Comments on 'Minister Tanners Welcome'

Michael Moon

09 Dec 2008 11:55am

Excellent. A firm positive move in the right direction. Policy is never developed in a vacuum it just sometimes seems that way. Open consultation will make for better policy. Well Done.

Gaz

09 Dec 2008 11:56am

Excellent initiative, so well done. Can I suggest that to facilitate civil discussion that your Ministerial partner, Sen Conroy refrain from implying that those who oppose your net filtering plans are somehow supporters of child pornography as he has done in the past? His comments instantly caused the debate to veer off into unproductive directions and were therefore extremely unhelpful. I hope he can raise his standard of contribution in the spirit of the sort of "effective engagement" you quite rightly mention.

Sam Clifford

09 Dec 2008 11:56am

I'm glad to see that this blog has been set up and I look forward to seeing what the Australian public have to say regarding the goverment's policies regarding the internet. I hope the comments on the blog continue to be open and wonder just how much time the Ministers will dedicate to responding to comments on this blog.

Jinjirrie

09 Dec 2008 2:56pm

Hi Lindsay Congratulations on your blogventure - more public consultation is sure to be of benefit to productive, responsible policy-making. An initial suggestion - please replace Conroy with someone competent who understands the technical aspects of the internet and who comprehends that Conroy's net filter plans will nobble Australian internet speeds, thus crippling the net economy at the worst possible time and be counter-productive to the mitigation of child pornography on the net. Another bogus prototype trial will not change the inevitable. I think I can safely guarantee this excellent reshuffle will save taxpayers a lot of money in the short, medium and long term. Best wishes Jin

Jeremy Mitchell

09 Dec 2008 3:02pm

Welcome to the world of blogging, as the Editor-in-Chief of Telstra�s blogging site nowwearetalking.com.au, I fully agree with your comments that blogging is a learning process, we have been doing it for three years, and we are still learning and evolving. Anyone who thinks they have it down pat doesn�t understand the web. We treat our blogs as open conversations; this is our view, what�s yours? If you think we are wrong, tells us why. Blogs and web enables people, companies and even governments to be more open and transparent about their views, and that can only be a good thing.

David

09 Dec 2008 3:07pm

I hope this blog encompasses Internet access and equity especially for rural and remote users Great Idea

Danu Poyner

09 Dec 2008 3:07pm

This is a welcome development and I find the way it has been written to be very encouraging. I look forward to a productive and meaningful discussion.

Annabey

09 Dec 2008 3:08pm

This is a great move towards increasing accountability and transparency. I am just hoping that comments aren't heavily censored in these discussions..... We will see!

Paul Budde

09 Dec 2008 3:10pm

Infrastructure essential for the digital economy. Many countries have begun to understand that broadband transmission infrastructure is not merely important for the direct social and economic use of citizens, but that it is equally important for the digital economy and includes critical sectors such as healthcare, education and smart grids. In addition, because broadband infrastructure enables tele-work and simply makes day-to-day living more convenient for residents, there are clear indications that property values are positively affected by the presence of such infrastructure. Several countries (Norway, Netherlands) have initiatives whereby the home owners can become the owners of the fiber tail that ends in their homes. The International Telecommunications User Group (INTUG) commented that encouraging the ubiquitous supply of high-speed broadband infrastructure supporting competitively provided services and content will contribute significantly to growth, productivity and jobs. A study in which INTUG participated earlier in 2008 showed that this would add 1.6%-2.0% GDP in the EU within ten years. Once these social and economic values of the digital economy are recognised the issue of network separation � either formal structural separation or voluntary or regulatory separation � arises, because of a systemic divergence between: � the interest of a network owner/operator in maintaining scarcity in transmission capacity to maximise its returns (both in selling access to the capacity and in propping up the retail price of services that depend on the artificially scarce bandwidth) and � the interest of society as a whole in deploying abundant transmission capacity as widely as possible and at both the lowest cost and the lowest retail price feasible. Indeed, if we are correct that there are large positive externalities to the widespread deployment of such capacity that would support providing it on a subsidized basis in order to internalize those externalities to the price facing the end-user At a minimum, socially critical services such as healthcare, education and smart grids need to be provided at the lowest possible cost, and their ROI models therefore need to be based on utilities-based costing. Otherwise, achieving the national goals associated with those services will require, in effect, the payment of a tax to network operators whose ability to assess the tax � in the form of high payments for cheap-to-provide connectivity � arises entirely from their occupation of the public rights-of-way to reach consumers and businesses and their own economic motivation to benefit from ensuring that the supply of bandwidth is limited. It is hard to see the policy logic that would support granting rights to use the public right-of-way in order to achieve important public policy goals and then economically impairing the nation�s ability to reach those same goals by permitting pricing at rates above the (very low) utility-based economic costs of doing so. In situations where it is effective, competition � including full facilities-based competition � is definitely preferable to regulation. But where the market is dominated by a monopoly or a duopoly, either due to economies of scale or entry barriers (both of which appear to exist in local broadband infrastructure), it makes no sense to simply say that those who wish to compete can do so. Pursuit of competition as an end in itself, and an unthinking faith that it can and will develop regardless of the actual economic and engineering realities on the ground, is a critically ill-informed cop-out. The sheer dominance of the incumbent under the current regulatory and economic circumstances makes facilities-based competition impossible in the long run and, in any event, economically unviable. The main reason why Australia has fallen behind in digital economy developments is because of a lack of affordable high-speed broadband access. The private interest of the network operator in minimising capital expenditures and maximising the returns they earn on the capital they do expend conflicts directly with the public interest in true broadband connectivity to all citizens and businesses. I believe that there is no rational basis to think that within the framework of current Australian regulatory philosophy existing network operators have now, or will ever have, the incentive to deploy the kind of ubiquitous broadband connectivity � required to underpin the digital economy - that other nations have achieved, and that Australia should achieve.

Sydney

09 Dec 2008 3:10pm

Minister Tanner my appeal to you, concerning the funding of the NBN, is to avoid the entrapment of Government (and the taxpayer) with their reinvolvement in industries that would better be left to private enterprise. Also, the vital NBN Network should remain under the controls of Australian companies and profits should remain in Australia for the benefit of all Australians. Congratulations on the formation of the Blog.

Angela from Aberdeen

09 Dec 2008 3:12pm

Good for you for working within the new online culture. Not only is this really a great move in the right direction, but it is a way of embracing the new culture of today; the Digital Culture. Angela from Aberdeen

Nick Pahl

09 Dec 2008 3:13pm

Bravo - Government needs to be pushing for more innovative ways of consulting and engaging grassroots constituents. Whilst this policy consultation mechanism feels a bit clunky, and has some systemic issues, I would urger my fellow netizens out there stifle the urge to attack this initiative in its early stages. It may not be perfect, but lets not kill the trend in its early development by going for the jugular. I look forward to commenting on Digital economy policies and issues as they affect me. And finally, Senator Conroy, I understand your logic for an evidence based approach for assessing the "Clean feed" trial. But put your political hat on for one moment, and take a long hard look at the Obama 08 campaign and what internet activism in the 21st century can achieve when it is on your side. Then take a moment to consider what will happen when those very same forces are marshaled against you.... NP

Ben Winter-Giles

09 Dec 2008 3:15pm

Excellent, I am enthused by the fact that there is recognition that this medium is NOT new, but that it is in consideration by the Australian Government. Careful employment of stable technology and environments is a hall mark of the Australian Government, and does sadly leave it exposed to open criticism by the Australian Community which is classically an "early adopter" of many forms of technology. The mobile phone being a classic example of that adoption rate. Exposing the creative process which applies to the development of Government policy and decision making is a crucial part to the way we as the Australian Public can now interact with our Government. Which to my mind should ultimately be a consultative process. Critical to this process is finding more than one successful medium or channel which can be employed by the Government to effect such consultation. I trust that the makers of such decisions are aware of this issue, and will seek to enable the community at large in multiple ways in which to interact and contribute positively to this ongoing consultation.

divinewrite

09 Dec 2008 3:17pm

I'm glad the Government is taking this approach. Well done. And I hope it heralds a bit of dialogue. Particularly, I hope it indicates that the Government will listen to consumers and business, and abandon the ridiculous notion of an internet filter. I'm a parent and a business person. I'm responsible for what my children can and can't see on the Internet. I don't want the government degrading the quality or inflating the cost of Austrlaian Internet - all for something we don't need and don't want. We are not China. Please reconsider.

JanW

09 Dec 2008 3:20pm

Thanks for setting this up. Glad to see that good ideas are being borrowed. Even the language on Change.gov is changing the way people think about their interaction with govt: Your Administration, just as an example. Back to this effort. I realise this is under a topic of Industry Development. But why? 'Digital Economy' is last century. The 21st century is a focus on community development, a much broader perspective. Economic issues are only a part of the impact of new communication systems. The Economic perspective isn't doing too well right now, is it? Bottom line: I'd start from a different starting point so that the policy isn't so limited. Otherwise many people who can benefit from a digital communications policy will be left out. Stop with the stove pipes. Learn what networking is really about. Last questions: why is this limited to 18 days? Are those business days or calendar days? And why so close to the holidays?

Harimau

09 Dec 2008 3:21pm

Indeed, policies should not be made in a vacuum. As a civil libertarian I have serious concerns about ISP level filtering and the reasons for the idea being considered. The ineffectiveness of it in fulfilling the stated goals is a serious concern and the downsides (slowing broadband, potentially blocking useful sites and even the simple right for Australians to enjoy online erotic content) outweigh the perceived good.

johnboy

09 Dec 2008 3:24pm

This is a good first step and the government should be applauded for not only attempting it but to admitting that it will be a gradual, evolving process. However the sincerity of this is hard to fathom given the current tone of ALP internet policy. Mandatory ISP level filtering? Could anything be more backward? How can we contribute to government policy when certain aspects of the debate may suddenly be declared illegal. In the previous government all serious discussion of drug harm reduction policies was discouraged and any websites doing so were attacked and vilified by members of parliament, even though many of the concepts discussed were policies of other (more enlightened) countries. Under the proposed legislation what would stop a future government from declaring that all such websites are illegal, and removing a dissenting opinion from debate? This may seem like an extreme case but it is the lack of detail currently coming out of the department that does little to reassure us. If this blog, and other efforts, can lead to a real two way conversation then it is worthwhile. I simply hope it is not a token effort to give a fig leaf of "consultation" to an already decided issue.

Matthew

09 Dec 2008 3:30pm

I welcome the Ministers using the digital media as part of their efforts to communicate & consult with the Australian public, but more importantly hear our responses to postings. I look forward to you tackling the "hard" questions in an open, honest & direct way and ensure that as you solicit feedback on these difficult issues you only moderate and not filter responses.

Genevieve Robey

09 Dec 2008 3:31pm

This is a great step in the right direction. There are plenty of us who will be keen to provide feedback and help. When you say it's "not without its risks" - this is a great place to discuss what you see as the risks. You've got an experienced community watching who will be glad to provide advice on that. Speaking of how to engage with people online, someone on Twitter said that you restrict the amount that someone can contribute. If this is the case - could you share with us what the restriction is?

Terri Duarte

09 Dec 2008 3:31pm

Hi There, I have to agree with Gaz re Senator Conroy's comments regarding criticism of the net filtering initiative that Senator Conroy is championing. I also think that this blog will prove to be useful in that if Ministers actually rwad it, they will actually see that there is a lot off un tapped talent out there they can use. Now, is the next blog topic going to be on the net filter? i sincerely hope so as that will attract a lot of discussion!

Azilia Azinaz

09 Dec 2008 3:40pm

Great move. Good luck.

Mick Leyden

09 Dec 2008 2:31pm

Lindsay, This is a great initiative, I appreciate that while this is not cutting edge technology it is a step in the right direction. Social media offers governments the opportunity to engage with their constituents like never before. In the spirit of openness I have got 4 requests. 1. Please listen to every comment on this blog and make those comments visible to the public to encourage further debate. 2. Only filter comments that clearly breach the terms of use and guidelines set out in the moderation policy. (It can be tempting to block those you don�t like) 3. Please engage with the public. You and your staff will unlikely be able to respond to every comment, however try to respond to as many as you can. 4. If this experiment goes pear-shaped try again This project provides a great opportunity to talk with the public, please make sure that you do. Mick

mickgardner

09 Dec 2008 3:35pm

Honestly, this is a great move. Governments must engage with the wider community in the most effective ways possible. Blogs, twitter, social networks are a great way to engage with many people in a way that they are used to communicating. If its easier and quicker for us to provide you with feedback, suggestions and ideas then your more likely to receive them.

Bob Foot

09 Dec 2008 3:36pm

This is a great idea. So long as user comments are actually read and so long as all comments are live, regardless of whether they are positive or negative.

Kimble Young

09 Dec 2008 3:37pm

I think this is a good step forward. Especially given the the voting public's view that the government has been taking a lot of steps backwards in the area of the digital economy (especially the cleanfeed). Hopefully this is just part of a suite of policies that aim to foster our rather infant online economy. Maybe one day we will be a first world e-economy.

Anthony Coles

09 Dec 2008 5:19pm

Great to see some 'open' dialogue. Some industry comments from South Australia here for you to consider. Perhaps open this up to a wider audience through a Facebook Page promoted from the AIMIA,or AIIA, or IAB Cheers...

Simon Rumble

09 Dec 2008 3:52pm

Glad to hear the government is actually planning to listen to experts, rather than berate them and claim anyone who disagrees is pro child porn. It might also be a good idea to open the NBN tenders to consultation? A small technical issue: It's standard practice to embed the link to the feed inside the HTML so readers like Google Reader can find the feed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS#Including_in_XHTML

Matthew

09 Dec 2008 3:47pm

danwarne

09 Dec 2008 3:55pm

Australian Personal Computer Magazine has published a critique of the blog, titled "The 10 sins of Senator Conroy, the blogger". If your people could give our people some feedback on our feedback, we might be able to get a whole new public/government consultation process going.

T

09 Dec 2008 3:56pm

Transparency in government is a laudable goal and I have the utmost respect for Minister Tanner in his stint as shadow IT minister. Senator Conroy, I'm not so impressed with.

Jorge Chapa

09 Dec 2008 3:50pm

Excellent idea, though if I may offer the first suggestion, could you please offer the full content on the rss feeds? nothing worse than truncated feeds, particularly for this, a consultation blog.

Tim Hughes

09 Dec 2008 3:51pm

Welcome to the Internet! I hope you enjoy your stay. I think this is a very positive move, yet it seems in contradiction to the Department's moves on Internet filtering. Leaving the topic of pornography aside, crippling the already slow Internet infrastructure in Australia will seriously damage any chance we have of making the most of the Digital Economy. Good luck with the blog. I hope you get something out of it. Thanks, Tim.

RD

09 Dec 2008 4:00pm

Can we please admit that goverment is about 15 years too slow on internet issues and maybe hire someone ... i dunnol.. with an engineering qualification to be the minister? I have laughed and cried at the attempts of Conroy and Alston et al over the years as they attempt to hide their ignorance while being led by the nose by media interests. This filter is just a last ditch attempt by the TV networks to protect their dead business model from competition by online content providers. The filter will not protect children, it will just make child pornographers harder to catch by moving them onto P2P networks, the child protection thing is a smokescreen, really this is about protecting channels 9,7 and 10.

Informed Citizen

09 Dec 2008 4:29pm

I am interested in why, Senator Conroy feels that disclosing the list of unacceptable sites/ip's/urls under freedom of information legislation for the "Clean Feed" policy is not acceptable. Understanding what is "acceptable" and not acceptable under the current rating systems in Australia. Providing an open policy on this information will surely remove any doubts as to the possible nature of the proposed blocking. Not that I am for the proposed clean feed. I hope to see some real 2 way conversation rather than the information that has been presented to the public so far. I welcome this opertunity to discuss with the Department.

Tim

09 Dec 2008 4:30pm

I'll second the comments made so far - it's encouraging to see government embracing technology, and the new means of communication it creates. However, in saying this, I'm still very disappointed by the Government's plans for net filtering (and, by the looks of it, I'm not the only one). It would be great to see a future post discuss the Government's perspective on the filters, and how it can be sure these won't affect Australia's future successes in the digital economy. From my own perspective, it's certainly not the right foot to start out on, but I'm happy to stand corrected (pardon the pun).

Dean

09 Dec 2008 4:32pm

Nicely put Gaz. I was involved in the previous net censorship (at ISP level) project back at the start of the decade. The updates were infrequent and often very ordinary (sites that a 15 year old could buy a magazine copy of but not visit the website for example). I can tell you now that if you roll out a filter based on application and even packet level I can still bypass it free within minutes of it going live without any problems at all. And not surprisingly it's exactly the same way people bypassed the last one. A school student in grade 6 will be held up for a few minutes by it but ultimately would have no real problems. I ask why so we do this when we wouldn't let kids watch adult movies without first checking them?

WhoPutTheConInConroy?

10 Dec 2008 12:25pm

What actually is "foresighting"? It appears in the menu to the left, but not in any dictionary I could find... Can Mr Conroy provide us with any other cool new words that we can use in our daily lives? How about "Strategification" or "Policificate"?

