be free to opt out of the filter completely. They have no mandate for a mandatory filter. The government might claim that the filter won't be used for any political agenda... but they have been less than honest up until now and their latest promises certainly don't bind future goverments. And now there's threats of filtering peer to peer, which goes beyond even what China and Saudi Arabia are doing. This thing is getting scarier with every passing week. As to the blacklist being kept "secret" - in order to enable an ISP level filter the list will have be released to about 700 ISPs, every one of whom will either oppose the policy outright or will have employees who oppose it. The list will be leaked, with consequences the government has conveniently spelled out in this blog. The filter policy will enable child abuse.

snowman8003

23 Dec 2008 9:01pm

What is the real reason your doing this Conroy? Is this simply an appeal the the Christrian right? Why is he doing this? Does anybody out there have any ideas?

bloatedfish

23 Dec 2008 8:57pm

I'm all for a fair go and treating this trial as a testing ground and research. When the testing has concluded, I'm assuming the test/survey report will be made readily available to taxpayers for close scrutiny? To suddenly implement and control the beast with only Optus and IInet as a relatively small test sample is very restricted and narrow. The test results will not reflect a good representation of the Australian Internet. If the results show unfavourably how can you implement and control the system? How do you deem the system to be 'successful' and suitable for implementation? Filtering over 80% of unwanted content? Not losing internet speed 10% of the time? Would the money not be better spent attacking the illegal content directly? Can we not setup a worldwide cybercrime unit with funding from worldwide powers including Australia dedicated to actively pursuing and arresting these people? Would this not make it a safer world for all, and not just Australians? Why are we 'leading' the way by pursuing to implement a system that has so many unknowns? The internet is a beast that will move without boundaries, you put up a brick wall, people will find a way to work through/over/under/around it. What is being implemented only 'slows' the process and quite possibly wasting alot of good money that frankly, I'd be happy to see being used for increasing web speeds. Google Japan Internet - over 60mbps on an average user connection! We can't even achieve that in our capital cities without major infrastructure overhauls. Mr Conroy, to me your future vote depends on how you handle interpreting the results and giving a green light to implement the system.

peteqbn

23 Dec 2008 9:05pm

There are a number of things I would like to NOT see on the net, child porn for example. However, I use a very good antivirus application & parental control software which allows me to control what is viewed from my computer. I do NOT believe this is a Government role, it is up to the individual. I sense danger in this in that Government containing for example members of the Religious Right or even radical leftist politicians basically would have a right to censor anything they don't like. This is not protectoin, this is dictatorship. Go away, Steven. Spend taxpayers' money on something which doesn't place MORE power in the hands of politicians.

Froosh

23 Dec 2008 9:07pm

Grab-bag of responses and thoughts: What measures/procedures will there be to address the false positives and legitimate uses of BitTorrent and other P2P? If the mandatory layer is just a blacklist, how can P2P be effectively blocked? If you think obscuring the mechanisms used to block unwanted traffic is your only defense against bypass, please read or consult with renowned security expert Bruce Schneier. Just because the government doesn't view this as a Freedom of Speech issue doesn't meant the constituency doesn't. The Chinese government doesn't seem to think its a freedom of speech issue either... How is it that ACMA has not prohibited the showing and distribution of the Simpsons when it clearly depicts child abuse? Will Simpsons child abuse depictions be blocked during the filter trial? http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2447465.htm Finally, why or why is there so much obfuscation and borderline ethical behaviour from the government on this? Pick one "truth", tell us what it is, and stick to it. Otherwise, all we hear is "another bloody politician who cant tell the truth from his own fantasies".

Daniel

23 Dec 2008 9:12pm

The goverment promised before the election that anyone would be free to opt out of the filter completely. They have no mandate for a mandatory filter. The government might claim that the filter won't be used for any political agenda... but they have been less than honest up until now and their latest promises certainly don't bind future goverments. And now there's threats of filtering peer to peer, which even China and Saudi Arabia have not attempted. As to the blacklist being kept "secret" - in order to enable an ISP level filter the list will have be released to about 700 ISPs, every one of whom will either oppose the policy outright or will have employees who oppose it. The list will be leaked, with consequences the government has conveniently spelled out in this blog entry. The filter policy will enable child abuse.

Chris

23 Dec 2008 9:23pm

Sorry but you are not listening. Even this is 'subject to moderation' / censorship, which is what scares me. The fact the a group of unknown unelected public servants will have the power to veto what the people of Australia have access to over the web is frightening. The Australian government can not take the role of parent for every single child in this country. When my wife and I have children it is OUR responsibility to monitor and control what access our children have to all information from all sources, no one else. This is a question of freedom of speech. If I do not have ready access to all the sides of any story then I am being subjected to a 'filtered' view. It is far too easy for our unknown unseen group to judge anything as being to obscene for a word in it or an allusion to something deemed 'inappropriate', if said web page happened to indicate corruption or the complicity of a representative of the Australian government in an illegal scheme and 'we will just filter that out, because its too obscene for childrens eyes......' Censorship on this scale that is government controlled is simply stupid. I fear for my freedom.

ecommerce is good

23 Dec 2008 9:10pm

Can government provide an anonymous "OPT OUT" system so that internet users who concern about privacy or download speed can bypass the filtering system and attain maximum broadband speed?

Dwayne Charrington

23 Dec 2008 9:11pm

Dear Senator Conroy, I emailed you asking some legitimate and technical questions regarding the filter. I got a letter in the mail that contained Internet Filter propaganda, nothing clearly written by yourself and nothing that addressed my concerns. I have emailed you again, with more questions, and I hope you actually respond this time. I am ashamed to say I voted for Labor in the past election. We were all so blinded by Rudd's promises of high speed Internet, unbeknown to us that there are other things in store. Don't you think it's ironic that Labor wants to introduce fast Internet, but they want to introduce a filter that will slow it down? Smart move... When this filter takes place, I hope you're prepared for resistance. I promise to provide all materials necessary to anyone who wants them to bypass your filter. I will create videos. I will create tutorials. I'll even come to your house and show you how to bypass it (if you live in Brisbane). I urge all you others to follow me and do the same. Its unfortunate for you that many other people like myself in IT will supply knowledge to bypass your filter so easily. Enjoy Conroy, your filter will soon be another worthless Labor investment. Dwayne.

Ken Kadiroglu

23 Dec 2008 9:18pm

I support �end user empowerment� as one of the effective strategy to manage complex content issues, coupled with practical and appropriate harnessed and trusted Cyber Environment, which will assist Australians and our children to manage their Internet, without silencing home-based not for profit content providers and students publishing political, academic, scientific and artistic content.. Properly harvested and appropriately policed network must have enormous capabilities and enablers as a tool for education, entertainment, interaction, global engagements and must provide opportunities for innovative content creation for public, private and commercial communities. I believe Australian government intends to protect the equal rights of everyone (as long as they don�t infringe the rights and freedoms of others) and preserve human rights, where civil liberties are fully respected.

flash

23 Dec 2008 9:17pm

This IS restriction of speech - i dont care what you say about it! Stop mothering people - we are all adults & have the common sense to know what is right & wrong. Parents - get filtering software to stop your children looking at inappropriate material, but dont put that restriction on me! Australia's technology is rapidly going down the toilet.

Fish

23 Dec 2008 9:22pm

I helped vote you guys into Government, and thanks to this repressive idea, I intend to help vote you out of Government. Whenever a Government seeks to censor life to that of a seven year old, adults become outraged. And so they should. Keep your pious sentiments to yourself, and leave responsible parenting to us. The thing about censorship that people really hate is that Governments set themselves up as arbitrators of morality. What makes you an authority? Why can�t some future Government - probably yours - decide that the censorship scheme should be extended? Sorry, but you just aren�t that trustworthy. Drop the idea or it will be a weight around your neck. �Workchoices� suffered under the same sort of ideological dementia. See where that got them�. Hope you've enjoyed your time on that side of the house.

Bobski

23 Dec 2008 9:20pm

This is crazy. I'm an staunch Labor supporter, however, I can't agree with filtering something that people use so personally. People live their *lives* through their internet connection. You would be monitoring all traffic to and from my computer, which is not saving the kiddies, it is impinging on my right to privacy. The laws have already been eroded by the "war on terror" to the point that we saw Haneef tried, drawn, quartered and permanently labelled a terrorist suspect. What will it be like when bumbling government agencies can view data whenever they like? Internet Filtering is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to save the kids, fix our education system so they aren't dunces, start regulating the media and start being the role models they deserve. Don't pander to a minority to secure swing votes from religious zealots. If you want to want to stand apart from the Liberals that ruined this country, it is simple - don't walk in their shoes. Wake up. These are difficult times and I still trust you to get us through, but this sort of move is going to be hugely unpopular with most of the population. They might not realise it now, but they will when their Internet speed drops to a crawl, or they can't get to an incorrectly blacklisted website, or are arrested because the government snooped their Internet connection and didn't like the content of their private emails and have deemed it sedition (Give someone the power to do something, and they will abuse it eventually).

billie

23 Dec 2008 9:35pm

Is the speed at which comments are being moderated and posted an indication of the reduced internet access speeds? Over 2 hours to post 90 comments.

Keong

23 Dec 2008 9:23pm

How will it be possible to conclusively prove that the filtering is working as promised? To test that the filter does actually block the sites mentioned in the ACMA blacklist, we will need to attempt to visit the site. If the filter works as promised, then the visit will be blocked. If the filter has failed, then we will demand a refund on our wasted dollars! We don't just take it on faith that the filter works as promised; we demand that the filtering process be fully audited. It's the same reasoning we apply to the accounts of public companies; the audit reports are all publically available to be perused and the auditor is responsible and accountable for their accuracy. Where is the audit trail for this filter?

Maz

23 Dec 2008 9:30pm

Could you please not waste any more of our money on this? Think about how much data is moved through an ISP and see if there is any hardware that can support filtering in real-time? Use the money teaching people to be better parents instead of trying to help them with delusions of protection.

Geoff

23 Dec 2008 9:31pm

What's more dangerous to children: a) Living in a totalitarian society where everything is "cleaned" at the whim of a party trying to buy the vote of an extreme right wing senator? or b) Very occasional inadvertent exposure to material that may (or may not, where is the evidence?) damage children? I know which society I'd prefer my children to live in.

Papachango

23 Dec 2008 5:59pm

Well - I have to say, I am impressed that you have a blog on this and actually solicit comments from the general public on this issue.

Now - will you listen to the comments? I haven't had time to trawl through them all, but I'm guessing that I would struggle to find a single one that supports your proposed compulsory censorship of the Internet. I won't go through the multiple arguments against it, as they have been well documented by many qualified people.

So what's the purpose of this blog? You have made some attempts to counter some of the key arguments, however I don't find a single argument convincing at all.

But that shouldn't matter. Senator Conroy - the people of Australia are clearly telling you that we do not want this censorship in our daily lives. We have had enough of nanny state policies by governments of any flavour.

By all means give us opt-in or opt-out ISP-level filters, for those that want them. But you ignore the voice of the Australian people at your peril, and they will not tolerate this an attack on our liberties. You claim it is to 'protect the children' - frankly I don't believe you, and neither do most of the Australian voters, especially since the arguments that it will do nothing of the sort have been so well documented by people with far more IT knowledge than the Federal Government.

I hope it never comes to this and Liberals, Greens and others block it in the Senate. Thankfully we still have a realtively robust democracy with the checks and balances that this type of censorship can be easily used to subvert. However, if you insist on pushing ahead with this unpopular policy, you will have no-one but yourselves to blame if you lose the next election.

Matto

23 Dec 2008 9:44pm

None of Minister Conroy's arguments have answered the following issues: 1. The filter can be easily bypassed. Millions of dollars will be wasted 2. Future governments will use the filter in ways in wasn't intended. 3. There is no transparency in the process. I've been a labor voter for decades but this ridiculous filter will cost my vote. Arguing that the filter is different to China's simply because of it's intent doesn't hold water.

Sean

23 Dec 2008 9:39pm

This is an absurdly simplistic idea, and will only serve to hamper growth in what is one of the most rapidly expanding sectors of the economy. It will reduce the security of online commerce by enabling attacks on encrypted communications channels. Will the goverment pay compensation to online businesses that lose revenue due to this half baked idea? If this goes through, I will be advising all of my clients to set up their online businesses offshore. I may even have to take my own business offshore, it's already hard enough competing on the internet with our limited infrastructure. I have never voted Liberal in my life, but will certainly do so if Senator Conroy continues along this misguided path. This will not stop bad people being bad, but will just be a hindrance to the other 99.99%, and confirm Australia's place as a technological backwater.

GV

23 Dec 2008 9:43pm

Filtering the internet, including peer-to-peer communication is stunningly stupid. It's the equivalent of reading every single letter sent in Australia in order to deal with organized crime. The wrong tool, at the wrong level, and all it will do is interfere with law-abiding citizens. Conroy clearly doesn't understand the technology, and is being very poorly advised. Hopeless.

Amos Robinson

23 Dec 2008 9:48pm

I would be interested in an explanation for the scope-creep of this issue. About a year ago, the plan was to protect children from inadvertently coming across pornography and other icky things, and there was supposed to be a completely untampered feed for everyone else who was mentally capable. Then somehow we ended up with the "child porn" issue. For a bit it was claimed that there would still be an untampered feed, and the criminal child porn would only be filtered through the clean feed. That makes no sense, so eventually we ended up with no untampered feed at all. Should you not have figured out exactly what you wanted before you started all this business? If the scope has crept that much in the last year (from protecting children to stopping crime, that's a large jump), how much will it change in the next year, or a year after its implementation? And will we know? How can we trust that this 'blacklist' software isn't doing more than is claimed? As public property, the software should be open-sourced and subject to public scrutiny. This would also benefit other nations looking to implement a similar thing.

