Minister Conroy on: Promoting a civil and confident society online

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

Posted by Sean / 22 Dec 2008 6:17pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Callum / 22 Dec 2008 6:14pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Sylvia Else / 22 Dec 2008 6:14pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by peggotty / 22 Dec 2008 6:09pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Ash Kyd / 22 Dec 2008 6:09pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Verity Pravda / 22 Dec 2008 6:02pm / Permalink

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

Posted by AusMan / 22 Dec 2008 6:00pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Shagata Ganai / 22 Dec 2008 6:00pm / Permalink

"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.

Posted by chaddles / 22 Dec 2008 5:56pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Boris / 22 Dec 2008 5:52pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by ex Labor voter / 22 Dec 2008 5:30pm / Permalink

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"

Posted by notaconroyfan / 22 Dec 2008 5:28pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Daniel / 22 Dec 2008 5:24pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by MattR / 22 Dec 2008 5:23pm / Permalink

"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.

Posted by h / 22 Dec 2008 5:20pm / Permalink

"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.

Posted by Matthew / 22 Dec 2008 5:17pm / Permalink

"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?

Posted by Brad / 22 Dec 2008 5:12pm / Permalink

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?

Posted by Korny / 22 Dec 2008 5:11pm / Permalink

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

Posted by liquid / 22 Dec 2008 5:09pm / Permalink

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

Posted by hot_pastrami / 22 Dec 2008 5:06pm / Permalink

"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.

Posted by h / 22 Dec 2008 5:05pm / Permalink

"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.

Posted by Eddie / 22 Dec 2008 5:03pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Stu / 22 Dec 2008 5:03pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by NonSequitur / 22 Dec 2008 4:56pm / Permalink

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 and oppressive,

Posted by Stu / 22 Dec 2008 4:53pm / Permalink

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

Posted by marshall hughes / 22 Dec 2008 4:49pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Micheal G / 22 Dec 2008 4:49pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by rachel / 22 Dec 2008 4:42pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Jinjirrie / 22 Dec 2008 4:41pm / Permalink

"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.

Posted by TheWomp / 22 Dec 2008 4:40pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by nevesis / 22 Dec 2008 4:39pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by peggotty / 22 Dec 2008 4:36pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Brownbear / 22 Dec 2008 4:36pm / Permalink

"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.

Posted by Josh Deprez / 22 Dec 2008 4:32pm / Permalink

How dare you hide behind Australia's children?

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.

Posted by TheWomp / 22 Dec 2008 4:32pm / Permalink

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/

Posted by Dennis Nelrum / 22 Dec 2008 4:26pm / Permalink

(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.

Posted by abba12 / 22 Dec 2008 4:21pm / Permalink

“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”?

Posted by Klaw81 / 22 Dec 2008 4:18pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by MarkC / 22 Dec 2008 4:16pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by abba12 / 22 Dec 2008 4:13pm / Permalink

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 !!!!!".

Posted by David / 22 Dec 2008 4:04pm / Permalink

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!

Posted by Jim / 22 Dec 2008 4:04pm / Permalink

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...

Posted by 13tales / 22 Dec 2008 4:03pm / Permalink

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?

Posted by Sam D / 22 Dec 2008 4:01pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Ryan McCue / 22 Dec 2008 3:57pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Daryl / 22 Dec 2008 3:56pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Charlie / 22 Dec 2008 3:55pm / Permalink

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?

Posted by Rob / 22 Dec 2008 3:53pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Dennis Nelrum / 22 Dec 2008 3:52pm / Permalink

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?

Posted by 13tales / 22 Dec 2008 3:47pm / Permalink