Scot Mcphee

09 Dec 2008 4:43pm

I think the government should explore the idea of directing every government institution to consider open source software for it's IT infrastructure and even more importantly, for the government to to open FORMATS to share information. Also from the software development perspective the commonwealth ought to think about its still heavy reliance on project and engineering methodologies known and proven to fail, i.e. "waterfall" methods. The department of finance ought to stop wasting it's money on methods that simply cannot deliver quality software, and instead explore the use of Agile Methods to deliver working software sooner and cheaper to its internal and external customers.

ChengZhe Wu

09 Dec 2008 4:49pm

This is a nice idea. The following is an email I sent to Mr Conroy. Dear Senator Conroy, or the many people that intercepts emails before it gets to him. Is this going to happen in Australia now? Because the Senator "proudly" said that the filter that he wants (or should I say, the filter that Family First wants) is similar to that of Britain. Well, if you are going to censor Wikipedia You are either going to have to make bypassing the filters illegal or else everyone will render your filters useless. Also, do you know how much China spent on their internet filtering? I'll give you a hit - a hell of a lot more than you have budgeted for. And guess what? If I wanted to read the BBC in China when it was blocked, I still can. I'm sure I can get around your filter if I wanted to. Sincerely, ChengZhe Wu. ---- I doubt this breaches any rules. However if it does, please advise me on which bit I have broken.

Stephen Price

09 Dec 2008 4:52pm

I see this as a positive thing. Enabling the public to easily communicate their thoughts and feedback to the Government. Life is all about relationships and this should make the Government-Citizen relationships stronger. I hope that the Government, Minister Conroy in particular, is willing to listen to what is said. He seems to be defending an idea (Internet filter) that has been indicated by many, including experts in Internet technology, to be a bad idea. It takes a lot to be able to admit you were wrong. Let's hope he's not being righteous, or worse, chasing votes from people who don't understand the issue. Sure, it would be fantastic to be able to filter illegal material from the Internet but at what cost? Freedom of speech, and a slow death to the Australian online industry? Even slower and more expensive Internet for Australians? Protection of children is the responsibility of their parents, not the Government.

Kevmeister

09 Dec 2008 4:53pm

This is a great initiative. My first comment, however, is that this blog is so deeply hidden within in standard government bureaucratic web-site that it does not stand out as a blog at all. You can't tell the woods for the trees (ie. what is blog content and what is not, such as press releases).

Rohan

09 Dec 2008 4:54pm

I'm looking forward to participating in this blog. The digital economy is very important and Australia is somewhat behind the rest of the world!

Simon Shaw

09 Dec 2008 4:55pm

This is a great initiative to allow the public to express their views. I would like to also back Gaz's comments above with a note regarding Senator Conroys proposed internet filter. Senator Conroy continues to either not comment on the exact nature of the proposed filter, answer any technical questions on the matter or sidesteps the matter completely. This is against the spirit of what our elected representatives are supposed to do. I have sent a number of letters regarding the filter to various politicians and keep receiving back copies of the same document I received from Senator Conroys office when I wrote to him. I would say 90% plus of IT people in Australia are against the proposed filter. (Based on polls and general discussion with colleagues). On the National Broadband Network initiative, please don't allow Telstra to consolidate their monopoly. It will hurt Australia in the short to long term. Thankyou.

Michael Rees

09 Dec 2008 4:56pm

This is an impressive move by the Federal Government to embrace an open blog, probably the main social media tool that allows individuals to comment on national policies and be heard. A first test will come immediately with the current proposals for technically flawed, non-opt-out Internet filtering. Such proposals appear to offer an immediate threat to the Australian digital economy. Let us hope this blog will allows free and open debate about the issues.

Luke Austin

09 Dec 2008 5:00pm

The digital economy IS the future. Infrastructure is the key in the short term, but we need to be realistic about what we can achieve in non-urban areas - we cannot reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator, or we will all fail. Let's get worlds-best connectivity into the cities to start with.

MadScotty

09 Dec 2008 5:01pm

Will views opposing Labor party policy be posted here? Or will it be censored?

Simon Shaw

09 Dec 2008 5:02pm

Steve K

09 Dec 2008 5:05pm

Sen. Tanner: thanks for this opportunity for us the voter to help shape policy. We have elected you to do a job, and when we have dissatisfaction with that job, you should be able to hear it. I further back comments previously made about Sen. Conroy's Jihad on the "great firewall of Canberra" and its detractors. This Sen. should be looking at a whole community consultative approach to this ill concieved notion of censorship, and exactly what sort of "illegal" material the government deems inappropriate for the adult members who vote them into power. Quoting Twain : "censorship is telling an adult he cannot have a steak because a baby can't chew it" Perhpas Sen Conroy could have this uppermost in this thoughs in the near future.

Chris

09 Dec 2008 5:06pm

This is indeed a welcome openess from a minister. I am just optimistic enough to hope that the moderation policy won't be used to quash any dissenting opinions, especially regarding the massively flawed internet filtering scheme.

Chris Webb

09 Dec 2008 5:07pm

Whatever organisations are informing you that they will be able to provide technology to keep this "black list" up to date are lying to you. There are HUNDREDS of ways to get round any blacklist. Heard of proxy servers people (I have one in Germany, that on your black list?) Why don't you take the ridiculous amount of money you are wasting on this fool's errand and give it to child protection agencies who will do something meaningful with the cash, or the police, to spend more on tracking child abuse cases.

Chris

09 Dec 2008 5:11pm

This is a great move, but will be wasted if you hamstring our internet, as you seem to be planning. There won't be a "digital economy" if Australian businesses can't compete internationally due to slooooow filters.

Mark

09 Dec 2008 5:20pm

Agreed with comments to date and thank you for this opportunity to comment via this blog. I'm from overseas (I've resided in the Sydney area for the past 2 years) and one item that I miss terribly from home (and that I think is essential to e-commerce) is a sense for free wireless internet connection as an important if not essential public good - like a drinking fountain in a park. I miss being able to access the internet from various free publicly maintained hotspots - including on public transport. I also miss having a cafe culture that truly supports e-commerce (free wireless internet for customers, comfortable seating, numerous powerpoints and extended operating hours - in some cases to 2 - 3 am). From my view, Australia needs more tech-ready third spaces to support e-commerce . . . and small business, in general. Maybe start with wiring the pubs? Thanks for the chance to comment!

Peter

09 Dec 2008 5:21pm

Just like the internet, this blog will be "filtered" by the Government. The results will be biased and one-sided.

Homer

09 Dec 2008 5:22pm

Open consultation is a great idea, well done

Ryan...

09 Dec 2008 5:23pm

Why can the minister not give a hard and fast guarantee that this filtering won't be used to stifle opposition parties having access to the internet and intentionally filtering out content that does not agree with the Labor government?

nocleanfeed

09 Dec 2008 5:24pm

Only three comments so far? Guess that's what you get with the the government "moderation" policy. Perhaps the position of DBCDE Minister and top public service positions should be given to people that actually know what the Internet is, and not god bothering Luddites.

Peter M

09 Dec 2008 5:24pm

Surely transparancy requires a full disclosure to the public of what will be blocked. Why isn't this list readily available?

Alex S

10 Dec 2008 11:39am

H e l l o M i n i s t e r C o n r o y. I r e a l i s e i h a v e t o t a l k s l o w l y f o r y o u , i f y o u t h i n k t h e i n t e r n e t i s t o f a s t r i g h t n o w, s o m u c h f o r a d v a n c e a u s t r a l i a.

Dave Sheffield

09 Dec 2008 5:35pm

Hi Lindsay, bravo - this is certainly a step toward 21st century style democracy. Like many others, I may disagree with the ISP filtering plans, but I hope that this will be an open forum for the airing of considered opinions on both sides, on this and many other issues.

toiletduck

09 Dec 2008 5:36pm

Seriously, if you want to have a blog then great. but there is no point in having a comment system if you arent going to listen. and in regards to the filter, its a major step BACK. its not going to make the government or australia, or the internet in australia go FORWARD. no soup for you.

krusty32

09 Dec 2008 5:37pm

Internet filtering.Communism. NO NO NO.I enjoy my freedom of choice.

mark

09 Dec 2008 5:39pm

give it up conroy- filter the internet at your peril. you could be the direct cause of a one term government.

Simon

09 Dec 2008 5:42pm

I am all for filtering of child pornography sites but devise system that will not affect internet speeds for gods sake! They are slow enough as it is and implementing this system will only create more headaches and a step backwards not forwards!

Marc Lehmann

09 Dec 2008 5:43pm

Great step in the right direction. I was extremely concerned not to see Technology represented in 2020 in a prominent position. It is a force clearly and unequivocally shaping the world. I hope Senator Conroy listens to the industry carefully. The realm of knowledge on these topics such as filtering is far greater in the tech ecosystem than in anyone individual or senator.

Anonymous

09 Dec 2008 5:44pm

The problem with crime on the internet is the same as with crime on the street. The government is too cheap to pay for good old fashioned police investigations. If you post illegal content on a website, you should expect a visit from a police officer. Have a think about the alcohol fuel violence that happens every week in the Valley, here in Brisbane. This can be easily stopped by blocking everyone from going into the Valley on the weekends. That is not likely to happen is it, Mr Conroy. So how about you open your own wallet (rather than the ISP's wallet) and do something about this.

Richard

09 Dec 2008 5:45pm

Consider a wiki... A blog is not the only web 2.0 tool. Pick the right tool, for what you are trying to achieve. eg economics.com.au (j Gans at MBS) Blog = single author, with comments from readers. Wiki = collaborative document creation eg wikipedia. Each of your question could be posed in a wiki.... eg What should be Australia's digital economy policy? Forum = ongoing questions and answers. eg whirlpool.net.au

Mullet

09 Dec 2008 5:49pm

Bear with me on this - thousands of children walk to school every day - is it feasible or practical to provide a chaperone for every one of them? No. So we teach them stranger danger and safety houses and just trust that they will do the right thing if the situation occurs. Same with swimming, bike-riding and any other activity that involves a possible risk - TEACH them to be as safe and as aware as possible!! TEACH the from a young age to do the right thing. If the children have internet access at home, restrict access to when the parents are there and put the computer(s) in a easily monitored area and keep watching them. As much as I don't like pornography being so readily accessible on the Internet, I like a mandatory filter even less, especially when our broadband speeds are still way below the speeds achieved overseas - the filter would slow it up even more. As far as I'm concerned, the responsibility for monitoring and filtering what children see on the Internet lies with the parents and the schools/teachers of these children and providing them with as much education as possible. Secondly, I have to agree with others - please appoint someone who IS au fait with computers and the Internet. Looking at Mr Conroy's official biography on his website it would appear he has no direct involvement in the computers and internet industry - no hands on skills, no University or TAFE computer qualification, no background of actually working in the computer industry. Passion he has, but is that just spin-doctoring? We really do need someone who has that experience and knowledge and is RESPECTED in the industry by consumers and professionals alike.

guy

10 Dec 2008 12:03pm

The best thing the Australian government can do is to break Telstra's monopoly and leave information technology alone to private enterprises. Let face it, to climb up the public service food chain, you need to be people savy, excel in office politics and good in brown nosing, backstabbing and bullsiting. Those are the qualities that good information technologist DO NOT HAVE. Hence people in the government who are making policies about Information Technology know bugger all about computers (Just look at the stupid Internet filter idea). Hence please leave it to the private enterrpise, before you ruin everything.

James

09 Dec 2008 5:56pm

Am I allowed to post this comment? In future, will it meet the approval of authorities operating the mandatory filter? Australia is already behind most developed countries in terms of internet speeds and innovation? Your plans will slow it down and inhibit dynamism. Of course the filter will fail in its aims of controlling undesirable activities - but it will succeed in making things worse, and more sinister, for the rest of us. Australia is already a bit of laughing stock when it comes to the digital economy - and your policies will do nothing but cement that reputation. Bravo, Minster. Bravo.

Simon 82

09 Dec 2008 5:57pm

The ISP filtering proposed by the government is going to ruin any advancement of broadband in this country , we are already behind the world in terms of infrastructure( party cause of our size and spread out population ) and this ill concieved technology will be another handicap to add to the rest. Government should be honest, its about content control, not porn but piracy , they should encourage parents to monitor their children rather than slow the whole net down

Scott Price

09 Dec 2008 5:58pm

I would like to know why the proposed blacklist with "unwanted" items should be completely confidential? Surely a member from each major ISP (top 10? even top 5) should be allowed to moderate this list to stop exploitation and 'overprotection' of the Australian People. Euthanasia may not be legal in Australia but that does not mean we shouldn't be able to know about it. No one disagrees with protecting our children, but there is such a thing as overprotection and this is very much there.

Simon from Canberra

09 Dec 2008 5:58pm

I think it's quite simple. The Government is dipping into funds that have been saved for infastructure. Anyone who is unhappy with this proposal should just cancel their broadband for 12 months. Then they will see how serious people are. And if they don't reverse the filter, then it's a waste of a lot of money on their behalf! And considering they're answerable to the people, let's see how they go at the next election!!

MT

09 Dec 2008 5:59pm

i can't believe this is here. this blog is a complete waste of time and money.

Van

09 Dec 2008 6:00pm

Admirable and gutsy considering your plan for internet filtering put us in the same shoes as many Chinese. This country is a democracy not a comunist state, as an individual id like to maintain my civil rights and the freedom to navigate the internet free of some random totally unqualified polititian over viewing me and deciding what i can and cannot view. The move against child pornography whilst admirable if this was a fairy tale simply does not work. This system will only hinder the legitimate user whilst those seeking to hide or mask their use will find ways around it all. now that we are catching up with the rest of the world with regard to better internet use, connection and availability its mindboggling why and how this decision has been made. Need i remind you feedback so far suggests a minimum reduction in speed by 8% and a maximum crazy off the charts reduction of 83% what??? are you serious. Anyhow i could go on forever about this, as a British citizen and current resident in Australia i find it all rather disgusting and disheartening and yet more proof that the govement is simply to out of touch with the need of its people.

Des Walsh

09 Dec 2008 6:01pm

Paul Budde - you have so much knowledge and wisdom to share, but whatever this platform has done to your comment makes it very hard to read. Could you chunk it down into a few succinctly expressed points, for the rest of us, please? :)

StevenB

09 Dec 2008 6:02pm

I'm sorry but I think this Internet Filtering path that the Rudd government is taking is a waste of money. It won't work and it has already been proven to be a failure. Please hurry up and understand this and stop wasting our tax payer money.

Yrps

09 Dec 2008 6:04pm

On the topic of Internet censorship... I would like to explain to you the technical issues that your proposal faces, how we could better protect children when they use the Internet, how to better prevent child pornography and express my disgust at state censorship. The Internet and World Wide Web are different things. The Internet is a 'network of networks'. Private corporations such as telecommunications companies usually own these computer networks. We are all able to share data across the globe because these network owners allow data from other networks to traverse their own (at a cost) without interfering with or disallowing any particular data. On the other hand the World Wide Web is a term used to describe the collection of websites that are hosted on computers that are connected to the Internet. Web browsers are used to view these websites and communicate using the HTTP protocol, which is what I understand that which your proposal will attempt to filter. The major problem with your proposal is that it concerns only filtering the HTTP traffic on Australian ISPs and not other Internet communications. It therefore does not prevent the dissemination of unwanted content in the slightest. Peer-to-peer file sharing, instant messaging, secure web proxies and a whole plethora of other protocols designed to move data around on the Internet are not included in your proposal and it would be infeasible to try and monitor and block these protocols anyway. This issue alone should prevent anyone from contemplating spending taxpayers; money on such a ludicrous scheme. Another problem with your proposal is that even to filter WWW traffic effectively is almost impossible. Domain names and IP addresses can be changed quickly allowing purveyors of unwanted content to bypasses your URL blacklists. Content scanning would be impossible especially on secured HTTP connections (such as those used for Internet banking). Any attempt to filter WWW traffic at all will result in reduced performance for Internet users. You should already have been made aware of the above by your technical advisors and be aware of how ineffective filtering software is since your NetAlert scheme had such a poor uptake and was easily subverted, even by adolescent children. If parents are truly concerned with what their children view on the WWW then they need to parent them. They might wish to consider only allowing their children to surf the web in a common part of the home or installing client-side filtering software on their own computers. A nanny state is something we do not need and I am a firm believer in personal responsibility. Parents must take responsibility for the upbringing of their children and not rely on technology to do it for them. State censorship is so offensive to the idea of a free and democratic country that to entertain the idea of implementing something akin to the Great Firewall of Australia should make you feel ashamed. If any filtering is to take place it should be done on an opt-in basis only and not be mandatory. When the Australian government puts forward proposals such as this filtering scheme I wonder if Australia requires something along the lines of a Bill of Rights to protect the freedoms we currently enjoy in our democratic nation. If the government does infringe on the rights of the Australian people in the manner you have set out in your scheme our country will become the laughing stock of the global community. We could better stop child pornography by employing, training, equipping and supporting police officers that can investigate such things. Turning to software vendors and trying to use technology to solve a societal problem is illogical. The only winners will be the software vendors&; shareholders. I implore you to listen to the doubts raised by experts about the effectiveness of such a filtering system and to also consider the moral implications of imposing mandatory state censorship. Instead of wasting time on this Internet filtering scheme your ministry should be using government resources to improve Internet performance in Australia and further enabling e-commerce. The Labor government will not have my vote at the next election if this censorship scheme is implemented. Yours faithfully, Yrps.

toholio

09 Dec 2008 6:05pm

I'm very pleased to see this system in place. Hopefully it will actually be used and not simply ignored. I also hope we can stop pretending that the proposed filter only has a social impact. Breaking encryption and slowing connections will prevent Australia from taking part in the digital economy at all. Jobs and infrastructure will simply move overseas. Hopefully this can be addressed at some point and not ignored because pornography boogey-man as it is now.