Colin (a concerned IT professional from Sydney)

23 Dec 2008 9:50pm

Senator, Do you understand the fundamental nature of the internet? If your answer is yes then you should already realise how futile it is to try and block content via a filter. While some content online is illegal what you are proposing is a filter of both illegal and legitimate content. What is to stop such a filter being abused by those in power to block content to which they don�t agree? This does not only mean political content (although that would be the most extreme form of censorship), but other legal content that may be acceptable to the vast majority of the population, but not to an influential lobby group or independent Member of Parliament who� support the government needs to pass other legislation. Already the policy has progressed from the blocking of illegal content to the blocking of legal (if morally ambiguous) content. Add to that the announcement today that peer to peer traffic may be filtered as well, where will this stop? If it is illegal to monitor a phone conversation between two or indeed a group of people without a warrant how could it be legal to monitor/filter the digital traffic directly between their computers (not at the ISP) as would be required for a peer to peer filer? Both are valid forms of communication in the 21st century. If the government knows of illegal sites why are you only blocking them? Surely the best way to stop people accessing such material is to stop them at the source. If worldwide co-operation by local police forces can break rackets that supply SPAM to the world(see today�s Sydney Morning Herald 23/12/08) why can�t similar methods be used to arrest those responsible to distributing the illegal content? It seems that this policy is more to allow the government to win favour with small but vocal minorities and their few elected representatives and not to stop the issues of child abuse or illegal content. Senator if you wish to do something about child abuse it must start where the vast majority of the problem occurs. At Home. Not at your local ISP. Regards Colin (a concerned IT professional from Sydney)

Lou Harms

23 Dec 2008 9:49pm

This is such a terrible idea. It would be so easy to bypass by using a overseas server like allot of big business do, access the internet through a central hub. Also as many people have stated it is only going to slow our connection speeds down, and we are already way behind the rest of the developed world in this respect. I thought Mr Rudd promised to Imorove the infrustructure of our Internet system not slow it down and censor it. This scheme is a joke!

Nathan

23 Dec 2008 10:11pm

People, did you expect anything different from a Labor (communist) government when you voted them in. You reap what you sow.

Phil

23 Dec 2008 10:05pm

In it's first year of office Labor has been carefully negotiating it's way through a maze of many big issues and arguably making successful progress. Climate Change, Carbon Trading, Work Choices, Reconciliation, Defence purchasing, education, homelessness and the GFC. By contrast there are two issues that are most notable because they have mushroomed from beneath the public radar into full blown public messes that are not going to go away: the National Broadband Network and ISP Level Mandatory Internet Filtering. I can't conceive that the NBN debacle had to inevitably end in Telstra walking away. I can't conceive that the Rudd Government would use up it's political capital by forcing a non-issue like Mandatory Filtering on us all. What do those two failed management debacles have in common? Senator Stephen Conroy. Looking at the blatantly obvious tricky weasel words and techniques on this web site that Conroy is using to support his position - how are they any different from Ruddock and Co? Who are all those 'thinking' voters going to vote for next election, those who felt off-sided and estranged by Howard's trickery and sought salvation in the Rudd Government? Look for a sharply expanded Green Senate presence and a sharp drop in Labor's core vote - one of those voters will be me. I DO NOT WANT MANDATORY INTERNET FILTERING.

Lou Harms

23 Dec 2008 9:53pm

Ian K.

23 Dec 2008 10:07pm

Based on responses about the content filtering and appeals; "A content provider whose content is added to the blacklist as the result of a classification decision is notified by ACMA and can appeal to the Classification Review Board for reclassification of that content." Given that the blacklist is not going to be available for review, how is a content provider to appeal their being blacklisted if it's not possible to even confirm/deny that is the case? On a separate issue, how much public notification has been made of the proposal to implement this filtering? Other than on tech-aware sites and blogs, there appears to have been very little notification or discussion in mainstream media about the proposal, its' impacts or any debate around whether the general public are for, against or even aware of this. How many are aware of the partial opt-out that will be available? At what point will there be guarantees that a repeat of a similar issue with UK filtering and Wikipedia will not arise (suppressing of an article on a band simply because of an album cover image)? As far as I have been aware, there has been little to no notification of the proposal or any details as the limited turnout to the protests recently can attest and it appears that the government are attempting to surreptitiously enforce censorship without notification nor obvious methods to appeal the process. It may be said that, at this stage, there are no plans to filter further content, however there do not appear to be any checks and balances in place to prevent the wholesale filtering of any 'inappropriate' content (where the content cannot be reviewed) or anything that may not be to the liking of the current administration. It appears that we are not trusted to be able to make our own decisions nor be responsible for our own actions, and as usual, those pursuing illegal activities (those in scope of the filtering) will readily find methods to circumvent the filtering, ensuring that only the innocent and law abiding are persecuted. Ian K.

Mitchell

23 Dec 2008 10:03pm

This filter will not work and will hurt every internet user in the country. Spend the money on policing where it would do some good!

SJ

23 Dec 2008 10:04pm

Where is the evidence that this will do just what you say it will and nothing more? Where are the peer-reviewed, evidence-based studies to show that this type of filtering will not prevent people from accessing online health information, will not block sites unnecessarily and will not have a chilling effect on freedom of speech? You don't have this evidence, because it doesn't exist. Your model is entirely flawed and has the potential to send this country back to the digital dark ages.

Pharaoh Katt

23 Dec 2008 10:11pm

If this plan goes ahead, I'm moving to Canada, and renouncing my Australian citizenship. I can't live in a country that perverts the very morals it was built on.

Heywood Floyd

23 Dec 2008 10:16pm

The Government's proposed Big Brother measures are ignorant of their constituents� needs and right. The technology lagging measures proposed will produce grave levels of collateral damage to contemporary society and are in effect a breathtakingly efficient way of moving votes away from the Labour party. Benjamin Franklin � �Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security�

Jim

23 Dec 2008 10:16pm

The industry is doing fine without your help. Spend the 125mill on better funding schools and libraries Net education. Did you know 12 mill Aust regularly get online? No thanks to you. It's because Govts can't control the net that it has flourished. If you go through with this you will be ousted at the next election. Have a look at the online movements of Ron Paul and Obama. The industry is universally against your plan because of the damage it will do. You will destroy many Aust businesses if this goes ahead at a time of major economic uncertainty.

Paul`

23 Dec 2008 10:18pm

So we are adopting China's policies now are we? The thought of a free and democratic country such as Australia elected people who are even contemplating this sort of ridiculous system, because none of the people actually consider it something that 'needs to be done', makes me shudder.

Labor Voter

23 Dec 2008 10:18pm

What a bunch of luddites the Labor party are. I thought their climate change back flip was enough to stop me voting for them next time round, this just pushes it over the edge. There is no definitive reason to believe this rubbish will work. They have been advised by amateurs and dreamers. What a sad government we have now.

TheWomp

23 Dec 2008 10:19pm

I'm sure you and your Government would very much like for this to not be about freedom of speech. But, the Australian people aren't as foolish as you believe, we know a lie when we hear one, this is ALL about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with what is suitable for children. And, freedom of speech is more than just political speech. The plan you have outlined would have us all treated as children, there is no freedom at all in that. Give more funding to the police and stop wasting time and resources on censorship, pitiful excuses, and trying to redefine the term freedom of speech. A man who truly cared for Australia's children would not be keeping money from police to protect them, nor hiding behind children to push through wrong policy. It takes a special kind of "man" to hide behind children.

Eddie

23 Dec 2008 10:22pm

I posted a comment here yesterday afternoon but it did not get published. As has already been established, censorship is alive and well in this blog.

nofilter

23 Dec 2008 10:26pm

Australia is supposed to be a democracy isnt it? Then how about a vote on the issue? - If its the terrorists that want to take away our freedoms, then this is their blog.

bazzrington

23 Dec 2008 10:27pm

1. The first principle of the National Classification Code you refer to is �adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want�. Please could you respond to the fact that by persisting with the filtering plan, you are a. not representing the views and wishes of the majority and b. are putting other principles ahead of this first principle 2. You state that there �was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content�. a. Can you guarantee that this will be the case indefinitely? b. NCC states publications which �promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence� will be restricted. How can you guarantee that �Political Content� will not reclassified as restricted based on this definition? 3. If you don�t want to have people being incited to matters of crime or violence, you had better not take away their ability to access porn!

YouveGotToBeKidding

23 Dec 2008 10:29pm

Will this filter be IPv6 compatible?

Choked

23 Dec 2008 10:30pm

"how are encrypted connections such as VPNs going to be handled?" -This question has been included in 'Response to Comments' but has not been answered. --------Please justify implementing a system that can be easily and quickly circumvented--------

Dr Christopher Betts (Phd Comp Sci)

23 Dec 2008 10:30pm

This doesn't go far enough. For exactly the same reasons as the internet filter, we need to have police check points in the street to search cars to see if they contain child pornography. It will be expensive and inconvenient, and slow everyone down a fair bit, but it's necessary to protect the children. After a while, just like the filter, we can extend the police searches to other crimes, and eventually all types of anti-social behaviour.

Mailer-Daemon

23 Dec 2008 10:32pm

Please stop legislating safety into every aspect of our lives. PLEASE! STOP! If parents want to protect their kids online it is their responsibility, not mine or yours. If they choose (remember that word? CHOOSE??!) not to that is no problem of mine or yours. I don't care for online porn et al but I care very much about my ability to maintain the choice. You are taking this once self sufficient and proud country of 'can do' people further down the track of petulant, meddlesome over-Government with this misinformed and wasteful project. Spend the money on the Murray Darling, not the internet: at least you can have an effect on that. Ruddism strikes again: lots of fluff, no substance, more money out the door on buying votes from the uninformed and again, no delivery. Great work.

Blue

23 Dec 2008 10:32pm

All I'm going to say is PLEASE stop the filtering of ISP's.

SJ

23 Dec 2008 10:36pm

I would like to see Senator Conroy provide us with some actual realistic scenarios of how he thinks this idiocy will protect children. Scenarios not enacted by his aides. With screencaps.

Wayne

23 Dec 2008 10:37pm

I take issue with the Minister's assertion that this is not a free speech issue. The fact that the government claims it will not block overt political speech is not the issue at all. The issue is that the government or related entity will be making decisions about online content that may or may not be accessed, and that those content decisions are not transparent to the general public. There is equally no guarantee that whatever definitions such content blocking would use cannot be modified at a later time to gradually encroach further onto free speech. Senator Conroy himself has said "The pilot will test filtering specifically against the ACMA blacklist of prohibited internet content, which is mostly child pornography, as well as filtering of other unwanted content". What does "unwanted" mean? Illegal? Offensive? Inappropriate? It is impossible to accept that the government will define "unwanted" in such a way that does not in at least some ways play to its own political self-interest. Even accepting the unlikely possibility that a government may act in an completely even-handed and selfless fashion (not because it is wicked, but because it is composed of human beings), it is still not the role of a government to decide what what material may or may not be 'wanted' by its populace. It is a governments role to *reflect* and *enable* what is wanted by its populace. I have personally seen very little comment from anyone who actually seems to want these changes, other than from the usual suspects like Senator Fielding who certainly does want to extend content filtering to include free speech issues. Authentically free speech must include the right to canvas issues and material deemed by some to be "offensive" or "inappropriate" and in some instances even "illegal", otherwise how can such judgments be arrived at? Free speech is far more than the narrow ability to express a view in public about government or opposition policy, or parliamentary conduct. Free speech is the ability to discuss and consider a full range of philosophical views and approaches to life, and to do so from a position of fullest possible knowledge.

Ben H.

23 Dec 2008 10:44pm

Simplified, this comes down to the Government providing reasoning and excuse for parents not to do their jobs, and for individuals not to take responsibility for their own actions. Why are we spending this money on crippling Australia's already lagging broadband infrastructure, instead of social education and support programs to actually develop good parents and parenting skills? On top of this, suitable intervention and protection for the kids who are unfortunately in situations with deadbeat parents needs to be further developed and supported by the Government. My parents supervised and limited the time I spent on the computer, in front of the television, what movies I saw, etc until I had developed the emotional and mental maturity to make the decisions for myself. Conroy makes a big deal about Australian Classification rulings, but there's a fundamental flaw to this argument. These classifications are primarily supposed to function as guidelines allowing parents or other viewers to make informed decisions about what they view or expose their children to. Yes, there are examples when movies, video games or TV have been deemed unacceptable for Australian society, and banned from being released in the country, but these are extreme scenarios. There is still a broad range of material which is allowed under the Australian classification scheme, and readily available, which I would consider inappropriate for a primary school child. Then of course comes the recent revelation that the proposed Internet Filtering will potentially also block peer-to-peer traffic. While the technology certainly exists to block said traffic entirely, given the nature of a peer-to-peer file transfer, there is no way to determine the content being shared without performing invasive packet sniffing. To perform this determination on a small scale isn't hard, but at the level proposed and with the added component of filtering based on this content, it's absolutely mind boggling. It's simply not possible to block the source of the material, but traffic being transmitted from thousands, potentially even millions of sources must be analysed. The amount of processing time required to identify and filter this content will be so detrimental to internet performance, we might as well take a step backwards in broadband infrastructure development in the order of a number of years. While I will admit that the majority of material available via BitTorrent, and other peer-to-peer technologies is probably illegal, and a lot of it is probably inappropriate for children, the underlying technologies themselves are in no way at fault. In addition, there are many instances where peer-to-peer mechanisms have been utilised to provide a high performance distribution method for legal content, which would otherwise place enormous load on individual servers. Finally, we come to the freedom of speech/freedom of choice argument. Taking the most obscene and most discussed argument in favour of the filtering scheme, let's look at Child Pornography. It's wrong, it's evil, anyone involved in the production of it or who supports production of it by paying for and viewing it should, in my opinion, be locked up for life. Again, however, the Australian Government is going about this in entirely the wrong way. Access of said material should be illegal and should have severe penalties, but I don't think it is right to prevent the access at all. It's the law that you should follow the speed limit when driving on Australian roads - is the Government next going to propose cars that prevent you from driving faster than the posted limit? Being blunt, if the material is already produced, then the children have already been hurt. Removing Australia from the 'market' for this material is not going to prevent the production of it, apart perhaps from within what I would assume (perhaps naively) is a small on-shore community. Australia needs to commit finances and resources to work with police and other law enforcement internationally to identify the sources of this material and deal with these people. In summary, it appears as though the Government's current proposals are going to accomplish a number of things, none of them positive. 1. Further disconnect parents from their responsibilities to protect their children and teach them right from wrong. 2. Encourage the idea that an individual is not responsible for their own actions or choices. 3. Limit or remove access to legitimate material based on the mechanism of distribution 4. Detrimentally impact Australia's broadband infrastructure development. Development which is already severely lacking when compared to other western countries. Conroy makes a point that the proposed filtering should not be compared to that of China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. While I can see that the Government's objectives are fairly sound, the currently propsed implementation differs very little in results.

