Scott

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.