Peta Hopkins

09 Dec 2008 6:06pm

This move to use social media in policy development is certainly welcome and I look forward to the coming posts. It would be very helpful to those of us who use feedreaders in preference to visiting websites if you could include the full content in the feed, and if you could add an autodiscovery link so that browsers can detect the feed. Both of these would help to increase your readership.

Fitzroyalty

09 Dec 2008 6:08pm

Why are you bothering with this when you are simultaneously planning to wreck internet access in Australia with your stupid filters? Your credibility is zero.

Ivan

09 Dec 2008 6:11pm

Here is an idea for Comrade Conroy, how about a national broadband network? Oh I forgot, censoring the Internet is priority number 1. Average BB speed in Oz is 1.7Mbps according to ITIF!

Pete of Melbourne

09 Dec 2008 6:11pm

The filtering of the internet is an idiotic attempt to appease a vocal minority of people who are similarly clueless about the internet. Web filtering will not work because a) file sharing is rife, and is ignored in this "draconian" filter - rightly so too, it would be futile to attempt to stop this. b) anyone that wants to avoid the filter will simply change their web browser to point to an off shore proxy. Which is how most clumsy pedo's attempt to avoid detection anyhow c) it won't stop web cams, emailed pictures, instant message file swapping.. etc. Spend the money on spam technology instead. Now that's a worthy cause...

Fitzroyalty

09 Dec 2008 6:12pm

We want radical transparency of government information and decision making. For example, why is it ALP policy in NSW etc to publish (name and shame) business food hygiene offenses yet it is ALP policy NOT to publish this info in VIC? Geographic barriers are pointless in an online world. We want the information we as citizens and taxpayers pay for. Tell Brumby to create a VIC equivalent of http://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/ now.

Tolmartyr

09 Dec 2008 6:14pm

Congratulations on starting a new chapter in allowing the people of Australia to have a direct line of communication with Government. The Digital Economy will play a very important role in Australia's future and to ensure its success we must have a National Broadband Network that is accessible and affordable for all Australians. Unfortunately in Australia we have some of the slowest internet connections and pay some of the highest prices in the OECD. This is because the broadband internet market in Australia is dominated by Telstra's monopoly on the copper network. Telstra charges some of the highest rates in the world for internet data, Telstra has sought to slow innovation by restricting broadband speeds and has been referred to the ACCC for its anti-competitive behaviour. The underlying problem with the broadband market in Australia is Telstra's monopoly. If you want the Digital Economy to thrive and to flourish then the dominance of Telstra has to be addressed and resolved through structural separation of the NBN and through regulation of pricing by the ACCC. The NBN must be about serving the interests of all Australian consumers not just the interests of Telstra shareholders. If you can resolve this problem then the Digital Economy will be a success.

Doug

09 Dec 2008 6:16pm

Hi, Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback. It is sincerely appreciated. I have considered the issue of filtering from many perspectives, and have to admit from the onset, that I do not approve of the wholesale filtering of the Internet connection coming into my home. Let me explain. I am a Parent, a Christian, and an IT Security Consultant, so I believe that I have a fairly wide range of perspectives that I can use in examining the issue. As a parent of two children (16 and 12), I admit that my wife and I had to contend with the adverse effects that leaving a child alone with an Internet connection, who subsequently encountered a barrage of pop-up porn ads, had. My daughter experienced a plethora of reactions, ranging from fear, through to a desire to maintain secrecy. It was the secrecy issue that I felt was the most important. She was concerned that she was in trouble for the action. We assured her that the technology can be a problem, and we had open and honest discussions regarding the event. At no stage did we hide sexuality, nor did we hide the existence pornography. In all, the experience improved the relationship we had with our child. Of course we installed NetNanny on her personal computer, but we didn�t block our own machine in the study. We trust our children. I look upon the internet as a massive library. I remember the days when the librarian restricted access to the adult section of the library. When I became an adult, I was able to access any part of the library I liked. Filtering the primiary feed into my home will silently, and without recourse, limit access to parts of the Internet based on the will of the many. On the subject of the will of the many, I indicated that I am a Christian. I am an elder in my church, and firmly believe in freedom of expression � for all faiths. Accordingly, I do not attempt to suppress the teachings of any other religion. In my personal library (for my kids), I have the religious texts of many other religions. My children are welcome to read them as they like. All I ask, is that they THINK. I also have copies of the Karma Sutra, Joy of Sex, and a significant number of texts discussing sexuality. My kids are also welcome to read them. As an IT security consultant, my job falls into 2 parts, 1 � I write policies and procedures for the protection of Information Processing Systems. And 2 - I perform penetration testing (authorised of course!) to ensure that clients networks are unlikely to be attacked from hostile agents. Professionally, I am aware of a significant number of circumvention technologies that are freely available. It is interesting to note that some of them include encapsulation technologies such as TOR, which was heavily distributed prior to the Beijing Olympics to allow people to bypass the Great Firewall of China. I do not want my country to be considered in the same light as the Chinese for wholesale, secret censorship. I do not want the views of the few imposed on me. If you must censor (which I suspect we are stuck with), then at least make the list of sites that are blocked openly available. We, here in Australia, seem to be stuck on the abhorrent topic of Child Pornography (CP). I firmly believe that the people responsible for the creation and dissemination should be appropriately punished. But to see cases, like occurred recently, where the position of cartoon images were deemed to be child pornography is actually quite frightening. Given this new stance, where is the line? I am worried that we, as a society are moving down a path, where the possession of a sequence of characters is deemed to be illegal (pushed to an extreme, the existence of ASCII ART is now a problem. Why not spend the money we are spending on affecting the whole on improving the monitoring capability that I am sure exists to allow the effective detection of legitimate contraband?

Heather

09 Dec 2008 6:16pm

The filter can't stop all the "bad" content unless it cuts off the internet altogether. Apart from everything else, won't the filter just make parents complacent about their childs internet use?

Des Walsh

09 Dec 2008 6:17pm

This is a great move and I wish the Government and the public service well in keeping it going and evolving. There will no doubt be some bumpy patches but if you are as transparent as you can be then it is up to the rest of us to give you some space to make a few mistakes and get on with it. Like others who have commented, I am very heartened by the fact the Minister Tanner clearly "gets it" and I hope he can use his undoubted powers of communication and persuasion to help others in related roles come to a better understanding of what is happening and what is possible. Reiterating what others have said, I believe a key to giving this blog greater credibility and winning support from many of us will be for Minister Tanner to grab some time to drop in here personally and reply to/comment on at least a few of the comments.

Mike

09 Dec 2008 6:19pm

It's nice to see a government adopting an open forum on policy. It's not nice to see an attempt at dampening the effectiveness of the internet. I liken the policy as a direct attack on the majority to stop the few. It would be akin to putting speed bumps every 10 metres on all major roads in order to prevent speeding. I do not disagree with censorship of the internet - I do however disagree with the method of censorship that has been proposed. All this filter is going to achieve is the removal of responsibility from the persons of this nation, the further degradation of societies values (due to our government taking responsibility for what we should) and the loss of billions of dollars due to business moving overseas and lost productivity of our digital economy. I'll appreciate some productive comments based on my own however I would also appreciate if users left out comments based on religion and other cultist sects.

klaatu69

09 Dec 2008 6:19pm

It won't work. You're wasting taxpayers' money and you'll slow the Net down to a point where it won't be usable, especially for people in the bush who have very slow connections anyway. Just catch the crims who are posting the porn. Punish them not the rest of us.

Dwayne

09 Dec 2008 6:21pm

Senator Conroy, Dude. The web filter idea is a very risky decision. You're jeopardising Labors political future by going through with it, just so you know. Once this web filter comes into place - I hope you're ready for the even greater backlash and tutorials posted on the web detailing how to bypass the net filter. You're throwing away money that could be spent on educating children. Not making us adults feel like we're children ourself. I am old enough to make my own decisions. The Internet is the only true freedom of speech tool that's around. We don't live in communist China now do we? What's next all pro liberal sites are on the blacklist? All anti government sites will be blacklisted? Get with the times Conroy - you're going to be ousted soon unless you fix your mess. Dwayne.

jacwex

09 Dec 2008 6:24pm

Good initiative here with your blog...I just wanted to express my disapproval for the government's proposal for internet filtering. http://nocleanfeed.com/

Ben Gray

09 Dec 2008 6:26pm

Senator Conroy refuses to listen to anyone with any technical knowledge of how the internet works, so why would we think that this blog represents anything more than an over-stuffed, never emptied "suggestions" box, which constitutes more of an insult to peoples' intelligence than it does represent "an open dialogue"?

Marc Lehmann

09 Dec 2008 6:27pm

This is great news, I think opening up a forum with the industry through mechanisms like this blog are fantastic.

ween

09 Dec 2008 6:27pm

the problem with a web filter is that it usually manages to block things out that shouldnt be blocked- websites which may be informative, helpful and not in any way containing content to be censored. i should know- because i work in a senators office, and have to be subject to the ridiculous censoring that senator steve fielding managed to get in place....its so stupid, blocking websites that contain the words 'games' or 'sex'- cutting out websites we often need to go into for work, such as sexual health websites, types of research, or perhaps if putting together school packages, we cant go into the websites for the school children! it is the most frustrating thing. and i guarantee- many websites will be caught by the censor that shouldnt be

Daniel

09 Dec 2008 6:28pm

My biggest concern about this blog is that constructive feedback will not be taken on board. I hope that if the government realises that the overwhelming public sentiment is that a particular idea is not wanted (a mandatory internet filter for example) then they would take that feedback on board and change their direction. After all the government of the day is elected to serve the people and legislate and act on their behalf. If a government is acting in opposition to the public�s wishes then they are failing in their responsibility. Please use the feedback from this blog for the reasons stated in your introduction. Do not use it as a means of making the public feel like they are being taken seriously when in fact they are being ignored.

Greg Hutchison

09 Dec 2008 6:30pm

Welcome to the world of the web. Its been around for a while. We use it mostly wisely. We research, we read, we pay our bills, we invest in stocks (and lose our dollars). Its very useful. We sometimes look at things we shouldn't, but overall its very useful. We also send emails to our pollies complaining about this and that. They rarely listen, and they mostly write back by snail mail. Funny that. Getting pollies to use email and blogs like this would be good; a big advance. NBN yes loverly, but they'll still send snail mail. I did have one ACT pollie actually write a letter, sign it, pdf it and email it. Now thats progress! An NBN will be fine; but actually we have lots of it already. Fibre does get out there to many places already; its more a matter of using it wisely and working with the big T. They have many nodes out there. They are called RIMS and CMuxes. Sure mot the best but the concept is there. The proposed filter of Sen Conroy is an issue for you. We don't generally have censorship in this country (am I kidding myself). Do we really want it. Sure we don't want child pornography but as others have stated, those in that area area will use alternative technology. More sophisticated P2P and torrents are available and getting more sophisticated. Essentially they could soon be unfilterable. A filter based on web addresses; well is it really going to work. Is it going to slow the net. It will not slow the links but overall performance may be effected if www traffic has to be directed through central servers. This is like adding another DNS level. You need to think this through carefully. There is a big issue with fast internet and it has the propensity to be a wopper. As you should know 60-70% of net traffic is music/video download. Mostly through p2p and more now using torrents. Many state its all pirate traffic downloading copied CDs and DVDs or movies. Maybe so, but many download TV series that are available in US but not in AUS. Some say its pirate but its been broadcast publically in US or UK. In the past if you could not watch something live the TVs stations would actually tell you to video tape it late at night and get someone else to do it. Download TV shows seems similar to this to me. Anyway you need to come to terms with fast broadband and the ease of download of all kinds of things many nominally illegal or pirated. And a lot of this will be encrypted. Welcome to the world of conflicts, inconsistencies, rapid change and new thinking. Lest see what Barnaby Joyce thinks!

Matt in Ballarat

09 Dec 2008 6:30pm

Please, do every one a favour and ignore anything put forward, as above, by Editor-In-Chief of Telstra's Now We Are Talking. If ever there was a site whose prime responsibility was to spew propaganda , nowwearetalking is it. Furthermore, the less Telstra has to do with conversations about IT infrastructure in this country the better it will be for all of us. Telstra has squashed and retarded broadband access in this country and held back existing technologies from the marketplace like petulant children. Say NO to Telstra for Fibre to the node - and no to Telstra for anything else for that matter.

Alan

09 Dec 2008 6:31pm

I believe the majority of Australians are interested in tackling the issue of child porn on the internet, but are not interested in censorship dictated by the government. The majority of child pornography sites are likely to be well hidden and communicated to select groups, and therefore not known to net filters. Therefore is more productive to use the resources available to actively search these offenders out and make an example of them, rather than setting up a fence and hoping the problem goes away.

Annoyed

09 Dec 2008 6:32pm

Why spend our tax payers money on something we simply don't want. The youth of today already know how to tunnel around such filters - they really are a waste of time. Protect the young children, give parents and schools the choice. Please don't prevent freedom of information now and for the future and don't waste our time with mandatory filtering.

Melbournian in Europe

09 Dec 2008 6:32pm

I'm currently in europe. Internet here is uncensored, and about 1/10th the price back home. Way to go Tanner, this will increase prices back home even further. If someone wanted their child porn they can proxy to it, get it mailed by DVD, use one of countless p2p protocols... this wont stop ANYTHING! Why not ban cars, criminals drive them too.

no filter thank you parent of 5

09 Dec 2008 6:33pm

Considering the overwhelming rebuttal of the planned internet filter will the govt continue along their intended path wasting an enormous amount of tax payer funds, even in just trials, in the process or will the govt actually listen to those whom know far more than the govt pertaining to such issues. i also would ask the govt scrutinize the process in which this whole farcical event arose. It has been alleged certain lobby groups receiving govt grants actually used false data to impress on the govt the apparent need for such filtration? i wont name names here but the info is publicly available?

Hidden Agenda

10 Dec 2008 12:32pm

ERROR: THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN CENSORED BY THE GOVERNMENT

Matthew Ford

09 Dec 2008 6:38pm

I would like to register my opposition to mandatory ISP filtering as proposed by Senator Conroy. As someone involved in the technology industry, as a parent, and as a defender of free speech and wary of government intrusion into privacy, I find this whole proposal repugnant and an example of ignorant, distracting grandstanding for political points. In short: 1) This will not fix any social problems that can not be better solved by vigilant parents and teachers. 2) It creates a dangerous false sense of security in the very guardians who should be vigilant about what their kids see on the Internet. 3) It will not work, and allow the worst material to still get through, and the most persistent kids to get around the filter. 4) It will slow down Internet performance and slow growth, which in Australia are already abysmal, to the detriment of the Australian economy. 5) It puts far too much power into the hands of government over a private issue which should be left to individuals, including parents. 6) Though one can "opt out" of the filter, this is a classic example of a chilling effect by a government which wants to impose its moral view on the citizens. At the very least, both levels of this filter should be opt *in*, to give parents another tool to guide their kids. 7) The filter will block far more material than advertised, and innocent and legal material will get caught in the net. If there were a proposal for the government to open and examine all postal mail, to make sure it contained no objectionable or illegal material, would we accept it? Of course not. The Internet, in my view, is no different. Needless to say I think dangerous material should remain illegal and odious material deserves to be spoken out against. But it does not follow that we must pursue this solution of ISP filtering of any kind. This is exactly the kind of nanny-state position that makes me inclined to vote Liberal instead of Labor.

Peregrinus

09 Dec 2008 6:38pm

I'm sure the money that is being spent on this would be better allocated by training people (who obviously need it) how to monitor your childs activities online, this should not be the responsibility of the government.

Taz

09 Dec 2008 6:39pm

Welcome to the internet. How about now you start to understand it a little better before you try and go gangbusters to hobble it with an unworkable filtering scheme. Education is the answer, not censorship. I can protect my children quite well from online threats, because I am educated about the nature of the internet. This is more than I can say for most politicians recently.

tman

09 Dec 2008 6:40pm

Thanks for the blog. I have three major concerns: (1) The idea of a net filter is utterly unworkable and will kill any benefit of broadband. Filters are a family strategy, not a government one. (2) Something serious has to be done about removing Telstra's stranglehold on infrastructure; I hope and pray that the new NBN will finally do this. Senator Conroy has so far not provided much hope that Telstra's ongoing bully tactics are to be countermanded. (3) All government departments should be actively involved in open source initiatives so that proprietary file formats and software do not strangle competition and consumer choice. For instance, I have already suffered from Tax Office decisions to only support Windows software for certain business interactions: this is utterly unacceptable and unnecessary in 2008. Australia was myopic for abstaining at the vote on OOXML and now we have an unweildy and unwanted Microsoft-dictated policy to adhere to.