Chowmeinmao

23 Dec 2008 10:44pm

You have got to be the biggest group of idiots imaginable. Here we are at the dawn of the greatest interchange of global commerce, culture and technology and you want to SHUT IT DOWN. What is it with governments? You're always trapped in yesterday's paradigm - desperately trying to retain control and make some kind of sense out of it all... afraid to admit that you just don't understand the world anymore.

James

23 Dec 2008 10:47pm

For a start, P2P is not the witch in this hunt. Censorship of the internet will do nothing to prevent the collection of material deemed offensive to someone and will only serve to push nefarious internet activity further underground. And if, heaven forbid, this idea from the Dark Ages does go ahead, who will decide what gets filtered and more importantly, where will it stop? I am very wary of any government who attempts to prevent it's citizens free access to the world's information. It disgusts me that this idea is even being considered.

Rob

23 Dec 2008 10:49pm

I would like to see a response to all the comments asking why the proposed filter will be mandatory. If ISP-level filtering is being implemented for the reasons you propose, then why can we not opt-out?

DD32

23 Dec 2008 10:51pm

My comment relates directly to the Ministers response to comments relating to the release of the Blacklist: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/industry_development/digital_economy/future_directions_blog/topics/civil_and_confident_society_online/why_wont_the_government_publish_what_is_included_in_the_acma_blacklist 1. Who can verify the contents of the Blacklist only contains 'illegal' material? Will the list be available to all Parliamentary Officials in order for them to report regularly that the content of the blacklist contains no sites inappropriate to block (This is completely separate to the process upon which a site would be added) 2. I am under the impression that the talk of 2 levels of filtering is still on the table, The core level which is to block illegal material, and a 2nd level which is to block most pornography or other 'unwanted' material for children. My question relating to that, Is given that the core list cannot be broadcast due to its content, There then serves that there is no legal reasoning why the 2nd level filter list cannot be broadcast, Afterall, It contains no illegal material, And it is up to the public to decide if they wish to opt-in for that filter, The public has the right to know what that filter will be blocking in order to decide if it is appropriate for their use. These questions are related to the P2P use: 3. So far i have seen BitTorrent refered to directly, However, BitTorrent is not a protocol used by the majority of children, Who (From my experience removing malware and virus's from family computers) use other applications such as Bearshare, Limewire and the now defunct Kazaa, The protocol upon which all these applications (And BitTorrent itself) is continuously evolving, The next generation of BitTorrent communication bypasses most of the current filters (Not directly, Its that the filters were not designed to work with -all- protocol signatureS), Will the filters be continuously updated in order to correctly identify traffic on the different protocol versions throughout the year? 4. Relating directly to P2P filtering/Blocking, How is it to be achieved? It is possible to block any network protocol simply by disallowing it, However, All protocols have their legit uses, Which is why for example, HTTP is filtered rather than being blocked outright, How will the filter determine what is legit content, and what is inappropriate? It is impossible to whitelist such items, It is impossible to blacklist such items, A File uploaded 2 seconds later than an identical one will have a completely different signature. Some BitTorrent trackers have over 100 torrents uploaded every second, IT would be impossible to whitelist or blacklist such items. Relating once again to the blacklist itself, And a comment by the minister: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/industry_development/digital_economy/future_directions_blog/topics/civil_and_confident_society_online/how_does_acma_determine_what_sites_will_be_included_on_the_blacklist 5. At present the Classification boards website does not list a Classification guide for Websites, I am unaware if they have such a guide at present, If the ACMA is to base their decisions based off their guides, Should they not be required to list the guide? 6. Furthur to the previous, It has been mentioned that the classification board is out of touch with the current generations, It cannot be denied that those in their 90's will object to much different content than those in their 20's, As such, Guides can never allow for content which someone in their 20's will find socially/morally acceptable, How is cases like this to be dealt with with regard to an opt-in filter? 'Unwanted' material differs between people. Let me finish this, by stating that I am personally against the filtering idea, I am not for child pornography, I am for breaking the law in general, I am for "protecting children" However, I feel that this doesnt achieve the wanted result, Those being exploited will still be exploited, Child abuse material will still be readily available to those who want it, Simply due to the fact it is impossible to know all the locations of such material (Particually hidden behind closed doors), Increasing spending to the Federal police to investigate aligations would probably protect a lot more children than this will.

Sam

23 Dec 2008 10:51pm

Stop treating us like morons. We want to see detailed reports on how effective this plan is. So far it's looking like a joke.

Russell Stuart

23 Dec 2008 10:54pm

I have a number of worries about the scheme as proposed. Firstly, the contents of the blacklist isn't public. Senator Conroy explained why this must be so in one of his replies. His explanation was along the lines of "the black list contains child porn, and so it is not in the public interest to reveal it". That explanation only raises more questions. If the URL's are hidden by the filter, then why can't the public be allowed to see them? Surely if the filters are working the public won't be able to see the offending material anyway. Also, as I understand it, the legislation says the ACMA much blacklist anything above MA15+, and anything MA15+ that is not controlled by password access. Regardless of what is on the list now, after the list does has been active for a while I presume the vast bulk of it will be material Australian adults are allowed to see, but we can't know is censored from the internet. This weakens Senator Conroy's explanation considerably. The second concern I have is the manner the items will be added to the list. To its credit, the mechanism Australia currently uses censor books, movies and most other material is open and transparent. You can find judgements from the ACMA board on the internet. The judgement lists the evidence presented, who was making the decision and the reasoning they followed, and the outcome. There is also a well defined appeals process. This process has one downside - it is expensive. I think the cheapest price the ACMA will charge to classify an item is $400. Given the 100 million odd web sites, that collectively contain around 30 billion pages, it obviously isn't possible to use the same process to review web pages. To classify just 10% of the web would cost more than Australia's annual GDP. I understand from the DBCDE's trail invitation document pages will now be graded by anonymous public servant's who will endeavour to make the same rulings the ACMA does. Unfortunately, this means all openness and transparency of our current system has been lost. Finally, Senator Conroy has given us assurances the censorship system will not be used to censor political free speech. I have no doubt the Senator made this promise in good faith and will keep it. This issue I have is if this system is introduced, not only do I have to trust Senator Conroy, I have to trust every other politician now and in the future. To put it bluntly, the behaviour of a few in the past means such trust would be naive. The most recent example I can think of is when prime ministers department of the previous government censored: http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/109358.php. That aside, I can't see how the government can permit material that is clearly illegal being distributed on the internet. For example, the recent spate of government leaks were illegal. Euthanasia is illegal. So even with Senator Conroy's best intentions, it is a slippery slope. The bottom line is, I think that Senator Conroy's assurances the filters won't be used for political censorship are naive. While he may have no such intentions, it is almost certain someone that follows him will find the filters an irresistible tool for controlling public opinion.

Disillusioned Voter

24 Dec 2008 12:35am

I find a 'two party dominant system' wholly unacceptable when it comes to an alleged liberal-democratic state consisting of some 20 million citizens, especially when both major parties are to me awful and my lower-house vote will go to one of them anyway!

Nevertheless, Labor was my first preference in the last federal election, taking the view that I wanted the Howard gone, in part due to its anti-liberal-democratic policies, and viewed the Labor candidates a lesser-evil.

Thanks to your proposal Mr. Conroy, and also to your government's dismal, pro-industry %5 carbon-emissions quota, I have been greatly disillusioned and am in agreement with the previous commenter. I will never vote for Labor again, nor Liberal and I will never fill out the preference-based vote slip correctly again.

This policy is fundamentally dangerous to our liberal-democracy (which, ironically, the majority of citizens do not agree with) and the way you have gone about it has been nothing short of disgraceful. This quick fix solution will not work.

SJ

24 Dec 2008 12:38am

I would like to see Senator Conroy provide us with some actual realistic scenarios of how he thinks this idiocy will protect children. Scenarios not enacted by his aides. With screencaps.

mindwave

24 Dec 2008 12:41am

Hey, how dare you do this!! To hell with you and Rudds 'Christian' values! I give a damn if its NOT to do with politics. Theese are your values and NOT those of the majority. Why not shut down the Net completely.

The governmet is generally doing a great job but something of this nature will assure you arent elected next time around

Arved von Brasch

24 Dec 2008 12:45am

The National classification scheme as a base is troubling. No legal content should ever be refused classification (effectively banned). There is no justification for preventing adults from viewing any legal content.

The classification scheme should only be used as a guideline to help parents and educators make decisions about what material is appropriate to allow children to view. That computer games, movies, books and, yes, even pornography are refused classification for Australia is indicative of an already broken system.

I am an adult and fully capable of deciding what ideas I want to expose myself to, and what ideas to avoid.

If the National classification scheme continues to exceed this 'guideline for parents' approach, then it should be abolished.

Ultimately, it must be the parent's responsibility to decide what material their child should be exposed to. With always in their mind that one day the child will be an adult, and capable of making their own decisions. Insufficient preparation may make the transition more difficult, when the child realises just how much they weren't allowed to be exposed to.

--- I also agree with the commentators who say filtering is an attack on free speech. I have little faith in governments and main stream media to provide complete coverage of any particular issue. I also think that once such a system is in place, future governments will find it very hard to resist the temptation to add politically inconvenient material to the blacklist. Better to not give them that option.

(I should note, that while I would still think it is a waste of money that actually increases the dangers to children, an opt-in filter - with no mandatory component - would eliminate most of my objections.)

--- There seems little point in making the ACMA blacklist exempt from the FOI mechanism. As soon as it is in use by low level staff at every ISP in Australia (or at least the major ones that can afford to implement the filter), it will be leaked. When that happens the Australian government will be responsible for distributing a (short) list of child pornography sites. (I say short, because it appears that the majority of the ACMA list is stuff that is X18+, R18+ or refused classification - not illegal child pornography.)

--- If the goal is to protect children, why has the funding for OCSET been cut?

hnma

24 Dec 2008 12:46am

there are no children to protect by filtering my internet connection. I shouldn't have to be subjected to your filter. Parents should be responsible for what their children access on the internet. If they cannot monitor what their children are doing on the internet, they have failed as parents by 2008 standards. And it is because of these idiots, who can't figure out how to use a simple software filter, that our internet will be censored by a crusading christian government who want nothing but to force their conservative views down our throats. And can't even give us a straight answer about -exactly- what content will be filtered?!

I do not supprt child porn, and I also didn't vote labour. and I certainly don't want to be lumbered with this gross invasion upon my civil liberties, and right to privacy. Conroy, go and crawl back under whatever rock you came out from under, and next time you have an idea, write it on a little bit of paper, scrunch it up, and burn it. And get off my internet with your thought policing.

Sam D

24 Dec 2008 12:47am

@ Robert Such material has always been prohibited by law in many and most countries... Really, care to back that up? And may I ask, what material are you referring to? If you mean sexual abuse material, then that's one thing. But this filter, when combined with the ACMA rules, has the potential to block much more than that.

Is an image of consenting adults engaged in intercourse the "depths of depravity"? If you think it is, then you have led a sheltered life indeed. How about discussion of Euthanasia? Or Gay Marriage?

Censorship is always fine when it bans what you deem inappropriate, but how will you feel when people try to get Christian sites blacklisted because they are intolerant of Muslims or Homosexuals? Because if this filter comes in, this is exactly what people are going to try to do! So when your blog gets blacklisted because you state that you don't like gay people or your Pastor gets a visit from the AFP because he says that Sharia law is barbaric and backward, don't come crying to us.

bloatedfish of Perth

24 Dec 2008 12:50am

To suddenly implement and control the beast with only Optus and IInet as a relatively small test sample is very restricted and narrow. The test results will not reflect a good representation of the Australian Internet.

If the results show unfavourably how can you implement and control the system? How do you deem the system to be 'successful' and suitable for implementation?

Filtering over 80% of unwanted content? Not losing internet speed 10% of the time?

Would the money not be better spent attacking the illegal content directly? Can we not setup a worldwide cybercrime unit with funding from worldwide powers including Australia dedicated to actively pursuing and arresting these people?

Would this not make it a safer world for all, and not just Australians?

Why are we 'leading' the way by pursuing to implement a system that has so many unknowns? The internet is a beast that will move without boundaries, you put up a brick wall, people will find a way to work through/over/under/around it. What is being implemented only 'slows' the process and quite possibly wasting alot of good money that frankly, I'd be happy to see being used for increasing web speeds. Google Japan Internet - over 60mbps on an average user connection! We can't even achieve that in our capital cities without major infrastructure overhauls.

Mr Conroy, to me your future vote depends on how you handle interpreting the results and giving a green light to implement the system.

simcon

24 Dec 2008 12:50am

How can you block p2p, not all p2p is used for distribution of illegal content but is also used for legal files and offers a way of transferring them without relying on a dedicated server.

Code Warrior

24 Dec 2008 12:52am

I wonder as to how much of this initiative to monitor peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic is being driven by music and media companies. If they are the drivers shouldnt they be forking out millons of dollors rather than my hard earned tax payers money. If these companies are worried about piracy then it is only fair for them to pay for it.

