The content on this page and other DBCDE document archive pages is provided to assist research and may contain references to activities or policies that have no current application. See the full archive disclaimer.
Why aren't PC-level filters sufficient?
Whatever happened to parents being responsible for what their children view? The government has already provided a PC based filtering system, which only about 3% of households took up. Which, to me, just goes to show most parents don't care about filtering anyway.
Posted by OzAtheist / 10 Dec 2008 10:21am / Permalink
The previous Government's Protecting Australian Families Online strategy focused on providing families with PC-level filtering software. 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. ISP-level filtering could provide important protection for those families with limited technical expertise.
We understand that ISP filtering is not a 'silver bullet' for this purpose. However, in conjunction with the Government's numerous other initiatives in this area, we believe it can make an important contribution to protecting children online.
Return to the Promoting a Civil and Confident Online Society blog topic or see other responses:
- This is an attack on freedom of speech
- How will the blacklist be maintained?
- Why wonít the Government publish what is included in the ACMA blacklist?
- How does ACMA determine what sites will be included on the blacklist?
- Hasnít the Government already undertaken a trial of the technical issues surrounding internet filtering? Didnít this trial find that filtering was not effective?
- Wonít internet filtering reduce internet speeds?
- Internet filtering wonít stop peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic—so why bother?
- So what else is the Government doing to help protect children online?