Stephen Bell

09 Dec 2008 6:41pm

I feel quite offended at reading this in an apparently democratic nation. The tone in the initial blog makes it seem as though public consultation is a novel idea that the government is gifting to the people, ie it seems as though the Minister considers public consultation as a special bonus to us citizens. Well I do believe we are in a democracy, and as such all of you elected officials are there as a representation of the public and consultation should be fundamental and intrinsic in everything the government does. Unfortunately the government seems to act as though they are above the public and have provided us with this blog to make it seem as though they are being involving. On the issue of the supposed "Internet filtering". This is not an internet filter; it is designed to filter the Web which is only a very small subset of the internet. If we look at how piracy and pornography spread 2-3 years ago (ages in the IT industry) it was primarily Web based, but not anymore. By using sub-web technologies like P2P file sharing and darknets this content is being spread on a completely different level to the World Wide Web. Blocking websites in the hope of stopping dubious content spreading to Australia is akin to trying to stop illegal immigration by only checking passports at the airports and ignoring coastal patrols. Minister if you really want effective community consultation in relation to stopping internet crimes; spend some time with the people who are committing the crimes. They could show you in 1 hour more about how the backdoors and pirates work than any do-gooder public servant could in a 1000 page report that gets delivered years out of date.

Hobbes

09 Dec 2008 6:42pm

An internet filter could well supervise children (because apparently that is a government job these days), but what about me? I have no children. So how does filtering my feed protect children? Why not just make the system an opt-in filter, or better yet, have a government run "family-friendly ISP" that people with kids can sign up for. The rest of us can continue to look at sites that are not child friendly.

harry.tuttle.esq

09 Dec 2008 6:45pm

When will Senator Conroy answer the extensive list of questions put to him on notice by Senator Ludlum, on 20 November 2008 ? http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/work/notice/snpf_047.pdf (pp57-60)

Darren Sharp

09 Dec 2008 6:49pm

I'm Social Media project leader for the Smart Services Cooperative Research Centre. Mandy Salomon and I recently completed a major research project on user-led innovation. It can be found here: Today�s citizens have much greater input into the creation and dissemination of the products and services they consume as evidenced by the huge popularity of Wikipedia, Firefox and YouTube. Trends in user-generated content, peer production communities and socially networked businesses provide new frameworks for thinking strategically about knowledge production in the 21st century. The sources of innovation are shifting away from trusted sources of authority and toward distributed forms of knowledge that reside collectively in society. A number of governments (See: http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/) have begun to recognise the huge benefits of tapping into the vast pool of knowledge, insights and experience of the public and are successfully trialing forms of "citizen innovation" as a means to co-create a range of public sector services and re-invigorate the policy development cycle. The community consultation made possible by the advent of collaborative technologies offers great potential for the Australian Government to embark on new forms of citizen engagement that can lead to better policy outcomes.

P'Tom

09 Dec 2008 6:50pm

This is a great idea, to bring government closer to the people. Net filtering should only be a choice to opt in. The right to choice should be the main guidance of digital economy. On this I would like to see a review on copyright and rating. There must be a R18 and if need be X rated games, it will save consumer money by not having to by games modified specifically for Australia or not at all. The current copyright laws are a joke. If buy a game, I cannot make a back up on CD as most company deliberate damage the disc to prevent this. I have purchased the rights to play the game I should be allow to store and makebackups of the game as I wish and not some business lawyer.

James Rowe

09 Dec 2008 8:38pm

Being a stakeholder in the industry, and someone who feels strongly about the internet, and the right for people to freely access material in an open and transparent fashion, I have to say I am not impressed at the idea of a national filter. I have to say, that the idea of deeming certain material offensive and therefore banning it, is not the only reason why I am opposed to this plan. The idea of broadband speeds significantly decreasing, on an already substandard broadband network seems like a folly of an idea. I can't understand why, if the government is getting good advice on the potential implications for such a plan, would go ahead regardless. Yes, broadband, more technically, fibre to the node networks have yet to be established for the whole of the country. This country needs to be completely covered with fibre optics, and I have no opposition to spending the money to do that. I just cannot see the incentive for decreased, or "slower" net speeds and the potential inconveniance to industry, as well as individuals, and constituents who wanted a faster broadband network, and in reality are getting slower than normal speeds before they've even started as a result of this national filtering plan. The idea of censoring the internet, also has implications for people who hold a stake in delivering certain information to the web. I haven't heard a single word on who will be the sole arbitor in the decision making process to deem material "offensive", how is the government going to 'fully' define "offensive". Will the censor report to parliament. Will there be an oversight committee to establish that companies, or individuals are not being placed on the list because of untoward reasons. Will there be a right of appeal, if your web site, or your network of web sites is placed on this list. Will the list be IP, or generic domain name based? These questions, and many others. Are all part of what the industry is seriously scratching their heads about. If anything, we haven't really received information on this plan. And we'd like to know more detail. This is not something to be treated lightly either. An industry such as this needs to be consulted, just like in the IR field. And I would like to see some independent businesses, and small businesses to take part and tell the government what it is that needs to be done so we can go forward, and ultimately achieve a good outcome without adversely affecting an industry, or the web for the consumer, or user. By all accounts, the government has taken the task seriously of establishing an office on the digital economy. If we get this web filter idea wrong, and there is bad advice, the potential for grave consequences are high. To be complacent and act in a fashion that disadvantages, or discriminates against a certain entity would be akin to placing unneeded, and unnecessary regulation on one area of industry.

Mark

09 Dec 2008 8:39pm

Good to see the government consulting with the community. Hopefully they will take on board the outrage many internet users feel at having their already slow internet crippled by a non opt out filter. A filter that a child could easily avoid and will do nothing to stop child pornography. Parental supervision is the most effective filter and the onus of responsibility should be on parents not governments.

Paul

09 Dec 2008 8:41pm

If you really want to get into this you should set up a Wiki with all the proposed details of the "Clean Feed" plan, including how it will work, what will be blocked, the estimated cost to the economy of slowing down the Internet with this filter etc. etc. and actually let the public know what is happening and allow them to comment, rather than hiding all the details and accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of being a child pornographer.

Kevin

09 Dec 2008 8:42pm

How dare you tries to filter the internet and use child pornography as an excuse. We don�t want the great firewall of China here. Labour, you�ve lost my votes for the next election.

WhirlpoolMember #88934

09 Dec 2008 8:44pm

It's a plan I do not agree with, Being employed in a small I.T business, we depend on the internet every day. Computers require drivers, software and updates. If our internet was any slower (currently on a decent business grade adsl2 package) I believe it would impact on our productivity. Even the publics acceptance has been more than negative: Whirlpool forums: www.whirlpool.net.au 97.64% � Do NOT support the Mandatory Internet Filtering proposal Votes : 3596 Sms Fun www.smsfun.com.au 94.3% don't want any type of internet censorship. 200,000 votes Why is this plan isn't being talked about in the media?

Kimbo

09 Dec 2008 8:46pm

This blog is a good idea because, if used properly, may convince government that messing around with things like net filtering is only going to cause it problems long term. So far the electorate already believe that the Rudd government has a knack for barking up the wrong trees. Net watch can only hurt Labors re-election chances. Australians do not like big brother and we do not like business being ask to implement government policy and we do not like slow Internet.

Mike B

09 Dec 2008 8:47pm

While I welcome any moves by the government to increase the ability and opportunity for citizens to have a voice in policy, surely that already exists and has proven ineffective in shifting governmental policy. Are we to expect that commments, lodged here amidst of teh warmth of an online blog, are to be regarded with any greater consideration than the emails, calls, petitions and existing blogs that have shown considerable opposition to many of the government's current approaches to online policy. While we maintain a nominal representative democracy, clearly our representation accounts for less than the necessity of governments to support those who have provided the necessary leverage to find themselves in power. While I find it encouraging to believe the government might begin to consider forums through which a dialogue can ensue, I hold little hope that previous opinion, expressed in this forum, will carry any additional weight than that which has been presented via other means. Australian's don't protest in the streets about many things - but such things are being organised ... and the minister asks for our thoughts on policy via a blog? I believe you already understand the views on this matter. Perhaps the government might like to begin afresh with some problems for which solutions might be offered. As it is we have been given a solution and told what the problem to which it will be applied. If you wish to appaer consultative its best to do so before you have mandated a solution.

Robert S

09 Dec 2008 8:48pm

I think that you should pass legislation that allows scanned receipts to be used as records of actual receipts, mostly for ATO purposes. The US IRS has premitted this since 1997. Look up the Revenue Procedure 97-22 Ruling for an example of how this can be implemented. In addition to acknowledging the digital economy it will help recycling by allowing people to recycle paper they would normally store in cabinets for years.

Magic tea leaves

09 Dec 2008 8:49pm

Whey! so it's true, Australia is only 5 years behind the US! Can we get some threaded discussions or multiple posts going so we can channel the different conversation topics. (This will help you filter all the relevant information and help us give you more focussed feedback.)

Scott

09 Dec 2008 8:50pm

Genuine consultation between government and the population is valuable no matter what the method. Note, that I said Genuine Consultation. If it's just lip service then it ain't worth a cracker. I suspect that if and when the government starts consultation on their proposed internet filter they're in for a real pounding. It will be interesting to see how they respond.

Concerned

09 Dec 2008 8:51pm

Aside from the troubling fact that this filter may be used by the current and future Governments to further erode our Democratic rights; how does the Rudd Government reconcile that implementing such a filter would almost certainly negatively impact Internet speeds (which are already compromised here in Australia compared with countries overseas), especially when the Rudd Government went to the last election with the promise to construct a high-speed broadband fibre-to-the-node network that would reach 98 per cent of Australian homes by the end of 2008. One would come to the reasonable conclusion that a clean-feed filter would negate any benefits of such a proposed network - a network, which might I remind you, was a Labor election promise of 2007.

ErnieDingo2

10 Dec 2008 12:48pm

Net Filtering. What a joke. This has been happening for years right under our nose. How do you think they catch people out online for fraudulent behaviour? The US military invented this in co-operation with the University Of California to keep track of spies using technology to their advantage. Now it is the Australian public that is about to be censored by an over zealous politician who wants to make a name for himself. Tanner? You are a twit.

Jyan Dowl

09 Dec 2008 8:55pm

I would ask the government to listen to ISPs and industry experts when it comes to the technical feasibility of mandatory ISP level filtering. The claimed reasons (preventing access to child pornography, C.P.) for implementing the filter are completely flawed. As C.P. is already illegal to host and view, it is unlikely to be found on any HTTP sites. When people are caught with C.P. by the police, they invariably have been emailing or trading it through peer to peer networks (which will not be filtered). It is obvious that filtering of HTTP web pages is not going to stop these activities. Even if something is on a blocked web site, there are fast and simple ways to get around the filter. All it takes is a quick search for �VPN� or �proxy� and the user will be viewing blocked content in minutes. The crux of this is: why waste millions of tax payer dollars if the filter will never be able to achieve its stated goals?

Southernlight

09 Dec 2008 8:56pm

The blog idea is a welcomed step in the right direction. The policy of trying to filter the internet is such a dud idea that it just cannot be tolerated. Australia is not China. This government should work for the people not trying to control the people. You have every right to put up policies but if the country thinks that you are trying to stiffle free speech under the guise ( very badly disguised) of protecting children we will not go with that... It wouldn't work anyway. You may not know as by your own addimission you are slow with the internet but you can actually access sites from abroad or exchange peer to peer...so your idea of censoring the internet is not going to work. It will only provoke the anger of the people you suppose to work for.

Ades

09 Dec 2008 8:56pm

I'm amazed it only took a year for a gov. dept to approve something. Grats to whoever finally made a call, and sticking by it. It's amazing how often office politics stops items like this getting through. Just occured to me how Conroy got his filter agenda through, he just kept rambling on about child pr0n. Seriously, imho, I don't even need to raise my kids anymore!! The gov is doing it for me. sweet.

John

09 Dec 2008 8:57pm

Here we go again. I work in the ISP industry and the last time this Loch Ness Monster reared it's head we offered free filtering to our customers. Less than 1 in 1000 customers took up the offer, and of those who did, most asked for it to be removed within a week because it blocked important sites and slowed the internet down. After a year we had no-one using it. And the system is better than the one currently being tested (PC based). We still offer it. But only the pollies are interested!

Sandpitrikko

09 Dec 2008 8:58pm

I've lived under a regime that filtered internet content previously. It starts with the 'moral and religious' objections and ends with the blocking of Skype as the national telecommunications carrier was losing too much money to the cheaper alternative. There is no possible justification for broad scale internet censorship other than further control of the media. It's North Korean in stance and a fine example of the invasive Communist tendencies of Chairman Rudd and his Politburo henchmen. Fight this with all strength. It's an abomination, an insult to netizens and another nail in the coffin of free speech and critical thinking in this most Nannafied of countries. Don't let this pseudo-scientist with his degree in chicken bone reading fool you into believing that this is to protect the innocent. This is a control issue. Wait for the alternative media to be blocked then the open source software sites followed by any other thing that is considered 'subversive'. Any democracy that has laws about sedition and then introduces internet filtering needs a walk through the hall of mirrors for a long hard look at itself.

Bob Crawshaw

09 Dec 2008 8:59pm

Great day....and not before time. First thing first. Is this Lindsay Tanner blogging or a staffer? Let's have transparency from the start.

Expat

09 Dec 2008 9:00pm

Why, oh why, do we yet again see IT people not being TRULY consulted about such matters. After far too many years in IT in Canberra, and now living overseas, I wonder why the policy is all about the child porn. Get a grip - technology will always get around such evil. Why not commit the same level of funding to protect national infrastructure, and let ordinary folk go about whatever floats their boat. Combating child porn has to be done on an international level - filtering on a "country" basis is not going to work - have your so-called IT gurus not told you about proxy servers? Dynamic proxy servers, even? Leave kiddy porn to the experts - the AFP - and leave the Internet alone. It works because it's freedom of speech. Let's face it - it's a pathetic excuse to yet again control what we are allowed to see on all media platforms. That's really the agenda, isn't it?

James

09 Dec 2008 9:03pm

If you filter the internet, the NBN will be redundant. Try to give police more powers and responsibilities and tools to do their job better, rather than turn ISPs into pseudo police.

Ben

09 Dec 2008 9:04pm

Firstly, I welcome the use of technology to try and garner a greater degree of true democracy - though I doubt a blog will provide functionality which makes it useful... Internet filtering = bad idea all around. Australian business needs fast internet to excel; Australians need freedom. No one should have the power to censor. In my (and many others') opinion, you've made a mistake Senator; fess up to it and move on - cancel the tests. As a voter I can accept you made a mistake and used $ poorly. I can't accept the tests continuing (and wasting more money) just to try and hide the mistake.

ruin

09 Dec 2008 9:04pm

Thanks for trying to ruin the internets.

bob crawshaw

09 Dec 2008 9:05pm

I blogged earlier in the year on the need to use online tools for interaction with the public on Global Warming initiatives.http://tinyurl.com/6e84v8

Terry

09 Dec 2008 9:07pm

This is censorship, it has no place in a democracy. I reject any premise that removes free choice from adults. Parents and guardians are responsible to supervise and restrict minors access, not governments.

Owen

09 Dec 2008 9:08pm

One of the first things I'd like to see is Senator Conroy answer the questions put to him at the last sitting of parliament.... one of which was how many participants are are considered effective for a "real world" trial of the clean feed.... and what is the governments definition of unwanted content... and who decided this. Until you give us this information you will never get any peace.

Steve K

10 Dec 2008 12:59pm

Tboo

09 Dec 2008 9:10pm

I believe the Government is genuine in wanting constructive feedback through this blog initiative. My initial concern though is that this Government is extremely willing to seek ideas which suggests they really aren't sure what direction to take on a range of issues. The internet phenomenan is still relatively new (mainstream usage has only taken off during the last decade), and the rolling out of platforms, infrastucture, education and funding should be analysed, debated and implemented. If this process is not done appropriately, billions will be spent and basically thrown in the bin several years down the track. The Government should be investing alot in this initiative as it will benefit the country for many years to come if carried out correctly. Pay for real expert and visionary advice. I hope this blog achieves significantly more than discussions from people that are worried about being blocked from their porn and the technical cans and cannots of whether its possible or not. Minister Conroy, what you need to do is get some guest bloggers (from different disciplines)on too initiate and drive some real discussions otherwise you are just going to end up with a bunch of twaddle. Good luck. Think big.

Matt Tarrant

09 Dec 2008 9:12pm

The internet filter is a horrible idea, it benefits me in no way. I dont do illegal activities, I dont look at R+18 content, why should I be punished with extra costs and slow broadband? If Optus go ahead with the testing, I am changing ISP. If the goverment go ahead with the filter, I am changing my vote. Simple as that. Make it opt in only, and make sure others are not affected, OR create a government run ISP for families if they wish.

DeanC

10 Dec 2008 2:03pm

I respectfully suggest that Senator Conroy be immediately moved to a more suitable portfolio - one in which he can demonstrate basic competence. His demonstrable lack of technical comprehension and his deceptive statements about the filtering methods used in other countries are utterly unacceptable. As a citizen of a progressive western democracy, I find any notion of censorship repugnant and am dumbfounded and disgusted at the audacity of such a measure in a newly-elected federal government.

Army Communicator

09 Dec 2008 9:14pm

Welcome to Democracy. Now that you have noted the fact that 90% of people on this blog and elsewhere disapprove of this idea, please immediately cease and desist and save my tax money for something useful, like a pensioner upgrade.