Also how can you gurantee me that the data collected under this "initiative" is not going to be used to take away people's privacy and liberty.

Bob

23 Dec 2008 2:46pm

Not listening to the experts. Not listening to ISPs. Not listening to citizens. and now adding P2P filtering, whose interests are you really trying to protect? It seems to be the music and film industry rather than the publics?

If this filter goes ahead and we get the filtering of legitimate sites and drastic slowdown expected, and foretold by experts, I somehow doubt Labour will have the numbers to pull off another election win.

Chris

24 Dec 2008 1:00am

Wow I didn't expect this from a country like Australia, is it still is a democracy? I think I'll take that holiday somewhere else, I tend to stay away from oppresive countries.

Bob

24 Dec 2008 1:03am

Oh and one extra thing. It's not too difficult to get around an ISP internet filter. The people who this filter is trying to stop will easily be able to set up these services, making it more difficult to catch them. Unless of course the government wants to also block these completely legal, valid and necessary protocols as well.

Carl

24 Dec 2008 1:04am

Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content. That has to be one of the most dangerous comments I have seen come from an Australian politician in a long time.

Sam D

24 Dec 2008 1:06am

Question:

Will the act of circumventing the mandatory filter be a criminal offense in and of itself?

IGB

24 Dec 2008 1:06am

Whatever happen to the freedom of choice? We are mature adults and parents, that have the right to chose what we look at, download, and protect our children from. Who are you to put "Business" before the Public....? Next you'll be asking for skype to be restricted so telcos can make more money. Trust me the next election WILL be very interesting if Labour puts these measures through to restrict the www.

Dennis

24 Dec 2008 1:07am

I have been a lifelong Labor voter, and am ashamed to admit that I helped to bring these people into power. I just hope we can stop them from implementing this draconian scheme before we get a chance to get them out of power.

Honestly, I was so excited to have Rudd represent Australia - and now the rest of the world is laughing at us. And not a single word from our prime minister...

This filter will not work. It will not work! The Internet is too dynamic and built to withstand blocks and filters on its infrastructure by re-routing and encrypting packets. What has happened to this country?

Herlequin

24 Dec 2008 1:07am

Australia already has the MOST EXPENSIVE internet amongst developed countries and the SLOWEST. You want to introduce something that will slow this down even further? Why would you want to take us back to the days of dial-up? Speaking from the perspective of an internet business and any business that is on the internet (which is pretty much most) that is unacceptable. That coupled with the blatant freedom of speech violation. Why are you afraid of making the entire process public, why are we not allowed to see what sites will be blocked?

You're nothing but a wanna be dicator. You should be ashamed.

Homer Simpson

24 Dec 2008 1:09am

The funny thing is that all the stuff the labor party is claiming they want to block is already being traded on private, invite-only, encrypted darknets and sneakernets, which the current plan (or any plan) has no hope of blocking. Anyone who thinks this is going to stop or even impede dedicated child porn networks is somewhat of a noob or possibly just a [expletive deleted].

Also lol@ conroy still wanting this despite almost every single comment on here and everywhere else being against the plan.

p.s. i've also been an ALP supporter but until conroy is gone i will do everything reasonable to besmirch their reputation to anyone i see who seems slightly interested in politics. he simply does not deserve his job.

mason

24 Dec 2008 1:10am

I can't help but notice some similarities between this and the recent campaign being held in Brisbane to have enforced checks conducted on those people that own pools following the drowning death of a toddler.

I am not one for taking what the media says at face value but in this incident a child drowned because the parents failed to monitor the child�s poolside activities. I am unsure how the enforced pool checks will work if the parents still fail monitor their Childs swim time.

Looking at this situation and the gaping technical and administrative flaws in the system, I am unsure how this system could actively be enforced.

It has been said within this blog that less then 2% of parents picked up the liberal governments alternative because of technical incapacity by the parents. If the parents here are incapable of installing software on their children�s machines what makes the government think they are capable of ensuring their children are not using the (child�s play) work abounds suggested through out this blog and many others? Just as the parents who didn�t monitor children�s swim time, what makes you think that parents are going to monitor their childrens internet time?

And to note, this is just from one philosophical angle which doesn�t even touch on the technical and security (or insecurity) of the system which has been suggested.

For those of you that haven�t already read it, please have read of the white hat hacker article on BAN.THIS.URL. (http://www.banthisurl.com/) For a real insight into the failings of a system like this. I can tell you right now, this may not impede on my freedom speech, but it will have great impacts on where and how I shop. I wouldn�t want my credit card or bank details going through a system like this and that does effect my civil liberties within a digital economy. 1st year university students are taught the real meaning of this term, its such a failing that the highly paid consultants you have hired fail to have grasped it.

How about some real consultation with candidates which actually understand the online environment? Maybe even listening to members of your own government or their departments could provide a greater insight?

Caitlin

24 Dec 2008 1:15am

If this goes through you've lost my vote. This is a totally foolish waste of money and time. A government body will decide what is inappropriate for me to view online? You're slowing down a service that is already grossly inadequate? You've got to be kidding.

Every website I know that has attempted filtering has just resulted in inadvertently blocking legitimate online discussion or topics. Will websites that provide support to adults who were raped as children be blocked 'inadvertently'?

harry tuttle

24 Dec 2008 1:17am

I see no solution here; more a collection of muddled objectives, justified by a set of disproportionate policies, supported by false technical advice, quoting statistics and sources where the data is either false, out-dated, or exaggerated; sources are suspect, entirely false or unreliable and discredited....and easily traceable as such by any person with critical thinking skills and a search engine.

I ask again; When are you going to answer the extensive list of questions put to you in the Senate, by Sen Ludlum on 20th November 2008 on notice ?

The 30 days time to respond has elapsed, and according to Senate procedure for Questions put on Notice, you have 30 days in which to respond to Sen. Ludlum, or explain why you have not. Is this a breach of the timing rules for responding to Senate directions, akin to that for which you expunged Telstra from the NBN process ? I see a quantifiable hypocrisy in this kind of action.

Ruan of Winter

24 Dec 2008 1:18am

What will you hold in confidence if you can hold nothing to be unfiltered? Are you protecting the children of liberty from concepts they're not fit to understand? Will the truth be that the world isn't rated M15+? Your coffers empty for security that secures nothing. Your liberty stripped for imagined ideals. Defend the technically infeasible with morale platitudes. Remember when government influenced media started the Iraq war. Will your people be subject to the same tyranny out of your hands? Where the only truth they know is the one that their own minds are deprived of freedom of action?

If you need rules to be kind and just, if you -act- virtuous, this is a sure sign that virtue is absent. Thus we see the great hypocrisy. [...]When the county falls into chaos, official loyalists will appear, patriotism is born.

Your arguments of technicality are easily refuted. Your morale arguments are flawed pandering. Beware the the shine of evil, for it never comes wearing horns.

Ellecer Valencia

24 Dec 2008 1:21am

So whose interests are you pandering to with this push for filtering? Family First and Mr Xenophon, that's who. Mainstream Labour voters never asked for this. Even conservatives are against it. The filtering you talked about at the election was supposed to be something parents could choose as an option. But in order to get a few more votes in the Senate, you now have to ram this scheme down our throats. And why is the list of blocked sites kept secret, given that in the past, every attempt at this filtering nonsense always ends up blocking sites that are objectionable only to a certain sector of society.

Nikko

24 Dec 2008 1:21am

I agree that something needs to be done to rid the internet of offensive content especially for minors, but should it not be up to the free market economy to determine the best way to deal with online censorship. Your Government of course showing them the way .... For example, it seems very likely that an Australian based ISP could easily develop the tools and technologies to filter and moderate the content that they provide as opposed to the Federal Government bowing to a small section of the community that users the internet. By setting up a dedicated, certified, "clean" ISP portal. Parents and concerned citizens could then sign up as required. :-)

Prohibition has never worked ! Not once. Take China for example. The most Internet censored country in the world but the very things your government is suggesting it try to block are still rampant.

Better to provide your citizens with the tools to allow them to make their free and fair choice. This way everyones happy.

Have the parents etc. run content filtering software on their local machines as well as signing up to a "Certified Clean ISP" that offers a "clean", "washed", web experience. This certification could be handled through Standards Australia for example, thereby guarantying traceability and performance criteria.

M. Godwinson

24 Dec 2008 1:23am

The righteous need not cower before the drumbeat of human progress. Though the song of yesterday fades into the challenge of tomorrow, God still watches and judges us. Evil lurks in the internets as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil.

Infuriated

24 Dec 2008 1:25am

Filtering will fail to block some of the content it should. It will block content it shouldn't. It will also impose financial burdens on anyone in the country attempting to take part in the Digital Economy (isn't your role supposed to be supporting and encouraging its growth, rather than crippling it?) and degrade the quality of service which can be provided in Australia - with the obvious longer term social and financial consequences. And it will be easily evaded by anyone wishing to (in other words, those people who are intentionally seeking out illegal content). So, in short, you are suggesting we as a society pay millions of dollars in order to make ourselves less competitive globally, inconvenience millions of people by inappropriately blocking access to legitimate information, and not actually achieve the stated goal.

And this is a best-case scenario. Family First have already made it clear that they want to use the blacklist to block all access to adult material, and they are sure to include abortion and sex education materials as 'adult' material. The fact that this has been suggested already makes it blatantly obvious that this filter can be used for to block political content, so the comparisons to China and Saudi Arabia are eminently justified. The risk of having such a tool for censorship in the hands of politicians, who will be tempted to barter access to the blacklist to every special interest group with a grudge against some idea is terrifying to those of us who value our right to free speech.

I work in the IT industry, and so should you pass this ludicrous legislation despite the outcry from everyone who has any understanding of the technology, or its potential impact on our civil liberties, I will bypass the filters. As will everyone else with the required expertise. Or who knows someone who has the required expertise. So I will not be effected beyond a small additional cost of my time to set up the necessary systems. But as a tax payer I am utterly infuriated to see my tax dollars being wasted in such a transparent attempt at buying the votes of technically illiterate social conservatives. If this goes ahead I will vote against you. As much as it pains me, I will even vote Liberal simply to express my outrage.

Mark

24 Dec 2008 1:24am

Who gets to decide what gets blocked. The government. Namely Stephen Conroy, who has already threatened those who spoke out against this filter (look up Mark Newton). What will happen when the government has the power to conveniently block their critics, of course they'll abuse it. Stephen Conroy is just one example of a politician who is already abusing what power he has, imagine him with the power to censor the entire population.

I wouldn't trust any government with this kind of power.

There's is also the fact that the majority of the population don't want this broken, ineffective, expensive and easily bypassed system (here is the survey http://whirlpool.net.au/survey/2007/). Yet the government just seems to ignore the population and do whatever they want. It's really disappointing, Australia is known worldwide as a just democracy, I'm saddened to know that our country is making a change for the worse.

Jack

24 Dec 2008 1:34am

You have no mandate to do this - you didn't even mention it at the election. It is not wanted by the majority yet you are blindly proceeding with wasting taxpayers money. Can you not hear the chorus of disapproval across this country? Are you really that deaf and blind to what the people are telling you? It's simple - implement internet filtering at the ISP level and you will be removed from Government. If we don't do it by protest (whcih is highly likley) we will do it at the next election. Concentrate on prosecuting the criminals and helping parents to take respnsibility for raising their own kids. Censorship at any level will not be tolerated in this country. The reduced performance speeds will in themselves be enough reason to attack your policy. Your job is to build a world class broadband network so that this country doesn't fall even further behind the rest of the Western Countries. This filtering junk (which is what it is as it won't work - even the ISP's have admitted that) is simply a waste of money and the plan should go no further. Please stay out of our private business and stick to what you were appoited to do - improve the digital economy. Your current plan will ruin it and your political career. Finally, how dare you acuse anyone of being against this policy of being in favour of child abuse. Unbelievable! Hitler used a similar argument. Goodbye (hopefully for good) Comrade Conroy. Enjoy what time you have left in this position.

Alex

24 Dec 2008 1:38am

I wrote to Mr Conroy and received a lengthy form letter which failed to address any of the points and concerns I raised.

The statement that Labor is undertaking an informed process in developing this scheme is undermined by their disregard of industry professionals who say the scheme wont work.

I don't have children Mr Conroy. I don't need a parent. And we will fight this.

Christo

24 Dec 2008 1:40am

As always it's the Gov looking after themselves and what THEY want, they say they are there for the people, they want to look after our best interests...yeah right what ever lines their own pockets is what they mean!

You all did such a fine job of the Gun Laws and removing them from society to stop people getting gunned down and killed.....oh wait, people are STILL getting gunned down and killed by weapons you said you had control over and banned....

Then parents rights were taken away on disciplining their own children, i mean come on, it's worked for how many hundred years now, and who is better at knowing their own children and how to parent them, fat pollies sitting behind desks? , i think not, don't get me wrong i disagree with hitting kids but until parents rights were taken away we never had the level of criminal activity and badly behaved kids as what we have today.

It's the same old thing, a knee-jerk reaction to something that could be so easily worked out and maintained by working with people, not against them, yet the Gov want to destroy everything that people have worked so hard for over the years, how you can justify your wages for the half arsed job that you all do is beyond me.

We finally start to get competitive and decent fast internet in Australia and then they go and do something as stupid as this, talk about 1 step forward and 20 back!

As others have said, listen to what the people want, if it wasn't for us you wouldn't have a job to start with and if you keep not listening to people then your going to find yourself without a job next time around, i'll be sure my family casts it's vote else where next time that's for sure!

Maybe soon we will all be speaking in Chinese and have strings attached to our arms and legs......, wait, we already have some of the strings!

jonny_noog

24 Dec 2008 1:41am

So the asounding way that this scheme is being pushed - despite total opposition from industry and the general public - wouldn't have anything to do with the support that the government needs to shore up from certain balance-of-power holding, socially conservative politicians, would it?