No Clean Feed

09 Dec 2008 9:16pm

No more spin! please! Simply setting up a blog to spin the government out of trouble is not good enough. Senator Conroy and his spokespeople have consistently refused to return comment about this issue, other than to denigrate his policies detractors in a most shameful and undemocratic way. As Aldous Huxley said 'Facts don't cease to exist, simply because they are ignored'. Labor have been extremely ignorant of the facts of the argument in favor of their internet filtering, to such an extent, that I can no longer see them as offering any credible position on the subject. Both major parties are an embarrassment to this country in their ignorance of the simplest principles involving the internet. How can people with no IT experience be promoted as ministers for that portfolio? How about hiring some IT professionals for advice rather than pandering to the views of 'minor' parties? FYI they are called 'minor parties' for a reason. If the government were concerned about protecting children, why would they not get or listen to expert advice on the issue of internet filtering? Its evident to me that protecting children is not the prime motivation behind 'Clean Feed'. The internet filtering the government wants to implement is an attempt to subvert the internet [and the democratic process], to garner favor with minor parties, to gain greater control of parliament. Pure and simple. This blog is too little, too late, as far as I am concerned. The government has already made its position perfectly clear and I will base my opinions on its conduct thus far.

Lisa

09 Dec 2008 9:18pm

All Australians need to be made aware of exactly what the planned filter will be blocking - as is currently the case with computer and console games, will there be no R+ rating? Currently internet content falls under these same laws - will this be changed? We desperately need clarification on this matter as well as who will be responsible for designating what needs to be blocked and how sites will be reviewed. To deny this information when people are so obviously concerned and opposed to this idea seems to be designed to ensure that no clear rebuttal against the proposal can be made. It would have been nice to believe that in a democrat country we could have some influence on what is deemed suitable viewing for ourselves and for our children. I feel that parental supervision and the current end user filters provided by the Howard government are adequate to protect children from the dangers posed by internet predators. I also believe that adults should be held accountable for their own actions. Rather than attempting to block content from the internet we should set up a flagging system that records the IP addresses of people deliberately seeking child pornography, or terrorism information and use this as evidence to prosecute them. Our current government needs to be open and honest about their censorship plans, by this I do not mean asking for public opinion and a blog seeking feedback (that will be largely ignored), but a truly open plan that details all aspects of the proposed filter, it's planned implementation, policing and possible ramifications. Regardless of how much this government has already ignored their constituents in regards to this matter, these issues need to be addressed soon -- or they will certainly be held accountable at the next election.

Gary Cleaver

09 Dec 2008 9:19pm

I would urge all who read this blog to, at least, register your opposition to mandatory internet filtering. It is a blatant attempt at unwanted or needed censorship. As an adult I feel that I am quite capable of deciding what is right and wrong for me to look at on the internet. If I, or anyone else, then uses this freedom to break a law of the land then I would expect to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The government of Australia has the means and capability of pursuing any internet law breakers and the imposition of this policy only goes to inconvenience the average Australian who is not a lawbreaker. Senator Conroy, I congratulate you for opening this subject up to discussion, however, I find it interesting that you are using the exact medium to host this discussion as you are trying to censor. Senator and Co, it is not 1984 and you are not my "Big Brother". Please let common sense prevail on this subject and remove any plans to impliment this legislation.

No Filter Please

09 Dec 2008 9:19pm

Hi, Just come on here to let you know of vpn's everyone - this ones a good one. www.vpnout.com ( from only USD $5 a month)

derspatz

09 Dec 2008 9:21pm

If not ILCF (ISP Level Content Filtering) then something needs to be done (and is well over-due) in terms of making the internut/McNet/McWeb we currently have a better place for one and all to use as well as set it in the direction of being something that is more of a benefit to the ongoing development of our society and culture than the ever increasing demeaning and putrid negative it currently is. My advice to the government is to ignore the pathetic and self-indulgent bleatings of the selfish Oz minority who are worried about being cut off from their chosen poisons and the feeds they use to steal intellectual property by, and instead continue to consider the wishes of the businesses being robbed left right and centre by the likes of that aforementioned bleating selfish minority, as too the wishes of the Oz majority who want a safe virtual backyard for their kids to play in. That the likes of the "GetUp!" lobbying group have now chosen to now align themselves with this latest public fad topic (no doubt in order to redirect conned, uh, donated funds to their more extreme lefty agendas where-ever possible) is one of the best indications that the likes of ILCF is not only well justified but also well overdue. Why ? Well since when did the likes of GetUp! ever get involved in supporting what is actually Good and Right for Australia ? regarDS http://derblatz.blogspot.com

ErnieDingo2

09 Dec 2008 9:23pm

I have not read one comment on here that has come from a person from the general public. Who is Net Filtering now?

David.Fuller

09 Dec 2008 9:26pm

As an Australian building a business in the Digital Economy from overseas, I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate. The one thing I have learnt, is that the one thing the internet population hates as a rule, are rules. In an age when the smart people in smart economies are using words like open, and creativity and diversity and innovation, words like regulation and filtering seem to stem from unfounded paranoia of the unknown. Someone once said that innovation came from the wrong thing being used at the wrong time by the wrong person, and filters and regulation inhibit this. I also agree with some of the comments that a wiki would be a better platform for this kind of consultation. The filter won't stop me growing my business in the digital economy, but it will stop Australia from benefiting and that's a shame.

Hooligan Tuesday

09 Dec 2008 9:26pm

Personally i'm curious to know how feedback from this blog is going to be gathered. I rather doubt that Mr Tanner has the time to sit and read the amount of comments generated by the blog, and i'm rather doubtful about level of filtering a researcher (who wanted to keep his job) would apply to cherry picking comments before presenting them.

stefan

09 Dec 2008 9:27pm

Good to see there are some good initiatives coming out from this department, but can you please use a function like php's nl2br() to convert new lines to html breaks (br tag) so people's comments are not stuck on one line. It's hard to read all these longer well thought out comments otherwise (or is that your intention?) and www.nocleanfeed.com / www.nocensorship.info

Happypony

09 Dec 2008 9:29pm

Coming from a low income bracket we use linux in our household, I see the proposed net filter making it costly and slow to use the net. Plus with cloud computing coming up in the future view, how can a highly filtered slow restrictive net benefit us. Australia will become a 3rd world technology wise country, people will be restricted from using free easily downloaded software, it will make it cost prohibitive. Why should us low income people be made to miss out on the benefits of free open source software, that's delivered by the internet, which will be made in effective by the filters. How it fair when you make downloading a 700 mb live cd iso, impossibly slow to download with the filters. On the subject of Free open source software, senator how come the Australian governments not using linux but instead buy Microsoft software, in the coming economic recession wouldn't it be better to use linux ( http://www.itwire.com/content/view/21861/1141/) instead of sending our IT money to overseas. Why not encourages the Australian students as part of there IT curriculum to help develop an Australian distribution of linux.

Dore

09 Dec 2008 9:31pm

The record is still on sale in shops

Dean Procter

10 Dec 2008 2:17pm

Perhaps read my blog to find the answers you seek. In order of importance: Identity; Police Save ~20% of Man-hours And Reduce Corruption With Mobile ID; Making Kids Safe on the Net with MobileID; Safe fraud free internet transactions; Saving Consumers Money Banking and Transacting; It is a ubiquitous integrated solution with benefits I'm sure you'll see, and many more you may yet even dream of. There's plenty more to this great Aussie innovation, give me a call.

Dore

09 Dec 2008 9:34pm

Our post are been filtered right now it takes 2 hours for the post to appear. hope this post gets up there.

Pvt.Punch

09 Dec 2008 9:35pm

In 25 words or less: If you filter the Internet, we will filter you.

Stu

09 Dec 2008 9:35pm

Thank you, Labor, for this step forwards in terms of online accessibility and consultation. Unfortunately, when taken along with your widely ridiculed plan to censor Australia's internet, one can only conclude that Labor's election last year has been an enormous leap backwards for IT down under. The industry is against it. The experts are against it. Consumers are against it. International human rights organisations are against it. Even several child welfare organisations are against it. Your own tests show it to be infeasible and wasteful, and it cannot be implemented without taking a sledgehammer to telecommunications technology and freedom of expression online. If your promises of consultation are more than just spin, you will drop this disastrous policy immediately.

Wayne from brisbane

09 Dec 2008 9:36pm

A complete waste of time and money? Now that sounds like a Labor Government. Guess he shut most of the country up with his handouts this christmas.

Mark Elliott

09 Dec 2008 9:40pm

This is an exciting initiative and I am very happy to see it happening on the federal level. As director of http://collabforge.com (a web2.0 / social media, consulting & IT services firm) we designed and provided the City of Melbourne with their recent wiki-based site for collaborative public consultation on the city's 10 year plan, http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au as well as developed their online community engagement and moderation strategies. This particular project was a global precedent and we learned a great deal about engaging the public in online consultation (and in online consultation, the world constitutes the public). This project proved to me the merits of online collaborative consultation and the potentials for stimulating a revolution in participatory governance. For instance, the project helped to debunk the notion that if people have unfettered access, they will act in ways disruptive to the task at hand - as there was not a single instance of spam, offensive or even off-topic material contributed. (In Future Melbourne's instance, not only could the public - or anyone for that matter - contribute to online discussions regarding the plan, they could *edit* the actual plan itself.) Of course strong community development/management strategies and associated action plans are needed to pull this off. In fact, the contributions received ranged from fixing typos and adjusting wording, to contributing ideas and even fully developed articles. For instance: http://www.futuremelbourne.com.au/wiki/view/FMPlan/BicycleLanesInHelsinki As an indicator that the area of online consultation is moving ahead quickly, Collabforge now is working with Parks Victoria to develop a full featured, open source public engagement platform, including blogging, social networking, user contributed media, and wiki editing of the plan under review (the Greater Alpine Region Management Plan). The first phase of this project is due to be launched in the next few weeks. Congratulations on this first big step, and I look forward to watching and participating in what looks like will be a fantastic initiative!

Lindsay Wu

09 Dec 2008 9:42pm

Congratulations on the innovation of this forum - I look forward to these posts actually being read and addressed. The proposed compulsory ISP filter, unlike this forum, is a terrible idea. Apart from the obvious condescending attempt to decide what Australians are grown-up enough to see, this filter will be 100% inneffective at preventing child porn and "inappropriate" material. It will not prevent the peer to peer file sharing that we now know is the modus operandi of child abusers. It is easily avoided using freely available tools of the like used by Chinese, Iranian and Saudi dissidents (the only other nations where it is necessary to avoid such a draconian internet filter), which I can guarantee will be used en masse by internet users around Australia. Have a look at http://www.torproject.org/ as just one example of a way around an internet filter. It can, and will be, dowloaded in no time by millions of people. To see how an internet filter could go wrong, look at the story today of the entire United Kingdom being cut-off from uploading to all of wikipedia (an invaluable resource), after a picture of an album cover for a band featuring a prepubescenct girl was uploaded to just one wikipedia page. An internet filter will insult the intelligence of Australians, be completely ineffective, and worst of all, will slow down our already slow internet - apparently by as much as 86%! A plan to introduce this filter makes no sense whatsoever. It has zero support in the community. If it goes ahead, it will mock the government's claim to be interested in promoting Australia's digital future. Fast internet is essential to our future, but this is the sort of plan that goes well out of its way to slow down our internet, for no effective reason! I urge you to drop this plan, as if you don't feel the wrath of the community yet, I can guarantee you will feel the utter fury of 20 million Australians once our already slow internet is slowed even further by such a pointless, ineffective, and condescending plan. I urge you to drop this utterly stupid proposed internet filter plan as soon as possible, and instead spend the money on educating parents on how to keep the internet "safe" - by placing the family computer in the living room, and having an adult around.

Andrew J

09 Dec 2008 9:42pm

any web filtering should be opt in. I could not believe that the Government was going to filter the internet to every machine in the Country. How about you spend the money speeding up the criminally slow internet in this country. Have you ever actually been to Europe? The much vaunted National Broadband Plan isn't even going to get us close to what they have over there. It's ridiculous. Australia has slow internet, so what do we do? Spend millions on a useless filter that will SLOW the internet speed.

Concerned we are turning into an orwellian society

09 Dec 2008 9:43pm

Quite simple really, stop being big brother, you are making voters irate with this whole net filter rubbish, you are not protecting Joe Public from himself, you are slowing down his internet. You have major players in the ISP industry slaming your filter already, take note or we will take note for you at the next election! It makes me feel as if we are using the internet in China, give it a few years and it probably won't be that much different! There are better ways to go about this that are less intrusive, I suggest you look into other alternatives such as DNS blacklisting only, as opposed to a broad ranging filter, which will hog bandwidth and resources.

prawn_86

10 Dec 2008 2:20pm

Firstly, why has the minister not responded to previous emails? I had a reply within 24 hours from the opposition, yet it has been 2 emails and 3 months later and i am awaiting a reply from Senator Conroy. Secondly, ISP filtering is inherently flawed. Australia is already lagging behind in the broadband stakes, and ISP filtering will only make it worse. Thirdly, stop using 'the children' as a way to pass policies. I have no children, and if i did they would be my responsibility, Australia is already a nanny state, lets not make it even worse. Finally, as i indicated in my emails to the minister, if this plan does go ahead and become legislated i will be making full use of my duel citizenship and moving overseas so as to not pay taxes to a totalitarian regime, posing as something other than what they really are...

e4c5

09 Dec 2008 9:47pm

Funny that the australian government is trying to do the exact same thing that the Sri Lankan government often accused of having scant regard for human rights is trying to do.

Bongo

09 Dec 2008 9:49pm

While I appreciate what you are attempting to do - the ramifications of applying filters at the ISP level will be at minimum ineffective and result in false-positives and much reduced throughput when our internet connections are already far behind world standards. This has all the hallmarks of religious-based crusade. Leave filtering to the end-user, and police the use of these illegal sites through existing methods (read: the AFP) which I assume already red-flag users who access these known sites (the ones you plan to blacklist).

pingudownunder

09 Dec 2008 9:51pm

Senators Tanner, Conroy and their respective departments; by way of background I am an IT professional that specialises in information security, have recently moved here from Europe (another new citizen) and honestly find it amazing how a developed country such as Australia can be so behind the leading edge in the Digital Economy whilst being so close to such innovation in South East Asia, particularly countries like Singas, Korea and even Taiwan. In my view, Australia is held back by a number of factors, which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency: 1) Infrastructure. The present and previous governments have allowed Telstra to keep a stranglehold on high-speed online connectivity, both on fixed line and mobile networks, through charging rip-off rates to both consumers and when the reluctantly have to resell their capacity to competitors. 2) Government procurement of both IT software and services (both state and federal) is flawed. Some governments, such as in South American and Europe, actually mandate the use of open source and low cost software solutions to reduce expenditure. Some even contibute back into the community, helping break the strangehold by the large software vendors on their own platforms whilst also supporting local IT professionals/graduates/societies in building and furthering their own careers and companies. 3) Senator Conroy's internet filtering is a joke. Australia is already being seen as a "laughing stock" by the IT Community worldwide, and I fear investment in the local economy will simply move to countries with less restrictions on information sharing. Australia is fast getting the same reputation as Iran, Saudi Arabia and China for lack of freedom of speech; this doesn't help. Now we know that the proposed internet filtering simply doesn't work - even your own department's testing has found this to be the case, as well as slowing down network connectivity and a high number of false positives. But by enforcing such a draconian, technically-flawed solution upon ISPs and the general public will ulitmately increase costs to the customer (internet is already too expensive in Australia for most people) whilst not giving you the benefit against illegal material. Must public opposition is not against this material being blocked (alternative proposal is desribed later) its the fact that there is no opt-out available (under Conroy's 2-tier lists) and there does not seem to be any independent oversight over what is blocked. Those involved in this area will simply go "underground", making it harder to catch and prosecute. I'm sure you're also looking at blocking terrorist videos and messages - so are you going to block YouTube? Facebook? Twitter (even the @KevinRudd channel?) Deep packet inspection will not be able to differentiate particularly video and audio. Even today, UK ISPs are blocking parts of Wikipedia for a music album cover from the 70s. In my view, the Art Gallery of NSW should be blocked for the digusting pictures of underage teenage girls. However Prime Minister Rudd referred to it as "art". What next? Innovative technologies like peer-to-peer which are being used to distribute open source software, authorised TV broadcasts and so forth; or will you block them all too? The Internet is an uncontrolled medium, it is immoral to turn ISPs into "traffic cops" because you suspect their services are being used for illegal material. Its similar to adding roadblocks to every motorway in Australia, and adding more taxes to the automakers, because Australian Roads *could* be used to transmit illegal materials. Or finding Myers or Target guilty becuase they sell kitchen knives, which *could* be used in a crime. Just doesn't make any sense. I suggest that the "filtering" idea is scrapped, and the funding investing in additional monitoring and contol processes for the detection of those involved in illegal material, as well as increasing the skills of bodies like the AFP (or equivelent) to successfuly arrest and prosecute those involved. IMHO in the case of Child Pron, nothing less than castration of anyone found guilty of possession or involvement - with a blunt knife and no anasthetic - then locked up for a minimum of 30 years would provide a better deterrent and I believe would get more support from the Australian community, than a filtering scheme which technically simply will not work and cause more damage to the information economy than good. 4) E-Health. Where is it in Australia? And why does every initiative (State, Federal, both e.g. NEHTA) seem to get caught up in governmental bickering than being allowed to just go ahead and get it done? Look at Scandinavia and Taiwan who are leading in this field. Senators Tannoy and Conroy, You do have the ability to kick-start the information economy in Australia. But your current policies will only serve to keep us in the dark ages. Please don't mess up this opportunity.

pthalo

09 Dec 2008 9:55pm

It is a parent's job to act as a filter for unacceptable content, whether internet, porn, or any other unacceptable influences from society. We live in a democracy, not in a state controlled dictatorship. Every citizen has the right to exercise choice over what personal content they access, and privacy protection entitlements regarding their information and usage when utilising digital technology. Clearly there are areas of the internet that are of huge concern, but a band-aid generalist ban is not the answer. OPT -IN should be the methodology for any government initiative regarding this matter.