No of course not, we all know that the ostensible motives of all politicians are beyond reproach and should never be questioned. After all, they just want what's best for us.

Russell Stuart

24 Dec 2008 1:42am

I have a number of worries about the scheme as proposed.

Firstly, the contents of the blacklist isn't public. Senator Conroy explained why this must be so in one of his replies. His explanation was along the lines of "the black list contains child porn, and so it is not in the public interest to reveal it". That explanation only raises more questions. If the URL's are hidden by the filter, then why can't the public be allowed to see them? Surely if the filters are working the public won't be able to see the offending material anyway. Also, as I understand it, the legislation says the ACMA much blacklist anything above MA15+, and anything MA15+ that is not controlled by password access. Regardless of what is on the list now, after the list does has been active for a while I presume the vast bulk of it will be material Australian adults are allowed to see, but we can't know is censored from the internet. This weakens Senator Conroy's explanation considerably.

The second concern I have is the manner the items will be added to the list. To its credit, the mechanism Australia currently uses censor books, movies and most other material is open and transparent. You can find judgements from the ACMA board on the internet. The judgement lists the evidence presented, who was making the decision and the reasoning they followed, and the outcome. There is also a well defined appeals process. This process has one downside - it is expensive. I think the cheapest price the ACMA will charge to classify an item is $400. Given the 100 million odd web sites, that collectively contain around 30 billion pages, it obviously isn't possible to use the same process to review web pages. To classify just 10% of the web would cost more than Australia's annual GDP. I understand from the DBCDE's trail invitation document pages will now be graded by anonymous public servant's who will endeavour to make the same rulings the ACMA does. Unfortunately, this means all openness and transparency of our current system has been lost.

Finally, Senator Conroy has given us assurances the censorship system will not be used to censor political free speech. I have no doubt the Senator made this promise in good faith and will keep it. This issue I have is if this system is introduced, not only do I have to trust Senator Conroy, I have to trust every other politician now and in the future. To put it bluntly, the behaviour of a few in the past means such trust would be naive. The most recent example I can think of is when prime ministers department of the previous government censored an anti-Iraq war web site by Richard Neville.

That aside, I can't see how the government can permit material that is clearly illegal being distributed on the internet. For example, the recent spate of government leaks were illegal. Euthanasia is illegal. So even with Senator Conroy's best intentions, it is a slippery slope.

The bottom line is, I think that Senator Conroy's assurances the filters won't be used for political censorship are naive. While he may have no such intentions, it is almost certain someone that follows him will find the filters an irresistible tool for controlling public opinion.

Dave

24 Dec 2008 1:43am

When is the Government going to stop messing around in peoples personal lives and get on with the job of governing the country? Here's an idea, why don't you start with the roads, hospitals and schools? I have worked in IT for over 20 years and I can assure you sir, this will not work. The same as the gun buy-back didn't stop criminals having guns. Leave the Internet alone and find something more worthwhile to do.

Andrew

24 Dec 2008 1:48am

I'm sorry, but I think that the idea of ISP Level filtering of web traffic is absolutely ludicrous.

It is scary to think that one day soon, everything we see online will only be viewable because the government approved it.

REGARDLESS of how Senator Conroy decides to spin it, this filter is a massive breach of our civil liberties and paves the way for a biased internet experience that could ultimately benefit the government and/or large companies.

And even though the current government may not have plans to block anti-government or similar sites, the infrastructure will already be in place for future governments to add sites to the �Blacklist� on a whim.

There is a response to a comment �Why won�t the Government publish what is included in the ACMA blacklist?� which reads:

-------------------------------------- "Given that -->MOST<-- of this material relates to child sexual abuse, the publication of this information is clearly not in the public interest." (emphasis mine) -------------------------------------- �MOST� � This is exactly why a private Blacklist cannot be trusted. If the Filter is truly to block child sex abuse, then why does the response not read �ALL�?!

Colin Campbell

24 Dec 2008 1:50am

Why not just publish the taxpayer funded study commissioned by the Howard Government and completed by experts and be done with it. Surely there is enough evidence there without spending more money with ISPs to prove the bloomin' obvious that this is stupid public policy. Merry Christmas and I hope you are not expecting too many ecards. Probably be filtered out.

Lyn

24 Dec 2008 1:52am

There may be publication laws that prevent me publishing something about it in Australia but there is no law that says I can't read something about bomb building or anorexia or child pornography. .... Just as there is no law saying I can't discuss it. .... The law against publication is already in effect, no problem. But there is no law about READING such a publication. .... Conroy's claims this stuff is 'against the law' is simply not correct. Publishing yes, reading NO. .... It's not until I actually conspire with someone to build a bomb or do it myself, that the law is interested in me. .... How then is an internet filter 'lawful'? .... If the government is so scared of me reading about it, surely the next step is to be scared of me thinking about it? .... How ridiculous! .... Just as there is nothing stopping me from not putting money in my parking meter, there is nothing stopping me from picking up a kitchen knife and killing my husband - except my own education and understanding and moral sense of right and wrong, and the consequences of what I do. .... Yet, that decision to kill or not to kill my husband is still up to me. .... How then does a government justify actually physically preventing me from doing something as simple as read a web page? Regardless of my age or my intention? .... Dear Steve, please lock up all our kitchen knives, any one of us might just possibly do something rash.

crowvat

24 Dec 2008 1:54am

I am a member of the GetUp org, now if the government wishes to ignore the public and the majority, like the government before you...you will go as well. It's the people of Australia that decides policy not the government who becomes elected and think they can do what ever they like. I AGREE, monitor and prosecute child porn..a must, but thats it!

elZ0rr0

24 Dec 2008 1:55am

As someone who has worked in the IT industry for 35 years, and used the internet since its inception I think I know a little about the technical challenges in trying to 'filter' internet traffic. I know it's is big call, but let�s assume the minister is of reasonable intelligence. He may have a basic understanding of the internet and how it works but I'm sure he is no expert. No doubt � like most ministers - he relies on one or more advisors to 'brief' him on matters technical. Again - let�s assume the 'advisors' are smart enough to get impartial outside professional advice on the specifics of implementing a filtering system. Any such impartial advice would soon have revealed the futility of this process. Knowing this one can only assume that the whole exercise is ether: a) a stupid political stunt or b) a totalitarian conspiracy. In situations like this I always apply Hanlon's Razor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor. "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice." My advice to the minister? "Tell him he's dreaming!"

MeAndEveryoneIKnow

24 Dec 2008 1:55am

What you all must realise is that the government doesn't care what you think, it's only pushing this out on it's own agenda. Australia's internet is akin to a stand-up comedy show, just like it's politics.

Brightspark

24 Dec 2008 1:56am

You are dictating to the Australian people what they do not want. You were not elected to push your own view and views of a minority. As far as I know we are in a Democracy but your actions make it more like a Plurocracy / Dictatorship. A referendum should be held on this debate, not one MP telling 21 million people what he wants. As an elector I do not want this filter at all - its a waste of money.

If you dont like listening to your electors, we will seek the GG's approval to have you removed from your position. You have been warned by the Australian people.

Andrew

24 Dec 2008 1:57am

I am sick to death of the government aka "the nanny nation" telling me, an adult of age, that they have the right to restrict or blacklist content I wish to view, read and express. To say this idea is to "protect the children" is absolute bull. Since when is it my concern what little jonny down the road views while on the internet. It is their parents responsability to monitor them or install personal filtering programs. This is about control, controlling what the people can view, read or express. Its that simple. If this plan goes ahead it will be a massive insult to our democratic rights, as well as a huge waste of tax payers money (once again) to put a bandaid over a serious issue. More time and money should be spent on educating parents and placing responsability back on individuals, instead of the community.

Brightspark

24 Dec 2008 5:12am

Mr Conroy, you were elected to do what you electors wish, not to push your own personal and other business interests ideas on the Australian people. Since when does the Commonwealth ignore the electors wishes? You are dictating to the Australian people what they do not want. You were not elected to push your own view and views of a minority. As far as I know we are in a Democracy but your actions make it more like a Plurocracy / Dictatorship. A referendum should be held on this debate, not one MP telling 21 million people what he wants. As an elector I do not want this filter at all - its a waste of money. If you dont like listening to your electors, we will seek the GG's approval to have you removed from your position. You have been warned by the Australian people.

IA

24 Dec 2008 5:12am

Why should anyone be surprised by political stupidity from these guys? We'll just kick them out at the next election.

Tony

24 Dec 2008 5:08am

The whole concept is so brain dead that I won't even dignify it with a discussion. Who the hell do these guys think they are? This is one of the things that will badly backfire on this gvmt.

Kropotkin

24 Dec 2008 5:13am

The more things change - the more they stay the same.... "WHEN ignorance reigns in society and disorder in the minds of men, laws are multiplied, legislation is expected to do everything, and each fresh law being a fresh miscalculation, men are continually led to demand form it what can proceed only from themselves, from their own education and their own morality." Prince Peter Kropotkin quoting French Jurist Dalloy, author of the Collection of French law known as �Repertoire de la Legislation.� circa 1900

Cody

24 Dec 2008 5:15am

Isn't comparing the games rating proof that filtering will be abused. The SA minister is the only thing stopping an r18 rating being an option... Isn't this proof enough that the government shouldn't be the regulator

Alan Jacobson

24 Dec 2008 5:15am

This whole sorry affair is nothing but a feint to give the government the appearance it is concerned about access to offensive online content and that it is genuinely trying to do something about it. Prompted by pressure from conservative ultra-minorities with a simplistic understanding of the tehnical and ethical issues involved. When the trials are started and torn to pieces by users and ISPs the government will have the clean exit it needs to put the matter to rest and wave a white flag on the matter. The sooner the better. It has consumed far too much time and money that could have been put to much better use addressing the sorry state of the nation's digital infrastructure, improving speed, access and affordability. It has also wasted the time of many members of the general population that have been forced to protest and debate the matter, on blogs such as this, defending fundamental rights that all other first world countries take for granted. It has also tarnished Australia's international reputation as a progressive forward thinking nation at a time when the government is trying to encourage skilled emigration.

karen

24 Dec 2008 5:16am

I am a professional woman who works with children and women in an allied health profession. I am familiar with the effects of abuse as I see these in my work on a day to day basis. I am also computer literate. This internet filter and these policies will not cause the demise of child abuse. These policies permit the complacency of a society which is over relying on the ever increasing nannying and intrusive government. This censorship of the internet will place Australia firmly in the backwaters and must be challenged. Conroy, I urge you to listen to the voice of the people and to reconsider such foolish and draconian response to the issue of child abuse and to stop the censorship on the internet. Instead, lets look at ways of helping children to have a voice and to work at preventing abuse in the first place. It is not the Governments job to decide how or what the world wide internet operates in this country. It is the Governments job to ensure that we as citizens keep children safe and this policy is certainly not the way to go about it.

Bob

24 Dec 2008 5:17am

Here's a question for you to answer Mr Conroy: Why do you not explain your flawed policy to the media or even answer direct questions from Senator Ludlam in parliament? Do you regard yourself to be beyond reproach to the Australian public, who might I remind you are in a sense your employers?

Rainman

24 Dec 2008 5:21am

So is the Government going to compensate businesses relying on the Internet to carry out day-to-day business transactions? By that, I am referring to the slower throughput we can expect if all internet traffic has to go through a filter at the ISP level. Will small businesses just have to 'deal with it' - as I haven't seen any measures which will alleviate the loss of productivity that will arise from this?

light

24 Dec 2008 5:26am

In principle this sounds like a plan, and indeed if I BELIEVED that this amount of money is sufficient to deliver what you set out to do, I WOULD support it. The problem is, I am very doubtful $125.8 million will work out to be a solution, 'money well spent' should be the most important criterion. Filtering will undoubtedly slow down the internet, as well as breed curiosity to find ways around the filter, which is the natural human rebellious nature. Both these factors will reduce productivity. In my view, it is more important to educate and promote 'good' behaviour and ideas than it is to prevent 'bad' behaviour. This is the information age where information is endless, the government has to play an active role in reducing garbage, not through trying to filter it out, as it is seemingly unlimited, but rather promoting good educational material which will attract people. If you focus on the bad, the people will focus on the bad. The main point is trying to control the internet is futile.

Jamesy Martin

24 Dec 2008 5:27am

Good luck you bunch of Nazi's on getting re-elected. What kind of oppressive nonsense is this. It's not your business what website I visit or what content I donwload if it is legal. Your approach clearly shows that if something is bad for kids then it must be bad for everyone. This is worst than dictatorship, this is an attack on our freedoms. If you wish to create internet just so scumbag consumers can do business on and spend money on and without anything else then China has nothing on you. Attack on freedom and democratic principles does not mean you are blocking political sites, nobody cares about political sites, we all care more about our freedom of choice, as long as the choice is legal. Take your filter where it belong, in the tip mate, concentrate your efforts on catching online pedo's, leave us internet enjoying public alone.

mattatbtt

24 Dec 2008 5:38am

Firstly, well done on letting people have a say in this way. The report on this consultation will be interesting. Independent moderation would have enhanced it. I have to say I agree with just about everyone else that this is a bad policy idea. The damage to our economy could be enormous in the long term from allowing our internet access to perform at below international standards (and that could be perceived risk rather than day to day performance). There will be problems with this. The very nature of the filter will make it a target for hackers from all over the place. Think of the consequences for business if we lose web access for even a day. Massive losses and loss of confidence. Not what we need just now. The way to address moral hysteria is not to regulate but to educate. Spend the $125 million on educating kids about the web and what to avoid. Spend it on a police taskforce to round up the peddlers of images of abuse these measures would make a real difference. Don't put your faith in a 'magic box' and challenge the world's hackers to take it apart. They will.

thatmosis

24 Dec 2008 5:40am

This will be your Govt's "Work Choices" as people will not forget that you have single handedly reduced this country to a Communist State and slowed up already laughable internet speeds. There are no guarantees that this so called "Porn Filter" will not be used by your Govt to filter out anything that it finds contadicts or may criticise the Govt. Unfortunately your word is not good enough as we have all seen the reddiness that pollies have to change their minds at the drop of a poll. Question-" If this filter slows down our internet connections to below acceptable standards and below what we pay for will the Government reimburse us for the losses we will incur."

SomeNutJob

24 Dec 2008 5:41am

This is the NWO reaching out to Australia.

Matt Kelly

24 Dec 2008 5:42am

P2P is one of the few technologies out there that stands a genuine chance of bringing next generation apps into wide circulation without resulting in insane costs for service providers. Not only is your whole plan ridiculous, now you're going to be raising costs for those who you ask to help with your plan. Pathetic.

Dean Nicholls

24 Dec 2008 5:43am

I'm sorry Senator Conroy, I have read your Q&A and remain unconvinced. Your government lied about this being voluntary, and as such I place no stock in your assurances that the "secret sauce" blacklist will only contain "bad stuff". I'm sure that information on abortion will disappear the moment you need to buy Fielding's vote, and other "distasteful" (to you and all the other wowsers) information will slowly be added, until we end up with what you people consider a utopian internet. If you are so concerned about the children, then simply ban them from the internet. Actually I have a great idea - as this is all about the children, lets have giant government care centres that children are placed into, and then kept until they turn 18. We can call these "Cottonwool Centres For the Glorious Advancement of Our Most Precious Childrens Well Being", and there the children can be brainwashed with double plus good information straight from the Chairman Rudd Little Red Book.

Logical

24 Dec 2008 5:45am

The government may not see this filter as an attack on our freedoms, however, it is blatantly obvious that this is the case. Please do not censor australias internet. The filter has been shown to block content by mistake, and may slow the internet down. Also, the claim that this is to 'protect children' is complete and utter rubbish. Come on, do you really expect us to believe that? If protection of children is the goal, offer software to parents that filters content, or make instructional material to teach parents how to check the internet history and see what their kids have been looking at. Filtering the whole internet is excessive. Also, the main thing that most parents wish to protect their children from on the internet is porn and chat sites. This segment of the filter can be opted out of, while the rest of the filter cannot. This clearly shows that the government's prime interest here is NOT the protection of children, but the denial of information and other materials to the australian public. Also, you claim that australians, as a whole, recognise that some material is not acceptable. I agree that some material is not acceptable, but who are you to try and define what is acceptable and what is not? You have no doubt defined this based on the veiws of those in power, who are mostly from a certain age group. What you define as 'acceptable' may not be what others define as acceptable. Must you inflict your definition of acceptable on the rest of us? The filter has been shown to block some information relating to anorexia and euthenasia. Is anorexia not acceptable in your book? Should we filter out information on this illness and decrease our children's understanding and tolerance? In short, I feel that this filter is virtually useless and a huge invasion on the rights of australians. The talk of 'protecting children' is a feeble attempt to disguise the agenda of the government. I have no doubt that the government will disregard the opinions of the majority, and act soley in its own interest, and as soon as this happens and I gather the funds, I think I shall relocate to a country with a government that doesn't trample on the rights of the masses at will.

IPA

24 Dec 2008 5:45am

Labor Party will go down over this... Fools. Ivan

concerned

24 Dec 2008 5:47am

Your internet filtering, while well intended, makes everyone suffer for no reason since those who want to get around it can easily do so. This issue is significant enough that I would happily vote for my non-preferred political party to see it abolished.

Jason Byway

24 Dec 2008 5:47am

Do you want to know how to protect children from harmful things on the internet? It's very simple, do not let children on the internet without proper supervision by their parents!! It amazes me that this whole protecting the children excuse can be used. How do parents expect their children to be safe when they do not monitor their activities? Do parents expect that if they were to leave their kids alone at night in a street in New York that they would be safe and protected? I don't think so, so why would they expect to be able to leave their children to access the internet unsupervised? Perhaps use this money for better parenting skills and to teach parents that they need to actual parent rather than just sit back and let the government do their work. Do not filter our internet and don't use the whole protecting children thing as an excuse to also filter P2P traffic as I don't see P2P traffic being used illegally in a way that harms children!

Jc

24 Dec 2008 5:52am

Many thanks comrade Conroy for ensuring the masses can be controlled and informed of whatever we wish only. If only all our labor brothers were as strong willed like you!! Stalin would be proud and our comrades in China are smiling in approval.

skippee

24 Dec 2008 5:54am

How much of this is motivated by religion I wonder... "Rudd seeks church role in politics" http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/01/1159641213160.html

Robb

24 Dec 2008 5:55am

Hmmm so the government is going to spend $125.8 million on something that will slow down peoples internet connections, wouldn't the money be better spent on giving people in regional Australia access to high speed broadband, OH that promise has already been broken hasn't it ;/

Bob

24 Dec 2008 5:56am

Your entire filtering initiative can be broken in 5 minutes with easily available VPN services sold around the world. It is not possible to filter the internet, stop wasting everyones time.

clappers

24 Dec 2008 5:57am

If you censor the internet, slow it down, block p2p and porn I think a lot of people will disconnect the internet. If you think the unsavoury side of life will simply disappear because some moral crusading politician changes some rules you must be crazy. It will simply spawn a whole new industry somewhere else in some other form. (Prabably even worst than now). One thing is for sure it is not going to go away. Globally, these industries are simply too big and too far reaching. I wonder if they got to be this big because lots of people use these sites. Sex, Drugs and Rock n Roll, people just can't get enough. On the world stage our location is isolated, in population our numbers are small now technically we will be a joke.(super slow broadband) The is country is too small and too unpopulated to be picking and choosing international business. It would be interesting to know the yearly turn over of the sites that will be blocked. Children do not pay the bills. Children do not vote. Can't wait for Kevin11. If this goes ahead this government is finished.

r_oge_r

24 Dec 2008 5:57am

If you implement the filter and it ruins my internet experience you will lose my vote.

Lyn

24 Dec 2008 5:59am

They don't say it directly, and maybe that's because they don't realise it, but a lot of the comments here show that online civility is self sensoring. Child porn is among the extreme stuff that people just won't tolerate. Every day you see things like hate speech and misinformation roundly condemned. There were fierce battles over whether the Henson photos were really porn, and more recently condemnation of the decision to punish someone for being in posession of an email with an inappropriate Simpsons cartoon. But apparently the citizenry can't be trusted to come to the right decisions about its own welfare. Contrary to what Mr Conroy seems to think, it's not anarchy in here. People expect and enforce pretty much the same kinds of civility online that they do offline. Mr Conroy may not know this, or he may not care. Either way, I've enjoyed being a part of the engaged citizenry. If filtering has some of the drastic effects some are predicting, I will very much miss free discussions with others. How I will continue my work I don't know, since it's internet based, and my husband's small business will be severely effected if P2P filtering means interference with downloading large files. Floor plans for big buildings are enormous. They'll have to go back to dead tree floor plans. Nice knowing you Tasmanian forests. Our teenaged son won't be able to continue his massive correspondence with several international friends he's made on the internet, or share skateboarding videos with his mates, or talk to Californian kids about their sporting facilities, and our daughter will have to use her lunch break to book concert and airline tickets at a shopfront she has to walk to, like we did back in the stone age. If I'm worried she's showing signs of anorexia I'll have to deal with the doctor shortage and drain the Medicare system. I can't imagine the online media would be terribly pleased either, with advertising revenue already low and all that animated advertising already taking ages to load. Same goes for internet banking sites. How long would it take to download Microsoft Office? Or Kevin Rudd's next lot of YouTube election videos? Will the family live long enough to see one another's Chrissy photos on Facebook? Will doing a tax return online involve filling in one of those 'how long did this take you?' boxes like the BAS statements? You don't realise how much of life revolves around the internet until you start thinking about these things. We're mostly living with dial-up speeds now, even with broadband. What can we look forward to with slow and filtered? 89 percent of Australians use the internet daily or weekly. That's a rather largish majority.

Excuses for tyranny

24 Dec 2008 6:00am

Is Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet going to be banned because it promotes underage sex? We (alledgedly) live in a democracy where laws are able to be CHANGED. If something that is currently illegal cannot be discussed, how can we debate the merits and inadequacies of our current laws. Of course fascists always use emotionally charged issues to justify restriction of freedom. TERRORISM no longer works as an excuse, so now the only one left is CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. So you're restricting our right to free speech to protect our children? "Beware the protector, as this is how all tyrants first clothe themselves" - Plato Thanks for your concern, but I'll protect my own children from the evils of the world. It's called parenting and it's my job, not yours.

Russell

24 Dec 2008 6:03am

As a computer engineer, I find it unbelievable that this will stop the distribution of child pornography. Not only can any filter is easily defeated by even a modest amount of technical know how using proxies, encryption, peer to peer techniques etc. These techniques would be in common use already to avoid law enforcement. On the issue of peer to peer filtering. It is not possible to determine ( algorithmically ) what the licensing terms for the transmitted content are. A large amount of legitimate, freely distributable, software is released this way.

Mr Thomas A Anderson

24 Dec 2008 6:03am

"Those that give up liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security".

Phil

24 Dec 2008 6:04am

I wont be voting labor again. Ever.

FinnAus

24 Dec 2008 6:06am

I moved away from Australia a few years ago but I have to speak up at this point despite the fact that this policy does not affect me right now. I can honestly say I am shocked, offended and ashamed of what is being attempted here. The very fact that the government has decided the Australian people cannot be trusted to make wise decisions regarding their internet usage and must be treated as sheep with big brother keeping them honest, that is appalling and insulting. Freedom of speech is not limited to political discourse so the argument being used in this post that this filtering system cannot be compared to other similarly repressive systems in China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. is just misleading and untrue. This system is no different. Steps need to be taken by the Australian people, quickly, to end this. The damage it will do to the overall speed and integrity of Australian internet services (which are already quite poor when compared to European services) is unacceptable and the damage it will do to free speech and free choice in Australia is even less acceptable. This is NOT the government's responsibility and it needs to stop right away.

Heers

24 Dec 2008 6:07am

Is it Christian zealotry ? It is not the stuff of the 'Clever Country'

IT_Sys_Admin

24 Dec 2008 6:08am

As mentioned above there are many, many ways to go around these types of "filtering systems". i work in IT and we struggle to keep up with people finding loopholes / backdoors to access even simple social sites. So if you think you have discovered a way to stop / block this from happening please let me know how to do it. It only took a few days for the last governments attempt to be hacked by a 14 year old kid. Let me assure you if you go ahead with this plan it will only take hours before there are 100's of sites with ways to go around it (Good luck keeping up). If your worried about parents that do not understand about filtering then post a wiki / blog / site with a "Dummies guide" about filtering and how to stop it. Maybe you can spend the money on dedicated people for parents to ring for help (Like Centrelink). This money should be spent on the education system to teach the children and up to the parents as mentioned many times above. Good luck with your plan, you let me know how it works out for you ;)

Sarcastic

24 Dec 2008 6:10am

Can you please also block TV broadcasters? You can start by filtering SBS, 7, 9, 10 and ABC. They have a habit of displaying nudity, filthy language and violence. Sometimes my kids inadvertently turn on the TV and they see nudity or violence - how absurb! Now dont get me started on what my kids can read in the libraries.....

Psychosis

24 Dec 2008 6:12am

I am completely and utterly opposed to the CleanFeed filter. By implementing this filter, Australia, a first-world country, will be violating the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19; which states that �Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.� CleanFeed also violates the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act (Commonwealth) 1979; which says that the Government requires a warrant to intercept our telecommunications data. This CleanFeed filter will not even block a quarter of unwanted content. It will simply lull parents into a false sense of security, and encourage development of new circumvention and distribution methods. Mr Rudd, Mr Conroy, I dont know what the hell you two are thinking, but rewinding out internet by ten years is not the way to go. Listen to experts like Mart Newton, and stay off drugs.

Mitchell

24 Dec 2008 6:12am

I'm just curious, has this plan been backed by any portion of the public besides those of religious origins? As soon as Coalition says they will reverse this internet filter we, the people, will give them the mandate to do so and it is unlikely a labour government will see office for another two terms at least.

Vernon

24 Dec 2008 6:13am

A one term labour Government

Andrew Thorpe

24 Dec 2008 6:15am

(Putting aside all the technical or ideological arguments I have against the filter) I'm sure that the Rudd government is pretty keen on keeping as many of their election promises as possible (an admirable goal, and also a way to avoid a possible line of opposition attack). However, this issue should be viewed differently in a number of ways: 1. Most people didn't know about the policy until after the election. I'm relatively well-informed about political issues and had no idea this was going to happen. 2. Consequently, there was no particularly strong mandate for the government to introduce this policy. Workchoices, climate change, Iraq, health and education spending, even Howard's age and the Republic were all cited by people I know as reasons why they voted against the Howard government; mandatory ISP-filtering never rated a mention. I'm aware that this is akin to calling it a 'non-core promise' but it's different because: 3. The overwhelming majority of not just stakeholders but also the general public DO NOT support the policy. Forcing it on us despite this is not democratic, it's just plain stubbornness. 4. It's a bad, inefficient, counterproductive, costly and stupid policy. Also, I'm baffled by what someone referred to in an earlier comment as the "scope-creep" of this policy. If the minister is looking to reach the point where there's enough backlash to be able to back away gracefully (as the Qld government has done on numerous occasions) then he should realise that he reached that point a while ago. Back away, Senator Conroy. You will be respected for it.

Nathan Barton

24 Dec 2008 6:15am

Kevin Rudd and Conroy are putting at risk our fundamental rights of democracy. While ever the ALP fails to publish the Blacklist, and has it independently audited, how can we live in the belief that we live in a free and fair society? "No society can possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom." - Ghandi

Liam

24 Dec 2008 6:20am

Having not read all the comments. All I can say is that criminals will use anonymous proxy servers should you deem this unsuitable strategy for protecting our children. Criminals will be force underground making them even more difficult to track. You should have allocated the money towards a special police task force combating child pornography instead of slowing Australia's future down. I really wish you would know what you are doing.