Sooty

09 Dec 2008 9:55pm

Just to request that you reconsider the ill-judged idea for compulsory internet filtering. A moderately competent child could easily bypass the filter, and hence it would provide a negligible level of protection. However it would dramatically slow the internet down for the rest of us; please could you reconsider this proposal? http://nocleanfeed.com/

imahyphen

09 Dec 2008 9:56pm

WELCOME TO THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF AUSTRALIA

crazykarl

09 Dec 2008 9:57pm

I too welcome the blog to voice my opinion. Now correct me if I am wrong, the premise for the Internet filter is to protect children from inappropriate content and to prohibit child pornography. I will seperate the two and provide my thoughts: 1. Protect children from inappropriate content. -Surely the simplest way is for parents to keep an eye on what their kids are doing on the internet. If it's cyber predators you are trying to protect against you won't get them with a "filter". They chat like I do thru MSN, FaceBook, Google Talk etc. 2. Prohibit Child Pornography - For a filter to work, you need to know the website address or ip address of the site that is distributing child porn. As far as I know, no Government in the world supports child porn. Use tracing techniques to identify where the content is coming from and stop it. All a filter is going to do is slow Australia's already slow internet connections, cost a fortune, and provide very little benifit. As for the "secret list" of sites, make them public or are we going to be regulated like China, where only Government approved websites can be viewed by it's citizens. Please consider these, if you would like a more detailed explanation, please feel free to contact me.

oldhorse

09 Dec 2008 10:00pm

I have spent the last half hour reading all the coments so far and like me every body is of the same opinion get out of the net and leave it to th industry , I have been in the communications industry for forty years plus and the only reason it is in a mess in this country is because of th political fiddling over the years by both sides of the fence , with ministers who had no technicl background and present included, they go with the so called political wishes of the minorities of the time and what will we end up with , the internet choked by filters that any young person today can burrow through in five minutes even with out the knowledge, a quick google search will provide the information. Then we go onto brodband well sorry to say all those who want those others to get the contract will get a big suprise when they findout their fixed line service quality may never be the same again, some services they have today will not work any more. These other companies are only in for the quick buck not the long term , look at the problems one has with their present mobile broadband , not enough back haul , who ever said you could provide good quality using radio backhaul. To run NBN you need fibre to with a radius of a least 800 metres of your house , only one comapny comes close to that now , how are these othrs going to do it , look what happened to one network in one state when they could not afford an effective backup network, same has to apply to broadband will they provide that , no it costs more money. Their is only one company that cane deliver.

concerned web user

09 Dec 2008 10:01pm

Senetor Conway, i would suggest that you should campaign against cash. Surely anyone who has money can purchase child porn so if you support cash you mst be a criminal. Well Rudd does want us to be closer to the Chinese what better way than censoring the web.

Jackal

09 Dec 2008 10:01pm

Given the PM's love of China I'm not surprised "we" are going down this path. Long live Big Brother!

Laurie Davis

09 Dec 2008 10:02pm

G'day Mr. Tanner... welcome to the Internet. Please keep it free from interference censorship by do-gooders and wowsers (but by all means look for ways to protect our children; maybe by encouraging their parents to monitor their offspring while surfing the net). Please get things moving faster on the NBN - we need it now, not in the next parliamentary term. Summary: no internet filter but more speed and capacity.

toaddog

09 Dec 2008 10:03pm

I wonder who the architects of this program are? The vast majority of Australian people who are aware of this program are outraged that this is being forced upon us. tanner you were not, are not and will never be authorised by us to implement this garbage. There are sufficient methods of tracking illegal content already in existance. Leave the web alone.

Sams

09 Dec 2008 10:04pm

"These are trials so we may get things wrong." Egads, how do you do it, Holmes? Can the government please stop wasting money on filtering that we *know* can't work and put it into schools or something. I already have an SSL encrypted proxy to an overseas server that your filter will not be able to break into (unless you are insanely intending to break all overseas e-commerce). Of course all this is lost on the PHBs in government. I can almost hear them saying: "Just make it work".

Marie

09 Dec 2008 10:05pm

As a parent and an internet user, I find the prospect of a compulsory filter to be ridiculous in the extreme. Not only is it a gross abuse to our freedoms and in complete opposition to the term the Government is happy to throw about a lot these days, Democracy, it will also slow down our already slow internet. Why not make it voluntary instead of compulsory? Child pornography is illegal, filter or no filter. Do you honestly think that the perverts who are into that kind of thing are going to be held back by this filter? Your filter does not apply to file sharing. Ergo, those into child pornography can simply continue to peddle their perversion in total privacy, or they will simply find a way around the filter. As a parent, I find it downright insulting that my Government could assume that I am unable to supervise my children while they are on the computer. I also find it insulting when members of my Government accuse those of us who are against the mandatory filtering as being the kinds of people who would access or be into child pornography. The massive amounts of money that will go into implementing this filter would be better spent by actually recruiting more law enforcement to arrest child abusers and those who access child pornography. This filter will do nothing to curb internet crime because those who commit such crimes will be able to easily bypass the filter. All you are doing is wasting the money that could be put back into the community by either recruiting more law enforcement officials to help combat crime and also by providing support for the children who have been sexually abused and/or have been victims of child pornography, as well as to those who have been victims of internet crime. Censorship on this level does not belong in a democracy. On the contrary, it is a slap in the face to the very notion of democracy.

Dingo_aus

09 Dec 2008 10:06pm

Why has Labor decided to waste resources on a technically infeasible project like the "Clean feed" when that money would be better spent funding the AFP to find people committing crimes over the internet. Better yet, fund hospitals not needless regulation.

Steve

09 Dec 2008 10:07pm

Will Conroy please wake up to the fact that the only people that want mandatory filtering are he and some christian groups. In times of complete global meltdown perhaps they could throw our hard earned cash at something constructive.

jason

09 Dec 2008 10:07pm

For years people were concerned about the ways in which Australia was becoming more and more like the US. Turns out we were all wrong, we're China now!! Woo Hoo. (Actually, that could be the name of our next Prime Minister.) An internet content filter can never work on a national scale but I suspect you already know that. The big question is: what are you hiding. Keating did the same thing with ID cards: proposing one obviously-unacceptable solution while introducing an unfavourable but less offensive one (the use of the tax file number was expanded to include exactly the same things that the cards were supposed to do and it breezed through unnoticed amid the furore created in the media about the ID cards.) so what are you actually trying to get passed us? when do we see the real policy?

Michelle

09 Dec 2008 10:09pm

You gave us a choice to filter out unwanted sites for our children. Remember NetAlert? We currently use the Safe Eyes package and it actually works. I don't understand why you would give us a choice and then basically take it away? If this filtering goes ahead then freedom of choice will be taken from us, we will only be able to access on the net what the Government want us to see. I remember reading an article about a certain Country banning websites from their citizens and thinking how fortunate we are. This might not come out the right way but I find this a bit embarrassing for our Government to want to filter what we see, makes me feel like we are living in some sort of backward, oppressive Country. I am sure the Minister thinks this is the way forward and may even see this as Australia being some sort of pioneer in the stamping out of all things yucky on the www, however - it is actually two steps backwards. You might think this will solve a few problems but look at the ones you are going to create. I agree It is time to look forward, but without the rose coloured glasses. You have received some great comments and advice on here, I hope you take take them on board.

Paul

09 Dec 2008 10:09pm

Pack up your bags, wind up your department, put the funds back in to the economy and join the end of a un-employment line. Kevin Rudd should be shot point blank for wasting so much money on a un-necessary thing like you guys and your filter, Welcome to the Great Firewall of Australia. Thank you for killing our digital economy. I guess you have to do something to fill in all those hours pissing away our tax payer dollars. The filter should start by blocking this departments website saving us from all the useless crap you spin out.

Alchemist_101

09 Dec 2008 10:10pm

I believe that controlling access to child pornography IS a good idea. However, I will be very disappointed if access to sites that provide uncensored news & research into topics that are controversal become blocked. I enjoy sifting through some of this very interesting material. Anyway, let's try this idea & see how it goes. If it causes me troubles I will certainly let the Minister know.

Wayne

09 Dec 2008 10:11pm

Article 19. 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. Please explain how this legislation holds with the UN Declaration of Human Rights of which Australia is a signatory. Censorship is censorship no matter how noble the reason and whilst there must be boundaries it is not for MP's and unelected bodies and lobby groups to decide what is or isn't appropriate. That is the responsibility of the judiciary. As an aside, is this attempt at engaging the public just a PR exercise or will there meaningful debate? The Minister sounds very much like a George Bush Junior... you're either with us or against us..

Bernt

09 Dec 2008 10:12pm

I believe any censorhip or web filter is similar to the burning of books that was abandoned many years ago. I also believe that it will never be possible to censor peoples' thoughts. It all has been tried before and in every instance, it has failed so give it up and do something constructive with the money and time. I would also state it is would be gross child abuse to even think about censoring anything on the www at all. What you propose on censoring is essentially information and witholding information is oppressive and keeps people stupid. The poor news coverage here in Australia is already a very good example. What you propose will have major implications on today's children being the adults of tomorrow. I feel very sorry for them.

Sylvestor

09 Dec 2008 10:13pm

"The Government says a mandatory filter, maintained by internet service providers, is necessary to protect children online..." I do not have children. I do not intend to have children. I do not wish to be a parent. Why should I endure censorship of services while this Government aims to take over parental responsibility? When will it be recognised that parents have a responsibility to take care of their children? I am NOT a child. I am NOT a paedophile? And I do NOT (knowingly) access illegal information online. Thanks Senator Conroy, but I don't want you to "protect" me! Will you give me that choice? Or is my freedom of choice now up for grabs?

Pacstar

09 Dec 2008 10:12pm

With all the effort and amount of money that has been spent trying to clean up spam and viruses, we are no closer to a solution. To then try and spend hundreds of million of dollars on a filter that simply won't work, make the web slower, and increase the cost of business. People who want to break the law simply will and they will find a way to do it. Putting police on the net is perhaps a far better solution to catch these people in the first place. I would personally prefer to see offending countries blocked or perhaps their contenet filtered.

James Madley

10 Dec 2008 9:11am

Copying copyrighted media for personal use has been legal in Australia for two years now. I remember following the discussion and being over the moon when it went through. Anyway, getting around filters such as this proposed one is simple. Seeing as though only "dangerous" material will be blocked (does that include 4chan?), I'm going to guess that onion networks won't be - they're not illegal nor immoral (similar to the BitTorrent situation). Now regarding the reported speed decrease with this filter software; will all internet using Aussies receive subsidised internet to make up for it? Being on a 1.5Mb plan it wouldn't be very nice to find that speeds never go over 1.0Mb.

Paul Naphtali

10 Dec 2008 9:13am

Censorship (filtering's other name) of any kind is a hotly debated topic in any democracy at the best of times. In the digital world, which is by definition an open arena built around the core principles of free information sharing, the lines of free speech and illegal activity are very blurry indeed. A government must tread extremely carefully in this area and avoid making judgements based upon good taste or ethical judgements. Even legal judgements are fraught with danger (see for example for the efforts in the UK to filter child pornography: ). This example from Britain also shows just how emotive - and international - the subject of web censorship can be (the article linked about is from the Washington Post about a UK issue). I'm an Australian working in Silicon Valley. One day I would hope to return to Australia and continue working in high tech. In order for me to do that, Australia must have the infrastructure - both technology and business - to attract the innovators. I am concerned that censoring the net could be seen as a significant step backwards and significantly impact the Australian brand globally, hampering efforts to attract talent Down Under. The dot com world is fairly small, tends to embrace access, progress and openness almost above all else. I recently mentioned the filtering concept to a colleague who responded: "In Australia? In China i would expect it, but Australia?!" I would urge the Australian Government to consider this before moving ahead with any filtering policy.

James 'Morsolo' Morsello

10 Dec 2008 9:14am

This is outrageous, I don't know how a Government who looked so good could have turned out so horrible... For one, I would like to know how the Government finds all this Child Pornography they're trying to stop. I have used the internet for many years and never come across any of it, how are children supposed to be protected from content they can never see anyway? I can't be bothered writing up a big comment, because I'm sure the past googel (1 with 100 Zero's) comments and the googel comments following will do it numerous times for me... I will laugh at how fast Labour loses the next election. Get a hold of yourselves you imbeciles and figure out no one wants this, it doesn't help anything and the bad people will still get the bad content. But as a situation, I run a online forum, what if a spammer or someone with a grudge against me posts a 'inappropriate' image? My website gets blocked, I get a fined and maybe even taken to court... I'll win the case in the end, but how much money and time did I just use?

John of Kedron 4031

10 Dec 2008 9:15am

I thought this website was going to be Senator Conroy's webpage consultation but it appears it takes two (2) dopes to come up with one dopey idea. For the record King Canute tried stopping the tide and Midas tried to turn base metals into gold this plan will have the same result.

hujjuta

10 Dec 2008 9:16am

The numerous technical and public policy objections to an internet filter have been made clear online, through industry spokespeople and in some of the media. Senator Conroy's appearances in parliament have often been embarrassing (not unusual for QT), and it's an utter shame that the political debate can't rise about the infantile especially in a scheme constantly touted to be about protecting the young. Perhaps on this site authors names could be hyperlinked to see if authors had responded to any comments and if there's actually a conversation being undertaken.

Paul clyne

10 Dec 2008 9:16am

No why not go further, not only block {undefined} questionable content; but also mandate what we read. No scratch that - make it what we think. No free thought unless it is in the "public's" interest. Then you can say we _are_ a democracy - because everyone thinks exactly what you want them to think.

Jim

10 Dec 2008 9:18am

You really need to watch . A mandatory filter won't work and is a waste of taxpayers money. It will also damage online business and make AU an INternet laughing stock.

ILLEAC

10 Dec 2008 9:19am

TEXT ONLY SITE PLEASE For all of us - and there are many - who are limited to dialup ONLY Internet services and even then via Telstra's dreadful "pair gain"/RIM structures at around 35Kbits/sec we: 1. cannot use "YouTube", and so introductory videos are useless, and 2. have to wait a long time to load down Federal Government (including DBCDE) web pages. Until we see a genuine 12Mbit/sec for 98% of Australians, it is ESSENTIAL that ALL Australian Government websites offer "text only" site capability...anything else is total discrimination against us "Telstra victims". We need our Ministers Conroy and Tanner to GIVE THE LEAD in this - so let's start with this very blog site.

Foodie

10 Dec 2008 9:19am

It's not the governments job to police our children online. It is the parents job. Stop trying to nanny people!!!!

strangr

10 Dec 2008 9:21am

wow 11 pages is that all. I hope net filtering will block out this waste of time website, our government ministers should be working more and not blogging.

a

10 Dec 2008 9:22am

well i hope you listen to the resounding message this board and many others like it have broadcast. totalitarianism will not be tolerated. if you must filter the internet it can not be mandatory. period.

Dan

10 Dec 2008 9:22am

I fully support government attempts to filter harmful material. Those who are jumping up and down are putting an adults so called freedom to view trash above kids well being. That is what it boils down to. Sometimes not being able to view trash for the protection of kids is warranted. I would say to those devoting their energy to defending trash and harmful trash at that, find a better project that will truly reflect freedom. Stick to your guns on this Minister. Do not give in to the fanatics.

Jackster

10 Dec 2008 9:23am

I say NO to filtering by Government or by anybody else. We did not vote for a communist China style regime at the last Election. We live in a free and independent society. We take responsibility for ourselves and what we view/do not view on the internet. We know what is legally and morally right and what is not. We do not need busybody politicians and bureaucrats reaching into our computer screens.

Dan of Brisbane

10 Dec 2008 9:23am

Based on correspondence I have had with the PM on this matter ,this BLOG is a complete and utter waste of time. The Government has made up its mind that we will have a filter regardless of the views or wishes of the electorate. For the record I am totally against a filter that enables the Government to randomly censor the internet. Today we will censor fast food sites.Tomorrow it will be opposition to the Labor ideal.This strikes at the heart of democracy and is a disgrace. Also seeing we are going to have a filter come hell or high water ,will Stephen C or Kevin R provide an assurance that our abysmally poor internet speeds will not get worse as a result.Certainly they wont give one to me.All I can get on this subject is gobbledegook which I'm sure means sppeds will drop.