Kalani

24 Dec 2008 6:21am

I think everyone thinks this is the worst thing that Australia has ever done. Not one of the worst, but THE worst. Things like this make me not proud of my country and I will happily leave the country if this gets put into play. You might say it isn't a big deal and I don't need to leave the country because of an internet filter. Want to know why I will leave this country? I run an international business based here in Australia. The internet is the way we do our business for EVERYTHING. The slowdown is going to make it impossible to keep business the way it is now. Believe me when I say I will happily move to an asian country along with my business so I don't have to put up with this dictator government. By the way Rudd, I voted for you. I wish I could have taken my vote back and not voted at all. I would think you would be against this but I guess I was wrong. All you have to say is no and you can stop this nonsense.

seanoff M EComm

24 Dec 2008 6:22am

TOTAL LUNACY!!! the internet in Aus is already backwards and adding this filtering to the already slow speeds we get (at high prices too) will only serve to eat into whatever bandwidth we get. Anyone wanting to run a website will be forced to use offshore servers to have any hope of getting adequate bandwidth to run a reasonable site. Add to this the nannying that internet users will be subject to is ridiculous. What are you going to filter? Esp peer to peer. I torrent Top Gear (SBS show them a yr late), which is strictly illegal but hardly a huge deal. is the filter going to stop that? Who will make sure it doesn't spill into political comment? politicians are not to be trusted and their party machines are to be trusted less. I'm a parent and i monitor what my daughter is doing online. it is not the govt's job to be my daughter's parent, it's mine and i do it well. If you want to be a parent to my daughter, can you come and babysit her so i can go to the pub on a friday night occasionally. that'd be nice. if you can't do that, keep the **** away, I will continue to be a good dad and you can spend this money on education or health where it will be some use.

Ruth

24 Dec 2008 6:24am

In response to Conroy's ridiculous answer regarding the blacklist not being made public.. Are you completely unaware of how people that spread childporn work Mr Conroy? Are you also deaf and unable to read? Who is going to find the links to add to the blacklist? Are they going to be jailed for viewing child porn in their search? If the sites are found, then they will be gone within days. There are no permanent childporn websites, as I was taught while working for an online safety organisation. The child porn is uploaded to a server that is linked to by a number address, spread throughout the pedophile networks and then deleted within DAYS. This is never going to work. This has NOTHING to do with child porn and everything to do with the New World Order.

Jeremy

24 Dec 2008 6:26am

To think that the government is wasting my tax dollars on such a backward, draconian infringement on free-speech... It saddens me greatly to think that our civil liberties are being slowly chipped away.

ilandrah

24 Dec 2008 6:27am

1) Side stepping the questions raised by the concerned particpants in this blog will not serve to reduce the amount of opposition to censorship. When people are asking for Senator Conroy to be more open about exactly what content is being blocked, they are not looking for new bookmarks, titles or URLs of sites, but a clear definition of what is deemed inappropriate material. If this blocked content is to be based on current laws then the public outcry will only increase tenfold as there is currently no adult classification for digital media such as games. 2) No one that I know of is seeking to be able to view illegal material from their computers, but it would be nice to have some assurance that adults living in a supposedly democratic nation will have the same access to adult content online that many now enjoy on television and DVD. Games such as Silent Hill have been denied classification based on current gaming laws that are designed with only 15 year old children in mind. This matter needs to be clarified immediately. 3) Parents should be capable of supervising their own children and implementing end user filters if they so desire. The money assigned for developing this censor would have been better spent ensuring that technically incompetent parents are capable of protecting their own children rather than expecting all of society to yet again be responsible for parenting their children for them. 4) Legislation will also need to be written, perhaps as part of an overall constitution that protects our rights to freedom of information and speech. Many Australians take it for granted that these rights are already protected under our constitution, but this is not the case and also needs to be rectified. Whilst an assurance from one senator that political speedch will be protected may be seen as comforting by some here, it does nothing to ensure that this type of censorship will not be mis-used in the future. 5) Australia already labours under some of the slowest internet speeds in the world. With the filter further reducing those speeds, what will be done to improve the lag and attempt to get us to a stage where we can lay claim to a modern internet infrastructure? Once again, this is an area where the money allocated to this program would have been better spent. 6) Lastly, just how much public outcry will it take for the government to abandon this ridiculous scheme and actually represent the people who voted them

Starry

24 Dec 2008 6:29am

What happens when the public servants get behind in updating the censorship lists......and they will? Our young are exposed again. This idea will only push the deviates underground. I will not vote for the Labor Government in the next election because of this one issue.

DJShotty

24 Dec 2008 6:32am

By making plans to remove our right to choose what information we look at on the internet, you're effectively going to change the Constitution insofar as to put an end to a basic right of any free democracy - a citizen's right to choose what we do and don't look at. Have a serious think about bringing this filter of yours into action, Senator. If you've got any brains, you'll wake up to yourself and put a stop to this nonsensical idea right now before the lynch mob reaches Parliament House. We the people do not want your stupid filter, and will do everything in our legal power to ensure your plan doesn't go any further than the paper it's scribbled on. There's one of you, and tens of thousands of us who won't vote for you at the next Election, so who do you think will ultimately lose? In plain English, stop this nonsense, or you're out of a job!

Agmates

24 Dec 2008 6:33am

Minister Conroy, your claim that the government controlled filtering (read censorship) of the internet is not about attacking Australians rite to free speech is misleading at best and deceptive at worst. Currently your government and previous governments spend many millions of dollars on Media advisers, press secretaries and PR people to try and control what appears in the traditional media. So now you want Australians to hand you and your government to exclusive legal right to control what Australians see on the internet. All you offer us as comfort that you, your governments and governments to come will not block material that is politically critical of the government of the day is 'trust us'. Sorry we don't, we are not that naive.

nick

24 Dec 2008 6:39am

I can understand the reasons for the use of this technology but the ability of the government to censore information arbritarly is open to abuse. one of the great aspects of the world wild web is that no content is 'filtered'. this filtering will not solve the problem of cyber crime. i believe that this system will not have the outcomes desired and has little popular support. for those reasons i am firmly against this filtering.

Concerned Australian

24 Dec 2008 6:41am

Generally speaking while encryption is legal filtering won't make a dent in illegal activities but will encourage criminals to use cryptography making it even more difficult to detect. Blocking encrypted traffic or making encryption illegal will not fly. ---- Since this this major and obvious factor seems to be ignored, I am curious about this detail. If the proposed black listed content would be blocked then why not publish the black lists making troubleshooting and detecting false positives possible? The excuse that publishing black lists would point to illegal material is ridiculous because the content itself would already be blocked. Only the IPs or URLs to already blocked content need to be published for troubleshooting, not the content itself. ---- And if a web site of legitimate and lawful business gets mistakenly black listed there needs to be a way to correct the problem in a matter of minutes. But the smallest time unit the government knows how to work with is a week. When federal government or classification agencies get involved this will turn into many months, if at all possible. Even if ISP level filtering was technically possible it would destroy online business for Australians. ---- Give this money to police, schools, hospitals, use it to encourage economy, put it alternative fuel research, do whatever constructive with it. We Australians payed you, the government, this money to use for our good, not to waste it on a futile crusade.

Greg

24 Dec 2008 6:44am

There's many, many comments here which sum up what I'm feeling about this and explain the technical issues, so all I'll add is this: I've voted ALP ever since I turned 18 and never thought it would be any other way, but if this gets up, I'll actively campaign against you at every level of government.

Glen

24 Dec 2008 8:28am

I am not worried about this at all. There is no way something like this will happen. Reason and public opinion will block it long before it happens. I have faith in our country.

I just hope to god that it happens soon, before the rest of the world hears about this.

Glen

24 Dec 2008 8:35am

I am not worried about this scheme at all. It is poorly thought out, unreasonable and extremely unpopular. Reason and public opinion will stop it in its tracks, and we'll never hear of it again. I just hope this happens soon, before to much of the world starts laughing at us.

AH86

24 Dec 2008 8:41am

�As we have said in our main post, the Government does not view the ISP filtering debate as an argument about freedom of speech.�

That�s a lovely statement� But don�t you think that you are a little biased? Just because your establishment doesn�t see it like this doesn�t mean that hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people don�t see it in that way�

�Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content. In this context, claims that the Government's policy is analogous to the approach taken by countries such as Iran, China and Saudi Arabia are not justified.�

Define �Politcal Content�� how does one define what is and is not political content� something which may not be considered a political issue to your establishment, may well be considered a political issue to someone else� who gets to decide what is political and is not political?

This filter will block access to content you deem �not acceptable�� who gets to decide�

drug information and harm minimisation sources� deemed unacceptable?

I�m a 22 year old homosexual male. What happens when someone with a religious agenda such as yourself� decides that maybe publishing HIV information online isn�t "acceptable content" The laws and reforms that you want to put in place are open to abuse and misuse to push various political and religious agendas� where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide what is �not acceptable�? And what qualifies them to decide what is �not acceptable�?

Mr Conroy, the fear of paedophiles is rampant in our country, they are the new media darlings, they sell papers, they buy votes� I do not support paedophiles, they are disgusting vile people who take advantage of vulnerable young people� But how can you honestly say that these reforms are to protect children? The fear card is played time and time again, and what scares people most is when you involve or mention their children� Mr Conroy you are not selling life insurance, and fear should not be a motivating factor here. The voices of the Australian public are loud and clear!

NO CLEAN FEED! NO REPRESSION OF RIGHTS! AND NO INTERNET CENSORSHIP!

I am a heavy internet user, as are lots of people around my age... and we vote... do you really want to further alienate a generation of voters to this extent?

Anonymouse

24 Dec 2008 9:00am

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.

Joe

24 Dec 2008 9:02am

The Country has finally "Gone to the Dogs"!! You have replied to my previous email with a 4 page letter that is pure "Political Rhetoric". The filtering of content was never envisaged to include P2P or Torrent Traffic (Used legitimately for games, such as Warcraft), nor to assist the minority of narrow minded & secular areas of the community to make complaints against URL's that will be added to be listed on the ACMA "Blacklist". In your reply you make no mention of one of my main points .. what avenues are available to ( a financially strapped pensioners or the normal citizens of this Country) to appeal against any decision made by the ACMA .. that doesn't involve departmental fees, legal fees, etc? For the sake of public trust and fairness, Why not make the current list of 1300 "Blacklisted" URL's public, inform the public what guidelines will be tested by this live pilot, what specific filtering methods will be employed to filter-out ILLEGAL CONTENT and what innocent URL's will be caught by this ISP Filtering? If it is not Illegal under current laws, it shouldn't be included in a wide "trawl net" that will not advance the Govt's initial reason for implementing this policy ..... Protection of Children !! AS LONG AS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL I shall view, download, play, write, etc. anything I please. Australia is after all a democracy! It is not a country where we will stand idly-by while the government DICTATES what is suitable for use & what, in the Government's opinion, is not suitable. If it's illegal, the legislation and Govt Dept's are already setup to deal with the DUTY of Protecting our Children (Unless the parent deems it appropriate and it is NOT ILLEGAL) I am married, over 50, have no children at home (they have all left home) and spend approx 10 hours per day on the internet. Minister, please tell me how can this ISP filtering assist me to Protect Children that are no longer in my household? It is Political Clap-Trap!!

Kevin07? More like Internet911 amirite

24 Dec 2008 9:07am

The very nature of the internet dictates that this entire farcical process will in the end be nothing but a monumental waste of time and taxpayers money which only serves to infuriate the general public and destroy the international reputation Australia has of being a forward-thinking, liberal democracy. The ability of your average Bruce to circumvent these filtering procedures should instantly negate any illusions this government holds of the filter being effective. Kids are brought up with the internet as part of their daily lives and are in most cases more technologically adept than their parents, so it's going to be a trivial matter for them to circumvent this ill-thought out proposal if they so wish. It's all a moot point, as this entire fracas is simply a ploy so that labour can placate the conservatives in the senate such as Family First and the right-wing Christian parties to win the votes in the senate they require in order to pass law which is, at the end of the day, the crux of the issue. Labour's claims of 'wanting to protect the children' are nothing but a smokescreen created to confuse the real issue. That responsibility is of the parents and the parents alone, and if you're not 'technically capable' of installing a filter on your PC in this day and age it's really not hard to educate yourself or find someone who has the know-how to do it for you if you're THAT concerned. The fact that 3% of households surveyed had filters installed indicates that A) Parents are able to effectively police their home internet connections and/or B) People just aren't concerned with the risk. Steve I'm sure you're aware that in order to pass this law through the senate you need the support of the Greens, who incidentally are totally opposed to your filtering plans (and who in fact have the most forward thinking and internet friendly policies out of all parties.. food for thought for people wanting to jump off the sinking 2-party ship of Australian politics). The entire thing is just an effort in futility and will probably cost you, if not your party, the next election. The security risks involved in filtering alone are tremendous. The internet is such a fundamentally essential part of modern day life that to put the entire country's connection at risk by implementing flawed filtering technology is utter folly. Mess with our internet at your own peril.

Cliffe

24 Dec 2008 9:12am

“Technology is improving all the time. 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.” - Stephen Conroy

As a musician who shares my music using bittorrent and other peer-to-peer protocols I hope that the filter does not filter out legitimate uses of what is a legal protocol!

As a computer security researcher I will point out that as bittorrent traffic can be encrypted there is no way to actually tell if the traffic is legal or not. That does not justify denying use of the technology altogether. The same goes for web traffic – using encryption (and/or proxies) defeats any filtering in place. There are always ways to circumvent content filters. As you know*.

This scheme is a waste of money, infringes on my ability to act legally, and is completely useless at stopping any informed user from accessing whatever content they want.

* article link

Tristan

24 Dec 2008 9:15am

Is this the brave new world that had me excited to return to a howard-free Australia after 10 years overseas?I have to assume that the effort,research&investment incurred,and that will continue to be incurred,means that more serious problems have been solved?That Australia has a comprehensive Energy&Infrastructure program,that our water problem has finally been addressed,and the land lost to desalination and that has become arid has been reclaimed,that we have improved our inefficient systems at every level,yeah?That jobs that will last,not disappear at the drop of a Dow Jones point,have been created&maintained,and that the number of poor,homeless or disadvantaged have been reduced to the absolute minimum?NO?Well,then,perhaps I'd better stay overseas indefinitely then,as if this Government is the cure,then the disease is no different.

philraz

24 Dec 2008 9:29am

A policy of this size and impact on the Australian people should be brought before the Australian people in the form of a referendum you claim to have a mandate then prove it !

IT_Sys_Admin

24 Dec 2008 9:41am

As mentioned above there are many, many ways to go around these types of "filtering systems". i work in IT and we strugle to keep up with people finding loopholes / backdoors to access even simple social sites. So if you think you have discovered a way to stop / block this from happening please let me know how to do it. It only took a few days for the last governments attempt to be hacked by a 14 year old kid. Let me assure you if you go ahead with this plan it will only take hours before there are 100's of sites with ways to go around it (Good luck keeping up). If your worried about parents that do not understand about filtering then post a wiki / blog / site with a "Dummies guide" about filtering and how to stop it. Maybe you can spend the money on dedicated people for perants to ring for held (Like Centrelink- LOL) This money should be spent on the education system to teach the children and up to the parents as mentioned many times above. Good luck with your plan, you let me know how it works out for you ;)

Null Device

24 Dec 2008 9:41am

Nothing makes this venture seem more like a farce than an Australian TV channel telling kids to put personal information online in a letter to Santa.

Until government takes steps to make this sort of thing illegal, any 'child protection' filters are pointless.

Governemnt deserves some of the blame for this with agencies like Centrelink and the Family Assistance Office encouraging clients to keep their personal information updated online.

It's obvious that if 'child protection' were so important, Government could find a lot of ways to implement it before they lower their sights onto my internet speed.

As another blogger implied - if you are so keen to parent my kids, how about you buy their food, clothes and school supplies for them, drive them to extra-curricular events, take them shopping and make sure they get to school on time?

Leon2008

24 Dec 2008 9:41am

Stephen Conroy's answers clearly show he has no clue.

How many comments have been positive on this blog? Close to zero? How many have been negative? 99%? Mr Conroy should explain why he is not listening to the majority, and he should tell us how many votes he estimates Labor will lose at the next election.

Leon2008

24 Dec 2008 9:42am

I refer to Stephen Conroy's answer:

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.

What is the name of the filtering software that supposedly can monitor BitTorrent traffic? Provide us with a web link to the company that developed the filtering software. I would suggest Conroy's statement is 100% wrong if he can't even provide a web link for more information. If Mr Conroy tries to say "the filtering software is secret" then clearly the government has ulterior motives.

Leon2008

24 Dec 2008 9:44am

Another question in relation to the supposed bittorrent / p2p filtering:

If a person puts a file on bittorrent called "holiday photos.zip", how could any filtering software know that it contains child pornography?

All that will happen is the bad guys will simply rename the files. The filter will be useless.

Until Mr Conroy explains this scenario, I would suggest the supposed filtering will never work.

If Mr Conroy and the Labor government believes so strongly this filtering will work, they should publicly state to the nation: "Labor will resign from government and give power to the Liberal party if any child pornography is unfiltered after the new system is put in place".

If the Labor party will not put their own heads on the line, then clearly this filtering will never stop all child pornography.

Then the only conclusion is the "child pornography" is a convenient excuse, and the government wants to control the internet.

It is a simple challenge to Mr Conroy: Promise that Labor will quit government if the filters are introduced and don't work. After all, a government that fails to protect children, does not deserve power.

Mick

24 Dec 2008 9:47am

Senator, I along with many others use peer to peer software to -legally- distribute free open source software. Do you intend to make such volunteer activities illegal? To use a broad paintbrush as you do by painting all of us who oppose your proposal as paedophiles, blocking peer to peer is akin to racketeering, as you support maintaining monopolies by extinguishing competition. I too have been a loyal Labor supporter since I came of voting age, but unlike the others here who are promising to change votes IF this goes through, I have already decided. This is one vote that Labor is never getting back. Congratulations Steve, they call what you're doing biting the hand that feeds.

John

24 Dec 2008 9:56am

Minister Conroy's claim that government censorship is to protect us is the exact same reason offered by Cuban, Chinese, Iranian and other despicable regimes that crush freedom and try to control debate. This is 21st century book burning, pure and simple, and the fact that Kevin Rudd is allowing it to occur indicates that he learned more than Mandarin while living in China.

Conroy overuses words like "civil" and "confidence" in reference to measures that are currently only used by governments that crush dissent and jail their opponents.

Concepts like freedom and responsibility are utterly alien to the likes of Minister Conroy and any members of his party who support this scheme.

What a sorry day it would be for Australia should we join this poisonous list of countries where liberty is considered too big a threat for the people to enjoy.

Of course it goes without saying that the ALP is too technologically bankrupt to realize that the implementation of these draconian measures will seriously impact download speeds, at least until the next Federal Election.

Cynical

24 Dec 2008 9:58am

I don't trust them at all. I think it is just an excuse to control the internet. I wonder what the rest of the hidden agenda is. Maybe denial of service attacks from overseas could be justified to preserve our internet freedom.

AlexisS

24 Dec 2008 10:02am

from above, "and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content" Freedom of speech is not just allowing political content. Freedom of speech is allowing all possible forms of expression that do not lead directly or indirectly to the harm of another person or people. P2P file transfers is used legitimately for distribution of "free" software like linux that otherwise the produces of the software could not afford to distribute at their expense. Just because criminals use crowbars to break into houses does not mean we should stop the distribution and sale of crowbars to regular customers the same applies to P2P. Good luck trying to stop P2P though because in my 10+ years in Computer Science I can't see how it can be done unless every piece of information being sent over the internet is known to the government computers.

Gavin Heaton

24 Dec 2008 10:03am

It is great that you say that participation in the digital economy is important . However, policies that slow down or restrict access do the exact opposite. Clearly, if we truly want to protect our children from "harmful" content, it would be best to educate not just the kids, but their parents as well. A side effect of such education would be to improve the internet skills of whole generations. Now, that would help make us the "clever country".

Sebastyne

24 Dec 2008 10:37am

One word: Options. Give people OPTIONS. If someone wants to protect their children from harmful content on an isp level, give them the OPTION to select a filtered service provider or a filtered service package, but don't force us who have no children view age appropriate content for an 8-year old. As for illegal content, that is another matter, but you CANNOT impose moral values on people on a government level without reverting back to a third world nation.

Jeff

24 Dec 2008 10:45am

This whole filtering concept appears to me to be a trade with a couple of independents in return for their support for other government initiatives. I can only assume this because no minister with any understanding of the public's wishes would undertake such a stupid initiative. ISP filtering will be the death of internet performance and, worse still, is just one step away from government censorship of any material (not just pornographic) which they don't want the public to see. This may well include political material which is inconsistent with the government's own views. I can only hope that the government receives the backlash from this "nanny state" initiative that it deserves.

hotlazydaze

24 Dec 2008 11:04am

This is yet another infringement on the rights of people supposedly living in a democratic society. The Australian government becomes more like the US government every day in its desire to control and dictate to its people. Of course it has always been inevitable that something so free, enabling, empowering and unrestricted as the Internet can't last because the egomaniacs and control freaks that run our countries don't like us thinking for ourselves....

Michael Josem

24 Dec 2008 11:48am

Hi, The current classification review boards allow either a content provider or an 'aggrieved person' to seek a review of an ACMA classification. Since this internet filter will apply to content provided from outside Australia, presumably many content providers will be unaware of Australian laws on this matter. Can the Government guarantee that anyone who wants to access material that has been blocked will have standing as an "aggrieved person" to seek a review of it? Thanks. regards, Michael

Sparky1980

24 Dec 2008 5:24pm

I agree that Child pornography is totally wrong and we should be doing anything in our power to stop it and protect children. However, trying to block other sites, peer to peer etc is ridiculous - we are fast becoming the laughing stock of the world.

billie

24 Dec 2008 5:32pm

Like many older Australians I am disgusted by the government action to deny people access to euthanasia and information about euthanasia. I will actively campaign against Labor's re-election at state and federal level if this filter becomes operational.

Chris

24 Dec 2008 5:32pm

hey guess what they even filter the comments on here, hence my last comment not getting posted. Minister Conroy is very un Australian.

Mark G

24 Dec 2008 5:33pm

The government has not addressed a number of issues related to the filter in a convincing way. To re-iterate: 1. The filter is not wanted. No proper poll has been done (we can discount push-polls conducted by interest groups who rely on moral panic as a funding source) - but luckily we have a better indicator available. Not just the ratio of comments here, but also the fact that a filter was already offered with a massive marketing campaign to make people aware, and only about 2% of households are using it. The assertion that households are too technically illiterate is patronising and unsubstantiated. The technical knowhow needed to install a filter is negligable and the marketing leaflets and helplines made it even easier. 2. The filter won't work. On the subject of child porn, the head of Taskforce Argos said: "the chances of stumbling across this material� are minimal as it isn�t really distributed on web pages." You can't just stumble on this stuff with casual searches. In the rare instances where the filter might block someone, it can be bypassed in 30 seconds using website services already commonplace in China. Sickos use peer-to-peer software and there's no capacity to filter that�the technology referred to in the previous blog entry is experimental alpha technology that is yet to be employed even in individual firms, let alone for a whole country. And if it were employed, the impact in terms of cost and slowdown would be enormous since each individual packet would need to be routed and decoded�not even the two nations with mandatory filters (Saudi Arabia and China) have intimated doing it. 3. The filter is a waste of money. Funds being spent here are not being spent on policing and detection of child abuse which have yielded such effective results in recent months. In a time when family support services are in such tight straits the idea of spending a hundred million dollars on censorship instead is bizarre. 4. The filter is open to abuse. It can't do much about child porn, but it can stop political content that governments want to hush up. The government says it won't use the filter that way (in which case why even introduce it?) - but any promises won't bind future governments who might feel pressure in the senate to expand the blacklist. 5. The filter will slow down the internet. It can't not. We keep getting disingenuous comparisons with places that don't have a mandatory filter but this is mandatory and theremore much more largescale and heavy-handed. 6. The filter will overblock and underblock content. This has been acknowledged, but the government is still treating internet filter as equivalent to censoring traditional media. What Senator Conroy doesn't understand is that the internet is not just another form of media. The censorship rules applied to other media do not overblock or underblock, and they have some chance of working because you are blocking supply of a physical commodity, like DVDs or VCR tapes. The internet is different. 7. The filter policy will enable child abuse. To implement this filter, the government is sending its blacklist to 700 ISPs, most of whom oppose the policy outright. When the list leaks, as it inevitably must, it will prove a useful tool for the most unsavoury internet users. And if the filter somehow has some success in driving child porn further underground, that will actually make it harder for law enforcement to do its job. 8. The filter is opposed by the Liberal party, the greens, child support agencies (such as Save the Children), ISPs, technical experts everywhere... and quite a lot of voters who remember the government's broken election promise to allow full opt-out. The filter's failure is not just a technical certainty but also a political one. It fails on levels. And the pro-filter case is awful. Seriously. The reason they have to use lies (see: http://libertus.net/censor/resources/statistics-laundering.html#controv) and slander their opponents is that they have no case. They have openly refused to address the filter's feasability, because they know they cannot. The arguments that result are worthy of Sir Humphry ("I know it won't work in practice, but what about in theory?"). The choice the government has is to use the filter trials as a way to bail out of this toxic policy on their own terms... or deny political and technical reality and add to the ignominy with failure in the senate. It falls to us to remember which choice the government makes when the next election rolls around.

Thelen

24 Dec 2008 5:35pm

Denying torrents will be like denying TV because TV can sometimes contain violence and pornographic content. Your totally destroying the next big thing!

Wade

24 Dec 2008 5:36pm

Your idea of filtering shows that your knowledge of internet and technology is far below what someone in your position should have, pushing such an unpopular idea and never responding to the concerns and sheer hate people have shown is pathetic. Enjoy your next position sweeping floors in parliament. Because that's the only job someone as retarded as you can handle.

Lucy

24 Dec 2008 5:39pm

Is the government planning on decrypting encrypted peer to peer traffic? If so, how do I know my bank details are safe. If not, illegal content is easily encrypted, so why bother filtering? I once again urge this government to cease and desist from this highly unpopular and poorly thought out plan to filter Australia's internet.

Ross

24 Dec 2008 5:40pm

In the media we are regularly hearing of people being prosecuted for possession of child pornography, generally found on their computers. The positive side of this is that these people are being identified, caught and charged, and the prospect of them ever being allowed to work or be involved in an environment with other peoples children becomes much less likely. So any attempt to apply content filtering inevitably makes it harder for our law enforcement agencies to track the flow of child pornography over the internet as offenders will be forced to find more complex protocols for its transmission. I have always been a Labour Party supporter and have admired the party for its progressive policies. In contrast this mandatory content filtering scheme looks like something that came from out of the Hillsong Church and its associated political offshoot, the Family First party.

Scott Luxford

24 Dec 2008 5:46pm

How can you achieve accurate results with out a real world scenario? It is just not possible. I intend to cancel my internet subscription if this occurs.

snotknows

24 Dec 2008 5:47pm

there is nothing civil or confident about censorship, hardly. Anyone that cannot see that this is indeed censorship and a severe blow to the advancement of mankind;is blind but to their own wants and beliefs and a mistake to their own empowerment ie; a tyrant of sorts