Dan of Brisbane

10 Dec 2008 9:24am

I previously had the misfortune (on this occasion anyway ) to manage a group of Fisheries scientists.Our Department had a great internet filter which let them monitor staff internet useage. I kept getting calls from our HR people about all the deviants in my section who continually searched sex sites.Of course ,closer examination invariably showed that scientists intent on breeding fish needed to search for 'sex' when looking up scientific papers on fish breeding. Kevin I wish you well with your filter.I'm sure it will slow down the internet ,frustrate legitimate users ,cost a fortune and be as effective as Grocery watch and Fuel watch.

clarencegirl

10 Dec 2008 9:25am

So now the Rudd Government is into online community consultation and, moderated consultation no less. Now if I were to avail myself of the usual methods of government-community consultation, I would write a submission and send it by email (with embedded references) or surface mail with attachments. It would be received by whichever parliamentary committee or departmental agency was conducting the consultation, duly recorded and the entire submission list published at a later date. In fact both a hard copy and a digital record of my opinion would last far into the future. Here, Minister Tanner is lauding a method of consultation which might see all "moderated" submissions disappear as though they never existed. Much the same way as various information will disappear from view once the Rudd-Conroy mandatory national ISP-level Internet filtering is imposed on the Australian nation. Minister Tanner talks about this government blog as a "learning process". Somehow I doubt that the ultra conservative Rudd Government needs to learn anything about either the suppression of information or massaging the medium to limit dissent. I will certainly be changing my vote in 2010 if this national mandatory censorship scheme is introduced. There will be no support for 'Kevin in 10' in my household. Nor will there be support for a form of community consultation which allows for opinion received to be erased. NO CLEAN FEED!!

GHT

10 Dec 2008 9:25am

I believe this blog is a front to pretend that these politicians are listening to us. Overwelmingly, web users are saying that they are NOT interested in an Internet Filter system. The funny thing is, these politicians think they are being `strong` and avoiding`populism` by `doing the right thing`, when really they are just ignoring their constituents will. Are politicians the representative of their people,..... or not? Steven Conroy, if you think you can push this through, I can see a number of organised internet groups pushing to dump you at the next election.

Dean Nicholls

10 Dec 2008 9:26am

I live in a swing seat that labour won by 900 votes. If this filter proposal goes through, I will change my vote and lobby everyone I know to do the same. If I convince ten people, who convince 10 people each, who convince another 10 people each then the ALP is one seat closer to losing the treasury benches. I hope you think the risk of losing government is worth trying to introduce an unworkable solution to a problem that does not exist and exists as a tool to allow to allow the back room boys to censor at will the information we can see. A solution that can only be used by future governments even more fascist than this one to strip us of our rights to get information they do not like. Remember the Nazis were voted in legally - this is how it starts.

brisbanenetuser

10 Dec 2008 9:26am

Like everyone else I know, I am against mandatory ISP filtering. We all hope to see lots of other concerned internet users at the upcoming protests.

Marg

10 Dec 2008 9:27am

I am an adult who lives in a democratic society and as such I have a right to decide what I see, do, hear and how I act. I do not need an elected official making these decisions for me or telling me what is best for me or my family. This type of filter is the sort of thing one expects of China and the like, not Australia. Parents are responsible for what their children view on the internet and there is already available plenty of existing software to block offensive material. Most kids at some stage will expose themselves to pornography whether in sharing magazines, books, comics, or the net. Lets face it it has been around a long, long time. Mine went looking on the net before the "nanny type" software was available, but we were checking what and where they were going and we confronted them then dealt with it as responsible parents. They knew the rules, they knew we could check on them and they knew the penalties if they continued. And they stopped. Apparently loss of mobiles, going out, pocket money etc was more important. As some other people have stated this will not stop the pedophiles, they will just find other ways around the blocks, they always have regardless of the medium. All it will do is hinder Australia's ability to have a useful fast internet system. It needs to be an OPT IN system for those not prepared or capable of overseeing their own children. And let the rest of use benefit from all the advantages the web can give us. And for the record I am not interested in pornography but to each his own. I am a lot more concerned about the violence that is allowed on our TV's, films and computer games and think it does more damage to kids who are constantly exposed and desensitized by it.

Menthu R

10 Dec 2008 9:27am

Please do not *unwillingly* remove our freedom as citizens/inhabitants of a democratic nation, country and continent. I support the idea of net filtering for those *who need it* - but it is not for the government to decide that *everyone* needs it. Please allow the system to be on an opt-in or provide an opt-out (TOTALLY opt-out, none of this switching blacklist/whitelist nonsense). This way, people who do not *need* the system will not be hindered in their access to the freedom of information that should be not only allowed but PROMOTED, the freedoms that are the very basis of democracy within Australia.

Shaggy

10 Dec 2008 9:28am

I believe parents should take more of an interested and monitor their childrens internet usage.

David

10 Dec 2008 9:28am

We must have internet filtering. The Australian adult population do not have the capacity to protect their own children from accessing the internet in an appropriate manner. Therefore, the obviously ignorant people must call upon the immortal power of glorious education revolutionary Chairman Rudd to save the Australian masses from corruption by the tyranny and evils of the internet, and do a better job of raising YOUR kids by controlling, censoring and determining what is and what isn't appropriate for YOU and YOUR family. LONG LIVE Rudd!

Mac-Afee

10 Dec 2008 9:29am

Well, Mr Conroy. The last 14 pages or so sh ould have convinced you that an 'open slather' approach to running a blog is asking for it's intent to be hijacked. ... ... To run it successfully, I suggest that there be a wide variety of sub-topics, each with a list (as a 'sticky or announcement) of 'banned words' (e.g. internet filter - not that I am expressing a 'for' 'against' position here) AND 'compulsory (for want of a better term!) use' words so that the content is somewhere near to being relevant to the topic. ... ... I pity the poor person who has to moderate a site like this as it is currently set up.

Roo

10 Dec 2008 9:30am

In our system of government Ministers are not experts in their portfolios, although there are some exceptions. Unfortunately the DBCDE advisors are either not doing their job properly. It is clear that the Senator does not understand the industry he is seeking to regulate. And he is either getting bad advice or is unable to properly understand the advice he is getting. The mandatory isp level content filter will not protect children at all, in fact if the government continues with this policy it will allow harm to continue. The funding allocated for this insane idea should be directed to law enforcement for the online crimes group to help catch the wrong doers. This is far more effective than just sweeping it under the carpet with a "filter". "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." -Bertrand Russell

Nemesis12

10 Dec 2008 9:31am

A mandatory, non removable filter, imposted on all Australians with no way to remove it, using a secret government controlled and edited blacklist of 10,000 websites, said blacklist viewable by no one, with no civil rights oversight,no independent accountability and no public recourse, said blacklist subject to the whims of every looney pressure group in Australia, with the nebulous criteria of "unwanted content" as its basis. Tell me again.Senator, how this equates to the principles of freedom in a western democracy.

Lee

10 Dec 2008 9:32am

Regarding the internet filter proposal, the government just needs to make one small change and suddenly EVERYONE will support it. Don't make it mandatory. Just activate it on all internet connections and get those who don't want it to opt out via their ISP. Really simple, guys... seriously. Lee

nanks

10 Dec 2008 9:33am

Spend more money on law enforcement to catch the people who are actually abusing children rather than money on a filter that will be of no benefit to these poor children at all.

Brad

10 Dec 2008 9:33am

As has been shown time after time, this kind of censorship, while full of good intentions (yet nothing practical), will be abused by those in power. Who is to say (apart from promises from politicians, which mean close to nothing) that at the next election anything referring to the Liberals or anti-labor policies won't be considered "offensive" and blocked? Sorry, China already has shown that it doesn't work, and this is a supposedly "free" country. It took the labor party 4 elections to get in, and people were simply voting against Howard as for krudd. Even with an ineffective opposition, the next election already looks clear cut.

Jay

10 Dec 2008 9:34am

The proposed censorship is not only unworkable, but it is also more the sort of policy that one would expect in China or Iran. That we have a minister who accuses opponents of being pedophiles says all that can be said about the minister, his intelligence, and his abilities.

A.H.

10 Dec 2008 9:35am

There is no place for internet censorship. Crippling a nation's internet and restricting our action of free will is no consolation for lack of enforcement against child abuse crimes. Prosecute real crimes, do not prosecute imaginary crimes to make it look like you are tough on crime. Split Telstra's landline network from the rest of its business. To have investment in ITC infrastructure we need a level playing field. Allow for unlicensed wireless networks to transmit internet traffic. This will allow entrepreneurs to experiment with building ad hoc wireless infrastructure.

GV

10 Dec 2008 9:37am

The cost of backing down over filtering will be less than running trials when the conclusion is obvious. Now is not the time to be wasting taxpayer funds. Filtering an entire nation is profoundly stupid. Drop the policy. Focus on broadband, there are still no Labor runs on the board in that area either.

J Nicholls

10 Dec 2008 9:37am

I would like to express my opposition to the government's proposed internet filter. I think that we should think of sensible solutions to protect our children but this proposed solution also impacts on people who are doing the right thing. I have serious concerns with the impact the filter will have on download speeds. It has taken us years to get to ADSL2+ and now the government wants to implement something that will slow it down. Why is it that the government will spend billions on a FTTN network to give faster internet access to Australians, yet wants to implement something else that will slow it down? I will become a parent for the first time next year. When my child is old enough to use a computer, I believe it is my responsibility to implement relevant filters to protect him/her from online predators NOT the government.

Jason Bennett

10 Dec 2008 9:38am

Rather than throwing a blanket solution onto parents who refuse to raise their children (the same parents who demand we ban McDonalds rather than just not buying it for their kids), you should invest the money in a decent opt-in system. With the decision put the parent on sign up to the ISP, this would allow them to make the decision without any hassle and keep the internet fast for those of us without children. Give the money allocated to this ridiculous project to child welfare groups to actually help children.

Lee

10 Dec 2008 9:38am

This internet filter is the worst possible use of public funds and will help even further kill the digital economy and high tech sector in Australia. We are the laughing stock of the world at this point. Who in their right mind would invest in a country with policies that seem to be crafted in the most anti-business anti-democratic kind of way. Conroy is a disaster for Australia and should be removed immediately and the internet filter plan scrapped.

Nimrod Jones

10 Dec 2008 9:38am

I have not and will not read any of this blog - internet censorship is not the way to the future - it is wrong

Tony

10 Dec 2008 9:39am

Good work on finally getting a blog up - I know it's been a goal for a few years now. I am offended that Senator Conroy has likened censorship opponents to child porn supporters. It is a straw man argument and offensive to basic principles of democracy.

ungulate

10 Dec 2008 9:39am

Regarding the NBN. The argument for FTTH is compelling. And in saying so I am also advocating that the Government take a stronger role in financing or underwriting the project. This may not seem sensible politically, but the alternatives are fraught with political risk. Options that involve re-using Telstra copper will be expensive. Whether that is in the fee structure, the inevitable delays or the risks in securing capital. FTTN at its best, is a stepping stone. But it is also a gift to the incumbent. Additionally, FTTH provides the government with the key to acting decisively and be seen to be acting decisively. Rather than go for second best and get bogged down in Court. With FTTH comes inexpensive backhaul, the key to further competition in the 3G market. As far as regulation/legislation goes. Here is my modest proposal. Build a FTTH network. Allow the existing system to function as it stands. In return do two things. Regulate a sensible price for access to existing ducting and rights of way. Legislate to prevent anyone other than the new network from providing speeds beyond (say, 25Mbps). Very simple, and it solves the key political and economic problems. Yes, you guys (the Government) have to take the bull by the horns, and yes to some extent the money will compete with roads and railways (but their budget is enormous compared to this. In any case, in an environment where the Government has to act as job provider, rolling out a brand new CAN creates a lot of jobs (its a better investment than the car industry). Btw, a large part of the cost of a FTTH network is in the CAN. There is no reason that this needs to happen immediately or that it has to be financed by the builder. Consider the billions invested in mobile phone handsets. Finally, at this stage we can only guess what the suitors of the NBN have in their proposals. Let us hope that at least one of these propose something with a bit of vision, or if not that the Government steps in to fill that gap.

ricky

10 Dec 2008 9:40am

I had hopes for this government but you have managed to dash them very quickly. I thought maybe the days of idiocy were at last over, at least concerning telecommunications where I suggest over the last ten years trillions of dollars have been lost due to retarded government *policy* but.... obviously not. Good luck, you'll need it. You have already lost me, Kind regards, Ricky

Mitch H

10 Dec 2008 9:40am

Myself and virtually everyone i know that uses the internet is completely against this filter. Also in my opinion the people who are proposing this filter are technologically inept and are completely out of their field. Without far more resources and money poured into it, it will just flop on its side. All the while slowing down our already slow internet infrastructure. It is also easy to work around to get to what will be banned. One other point to make is who will dictate what is to be banned. I personally don't feel all that happy having others choose what i should and should not be reading.

Daniel Hynes

10 Dec 2008 9:41am

This web filter is gonna get canned in the end. Do it now before even more money gets wasted.

Ken Fowler

10 Dec 2008 9:41am

Its all about accountability, govt needs to stop telling people what they can and can't do and make the majority suffer for the minority. It's up to parents to police what their kids see and do on the internet, not govt. Enough is enough, I'm and adult and have the right to do within reason with my life, and not be dictated to about my every move by govt because some people don't accept their accountability about their kids. The content may not be the most attractive but in the end it's my right to chose to go there or not.

James G.

10 Dec 2008 9:42am

While everyone is quick to point out how technically unworkable proposed ISP level filters are I personally think such concerns are irrelevant. The fact that Internet traffic will be slowed down by at least 50% is a matter of no consequence. The real issue is that it isn't up to the government to tell us what we can and cannot access. It is not acceptable for the ACMA and the government to have the power to presume the guilt of any website that ends up on their blacklists. Unless there will be a full trial and hearing for each and every page intended to be blocked, then how is it within the scope of the rule of law to go blocking whichever content the government finds objectionable. The lack of adoption of voluntary filtering software that Senator Conroy pointed out doesn't mean that filtering should become mandatory - it means that we don't want our Internet filtered. Given that any page containing child pornography or other illegal material will already under current laws be shut down as soon as possible once it is discovered, there is no need to filter every page online (in the process incorrectly blocking more than 1% of pages). It's a redundant process. It's only effects are to crush what little freedom of media remains, to cement the position of our government as a nanny for parents who can't supervise their own children, and to bring our beautiful country one step closer to the authoritarian dictatorships of years gone by where only media the government approved of could be accessed. Well I don't like it. None of us do.

infowars.com

10 Dec 2008 9:42am

I know Tyranny when I see it. Even if the intention of the Labor Party is honourable how do we know if a future opressive or out of control government will not use it to block sites that conflict with the Governments view of the day. The ISP filter would be a too powerfull tool in the hands of Governments and faceless public servants. If a black list is formed, the list MUST be public and subject to open public review. There are many other issues, however I believe this is the most important. Liberty and Freedom for all.

WhiteLight

10 Dec 2008 9:43am

The"filter" was initially claimed to be an opt in choice thing , you lied ! But whats new about that ? Nothing your politicians ,remind me to NEVER buy a used car of you CONroy . I also have no children of child age any more so explain to me why I need "protecting" from the big bad internet ? Care to explain the very obvious political censorship concept of "UNWANTED LIST" ? Says who ? Who decides this dubious concept ? I would like an answer please ? I've voted for Labor since the days of Gough ! A faithfull "true believer" but because of this , NOT any more ! Hello Greens you have my vote.

FiLT3R

10 Dec 2008 9:44am

Although i think the government has the right idea when it comes to the internet filter, they are going about it completely the wrong way. We are heading very quickly towards having a chinese-like internet if this goes ahead. The fact of the matter is it is near impossible to 'accidentally' find child pornography online, the sites that are easy to find, there are i'm sure lists of and these should be blocked. What also interests me is the governments proposal to limit file sharing measures. Why not spend this money increasing our bandwidth capabilities so we are not 20 years behind? Whilst i think the corporations should be able to take legal action against people if they have proof of sharing, the only way limit file sharing would impact totally legal ways of sharing in a p2p way as well. The people that still want to do illegal things shall still do so, people will use VPN's routed through countries other than Australia, people will use encryption, so this won't hurt that either. Send the money increasing our Web capabilities rather than trying to box in what it should be.

Mux

10 Dec 2008 9:44am

The problem with Australia is censorship. Censorship destroys people and culture. Congratulations for ruining our country even more. There can be no debate on this. It's not an opinion. It's a fact.

David

10 Dec 2008 9:45am

I am completely against this net filter. Senator Conroy states that this is to protect children from unwanted content, block illegal and an undefined "unwanted content" (What ever that means). If parents are so hysterical about protecting their children, they can get a filter for their home PC. Why does it have to be at the ISP??? What will Senator Conroy deem unwanted material. Information on euthanasia? Abortion? Give me a break. I am a die hard larbor suporter, but this whole charade is very disconcerting. If this is what labor is going to give me maybe I need to look at the greens.

stmok

10 Dec 2008 9:46am

I'm opposed to the current policy regarding the mandatory content filter. It should be an opt-in policy whereby the Govt provides the option for one to use a filter or not. Let the public choose at their own discretion. This will satisfy those who feel the need to protect their children from inappropriate material on the web (and it leaves everybody else alone!). To blindly force such a filter onto all Australians without truly knowing the consequences (whether technological, moral, or political), is leaning to the side of irresponsibility. What's really interesting is that the filter only covers the web browsing protocol. How does that protect the children if the "bad people" can easily get the disgusting material via P2P and other transfer protocols? (These very protocols can also be used for legitimate purposes. Such as the distribution of open source software.) To top it off, content filters can easily be bypassed with a few minutes of searching on the web. Its simply too easy for today's children and technically competent people to workaround this multi-million dollar policy. A more appropriate approach would be to provide videos to educate parents and guardians on how to properly configure their systems (to prevent children tampering with them) and how to use such content filtering software. (We re-use the software solution as provided for free by the previous Govt). The approach would be far less controversial than a nation-wide filter that all Australians must endure.

Will

10 Dec 2008 9:49am

I played golf with Senator Conroy at Federal a few years ago, other than looking a little furtive, he was reasonable company. Had I known he had this on his agenda, I would have not helped him look for several lost golf balls. Seriously though, this is a debacle waiting to happen. I have a small child and I am aware of the dangers of the internet. But my child's safety is my (paramount) concern and I would never entrust that safety to schemes such as this. As well, my business is largely internet based and if anything is introduced that adversely affects my customers abililty to access my site, I shall be suing the government.

Moriarty

10 Dec 2008 9:49am

Senator Conroy, I cannot believe that as Minister you are badly advised on both the NBN and the Net Filter ideas. Please do not waste my money on fixing things that the govt seems not to understand, and that are not broken in the first place. Why is the govt persisting with the flawed NBN process without first defining the requirement and the national benefit in dollar terms? Why will the govt not commit to the structural separation of Telstra thus freeing the vast majority of ISP's from Telstras wholesale price gouging and general obstruction. Why is the govt persisting with the nanny state net censor idea even after the earlier trials did not work effectively and slowed traffic? Does the govt see any irony in, on the one hand pursuing a NBN offering to throw $4.7B of public money into the pot whilst, on the other hand, proposing a scheme that will slow traffic and throughput on the Australian internet to less than currently enjoyed? Will anybody thay matters in the govt actually read any of these posts or is this blog simply an attempt to appear contemporary?

Kevin Rennie

10 Dec 2008 10:31am

More consultation is obviously a good idea. Effectvie use of the internet is the way to go. So enough discussion about whether we have a discussion. Some suggestions for a trial:

focus on one specific issue or policy area
link to important documents, videos and sites
explore some proposals for action
develop these through a forum with registered participants
ensure that there is ongoing response to the feedback and commentary
use video, basic or otherwise
build in some timelines such as comprehensive responses
have a 'political' presence, not just PR or public service people
smile a little

Simon

10 Dec 2008 10:41am

"Open" dialog? I guess this will be the same sort of "discussion" that Conroy was having with IT professionals regarding the mandatory ISP level filtering. You remember, the one where his department tried to silence Mark Newton... Go democracy!

gibbo

10 Dec 2008 11:34am

Text of letter sent to Minister Conroy on November 13. Now an open letter to the Minister. Dear Minister, It is, quite simply, impossible to censor the Internet without a China-type clamp-down. China employs an army of people(1) manually sifting through the 'net seeking out subversive content. I don't for a moment think you intend anything like that here. Anything short of that kind of effort, and any savvy user will be able to bypass any measures you put in place. Before you know it your banned list will have been posted on newsgroups along with instructions on how to use an off-shore proxy server to access them. There is also the concern about the "thin end of the wedge". The moment you have a list of banned sites it opens a Pandora's box of real or imagined opportunities for a future government to redefine "undesirable" to their own advantage. How about banning a site that talks down the economy, spreading negative sentiment, or a site that promotes Islam in a manner that some may consider threatening? All you will achieve with this move is an incredible amount of criticism and ridicule, and a reduction in the performance of the Internet for Australian businesses and households. The effort is doomed to fail. Please, please quit while you are ahead. David Stonier-Gibson Melbourne -------------- (1) "The size of the Internet police is estimated at more than 30,000." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China. The number of people required for a given level of "filtering" will not be affected by the number of Internet users

Coenraad

10 Dec 2008 11:42am

I'm glad that the Government wants to improve consultation with the public. That said, I also wish to join the many Australians who have have voiced their opposition to Senator Conroy's Internet censorship plans here. The technical limitations are staggering, but even more fundamentally, I do not believe the Government should be able to dictate what Australians can and cannot see, hear and read, on the Internet or otherwise.
Parents who want to filter their children's Internet connections can already do so by installing a client-side filter or by using a content-filtered ISP such as Webshield; there is no need to impose a draconian censorship regime on the entire population. I am appalled that the Government would even consider such an undemocratic policy, and if you are serious about online consultation, I urge you to acknowledge the overwhelmingly negative response by dropping it immediately.

Ryan Kuss

10 Dec 2008 11:52am

Do not want a filter. Will change my vote next election if you go ahead with one. Thanks.

Adam Graham

10 Dec 2008 11:55am

For starters, congratulations to the ministerial team who dared to try something 'modern' and talk to their constituents in a digital forum.

I speak as someone who has experienced a higher level of 'eGovenment' having lived in a technologically advanced country for the last 8 years.

There are several points I'd like to make clear to Minister Conroy and his team:
1) Australia's internet is one of the most expensive and prohibitive in the world. I pay about 4 times more for the same service (if you could call a Telstra connection a service) than I did whilst living overseas. I honestly suspect competition as being the reason. SAY NO TO TELSTA'S STRANGLEHOLD ON AUSTRALIA.
2) In countries I have lived, they don't make a big deal about new technology and the 'internet', they just get on with it and ensure that all demographics (those with not internet connection, those with some internet connection and those rely on their internet connection) are kept up to date with governmental topics, no-matter what the medium. The internet is not a big deal, just get on with it or Australia will be left behind
3) Censorship... It's a parents responsibility, it's an internet cafe's responibility if they wish, it is not up to 'big brother' or the 'nanny state' to look after us. Yes, our police cyber task force should be doing all they can to stop the proliferation of child pornography, but that is their job and I suspect that if we put the same amount of resources into these organisations, then we would see a greater prosecution rate for those who decide to pursue this perverted media.

I just hope that this government listens to the people rather than forcing their ideals and agendas. I'm not however holding my breath. 12 months in and I'm less than impressed. I'm as Australian as they come, but sometimes I wonder if my family and I would be better off overseas where we experienced an 'anti-nanny state' government.

Hopefully, Minister Conroy will take these bloggers views on board. He should, they are real opinions, by real people.

Christopher Kerr

10 Dec 2008 12:03pm

Dear Minister Tanner,

Unfortunately, the proposed plan to implement an ISP level filter preventing access to child pornography demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand the fashion in which the internet works.

While filtering of traditional protocols such as HTTP and FTP may have some limited effectiveness through use of an imposed blacklist, this will inevitably be only a temporary inconvenience, unless you also plan to filter any and all material pertaining to stenography and encryption. Such filtering would constitute a remarkable violation of our democratically-implicit right to free speech.

But the problem runs deeper than that. The internet simply doesn't work the way many people think it does. The World Wide Web is not the Internet. The internet encompasses many layers, including bittorrent, Usenet and FreeNet. These networks are designed to route around damage, can be encrypted end-to-end, will operate on any available port ranges and are, as a result, effectively unblockable.

You have previously spoken about ensuring that social decorum translates to the medium of the internet. What you fail to understand is that the internet is not like any traditional construct. The notion of regulating the usage of the internet within the borders of a specific nation is as absurd as regulating the breathing of air. The internet does not respect borders. The internet is not designed to be ruled. It is defined by those who use it.

A friend of mine today proposed that the ownership of the internet could be modeled as a colonial process. Tribes of natives eventually supplanted by corporate exploitation, followed by the imposition of government controls. It is here that we stand today.

But consider this: The content of the internet is created by its users, not by the controlling government. How long is it going to be before we, collectively, ask you to leave, and take your tea with you?

I only ask of you and your department that you consult the right experts - not experts in implementing filters, but experts in IT Security. Perhaps you should higher a pair of consultant teams. Ask one to draft a comprehensive test of your proposed filter, and the other to perform your test.

Perhaps such a test, before many more millions of dollars are outlaid on this project, could provide convincing evidence to you, far more so than the posts of 100 angry bloggers.

Yours sincerely, Christopher Kerr

Tim

10 Dec 2008 12:08pm

To Mr Conroy and others involved in legislating and managing this arena,

For Australia to become an active member in the "Digital Economy," we need two things above all: we need a world-class broadband infrastructure, and we need a steady and firm commitment from the government to show that it understands this area and has a plan.

Unfortunately, neither of those things are presently the case. The government is loudly and continuously claiming that the National Broadband Network, presently stalled and mired in red tape and bickering between the telcos, is a major priority. And yet with the other hand it demonstrates its fundamental lack of understanding of the basic technical underpinnings of the Internet, and its willingness to sacrifice our nation's proper participation in that aforementioned "Digital Economy" by undermining our free speech in a ham-handed attempt to seem active in fighting crime.

I am, of course, speaking of Senator Conroy's much-publicised filtering scheme. I trust by this point that the growing public displeasure regarding this plan has not escaped your notice. I trust also that I don't need to reiterate the fundamental problems with this filtering scheme: that it will simply not work; that it will be laughably easy to bypass; that the real criminals and purveyors of child pornography are already using methods that this filter is incapable of touching; that it will lull parents and other members of the public into a false sense of security regarding online activity; that it will divert huge sums of money from real law enforcement, money that could be used to *actually* stop these criminals and to educate internet users, adults and children alike; and that the impact that it will have on network performance is in *direct* opposition to the stated aims of the much publicised National Broadband Network.

Put simply: far from joining this Digital Economy, we will become its laughing stock, the only democratic nation in the world to attempt this form of clumsy, misguided, Orwellian censorship. I am far from alone in my firm belief that the money being poured into this filter will be far better spent educating the populace and providing them with the network they need to join the Digital Economy. We should be striving to become the most tech-savvy population in the world, wise to the treasures and dangers of the internet, and best equipped to take advantage of everything it has to offer.

J Goodall

10 Dec 2008 12:16pm

Hi. I design internet filtering systems. If your children have used the Internet at school in the last five years, there's a better than even chance they've been filtered by software I've either designed or helped design. I can tell you unequivocally that categorically that such systems are 100% ineffective at preventing undesirables from sharing illicit material.

The level of technical knowledge and ability required to bypass centralised filters is minimal, and it would take less than a day to develop a foolproof how-to guide that anyone could use. I know this; the technical people that advise the Senator know this. I would be surprised if the Senator does not know this. Even more comically, business connections would not be filtered: so all your friendly neighbourhood pervert need do is register an ABN and away he goes. The effective level of protection offered by the so-called "clean feed" is minimal.

If the Senator were serious about protecting young Internet users, he'd sponsor a programme of subsidising software for parents to use on home computers. That's far, far more effective than central filtering, and comes without any of the howls of protest at the implied loss of civil liberties inevitable in any Government-run blacklist.

Murray

10 Dec 2008 12:18pm

2 things...

1) With the advent of the digital era in multi-media, the changes to the copyright act under the previous Howard government went too far towards protecting the interests of big business. Australian consumers should have the right to format shift Video they have legitimate rights to. It is currently illegal to format shift an owned DVD for later playback, or store free to air TV for later viewing, unless you only watch it once. Ridiculous.

2. The mandatory filtering of the internet is clearly against the will of the majority of Australians. The last time I checked, they were your boss. How about the House of Representatives actually representing for a change.

David Tangye

10 Dec 2008 12:19pm

The government needs to address and DO something urgently about these 3 issues:

1. Sort the Telstra fiasco out. Stop cowtowing to power. Take Australia's comms infrastructure back, and outsource management and marketing perhaps in a similar way to how electricity is done.

2. Proactively encourage the adoption of open source solutions. Stop cowtowing to power. Eg: Why do you dictate that I must buy Microsoft products to file my tax return? Get rid of or reeducate all the deadheads in your IT departments.

3. Get smart about the netfilter issue. Its obvious that the internet should be free, and not bogged down with a sledgehammer approach that is going to shoot us all in the foot. Take an intelligent approach to the issue of porn and spam on the net, not a draconian big-brother technology and set of laws that will not work anyway.

Get forward-thinking advisors, and retire a few in Canberra that are playing their games of 'preserve the status quo'. If you do not know what I mean, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Thanks for my opportunity to opine. I hope I am heard somewhere. We can but hope.

David Fitches

10 Dec 2008 12:21pm

A compulsory Web-content filter will do NOTHING to stop the people the government claims to be targeting, but it WILL allow the government to also filter "other unacceptable content" - A frightening phrase as the government refuses to state what this content is.

I find it frightening that the government will be CENSORING what I can and cannot see, and I don't even get to know whats on the list of 'banned material'.

This sort of censorship is a kin to Nazi Germany burning books which were contrary to it's philosophies. The government doesn't like it, it bans it. It started with our video games, now it'll be happening on the internet. How long till it spreads to our print media with books being banned for seditious content?

Do we keep gradually giving away all of our freedoms until we wake up one morning and realise we live in a society where we are no longer free to think and speak our minds for fear of government reprisals?

The government insists anyone with a contrary view point on this matter MUST be into child pornography because that then allows them to dismiss rational and logical arguments as the mouthings of criminals and ne'er-do-wells.

I vote - and I DO NOT want a compulsory web filter. Is that clear enough?

What a pity I can't trust the politicians to actually LISTEN...

Mandatory Filter = Bad Politics

10 Dec 2008 12:22pm

Not only is mandatory internet filtering a bad idea techncally (unworkable) and morally (freedom of expression,information and thought), I think it would be a bad idea politically too. Once the filter is in, it's likely to stay.

While voterrs often forget bad decisions at the start of a term, they're likely to be reminded of this bad decision every time they need to access information. Even if slow access times are not the fault of the filter, the filter will be blamed.

Ensuring that at least some ISPs in Australia provide an optional 'clean' feed would be a far better way of spending taxpayer's money.

No To Filter

10 Dec 2008 12:24pm

1. People who want to look at child porn will be able to bypass this filter easily through advanced technology such as vpns etc. 2. This will slow down Australia's already poor internet access, and drag smaller isps down in costs. 3. This will attack Australia's information freedoms giving so much unbalanced power to the government. 4. The details for content blocked are too vague, what's "unwanted material"? how dare politicians use this term to undermine their people! 5. Waste of Tax payers money. 6. Children will still stumble upon pornography, no filter is perfect (especially on a larger scale) and education is the only key to safe surfing. 7. Researchers, Experts and ISPs have already voiced opposition and that the system is a poor idea. 8. Internet access will likely cost more rather than less in the future as a result. 9. Anyone who wishes to look at Adult material will have to have THEIR name on file with the government. 10. A opt-in system is still dangerous because it leaves filtering equipment at the isp level which the government can abuse for further causes of its own. 11. The previous government has ALREADY investigated the idea and deemed it was no good. I'm totally against the idea, everyone I know is also absolutely against it. I could go on all day about why I don't like it, but I think others will do that as well ;).

Responsible Parent

10 Dec 2008 12:25pm

Being a responsible parent, I review the activity any children take whilst online. There's no need to waste money on a filter that will do little to stop access to such content anyway. Do yourselves a huge favour - stop trying to get technology to do the job of a policeman. Employ more police. It'll be cheaper and far more accurate in the long term. Police can do the job a filter can't - arrest the culprits. A filter is a bandaid solution. It's a shame that our government is not capable of real solutions, and can only apply bandaids, which do not work anyway (Just use a VPN!! They can't block em).

Will

10 Dec 2008 11:45am

Fast-Internet-in-Australia

10 Dec 2008 11:52am

We seem to have to opposing and conflicting government policies. Kevin Rudd inspired many voters with his promise of faster internet ... vote for me and you will get a world class internet connection. I know many who voted just on that one promise. We all know that promise is bogged down for months and probably years before even the first trench is dug. And now, we have the 'cleanfeed' policy ... let's slow the internet down with a primitive http filter in a lame attempt to stop child pornography and/or copyright infringement ... anyone who understands the internet knows this won't have any real afffect on these issues. Why didn't Kevin pipe up with this when he was spruiking high speed? Who is going to decide what Aussie adults can and can not access on the internet? I can see it now, "It is our considered opinion that this information should not be accessable to our citizens for the common good." Who will get this job? What will their political and religious pursasion be? Who will check on them? This must be the most ill informed IT policy in World history!! At least we'll be world leaders in something! Now the $billions spent to increase the speed of broadband in Australia will only compensate for the speed-retarding compulsory net-nanny we had to have. Please re-consider your ISP filtering policy, and give us half a chance to be internationally competitive.

Sam Allen

10 Dec 2008 11:54am

Filtering the internet is by far the most ludacris, cost-involving solution by far. There is only one option to making the internet safe for children and thats not to allow them to use it at all. Its the parents responsibility to choose what their child looks at while they spend time on the internet, not the governments. And what about the stuff that could be potentially damaging to a child that isn't pornography? What about Horror stories or a movie review of the latest M15+ rated film? The money could be far better spent running an educational program to educate parents on the dangers of allowing their children fully unrestricted use of the internet. Further to that, any parent who decides they want filtering, can download the free program already available with thanks of the Howard government, or if the current government wants to do something, update it, get something better. Educated parents mean safe children. After-all, do you let your children go out late at night just because you know theres a few police in town? The internet is exactly the same. No number of police would make any town 100% safe late at night, nor is any amount of filtering ever going to make the internet safe either.

Ralph

10 Dec 2008 11:59am

I wholeheartedly agree with the vast majority of opinion on this blog that web filtering will simply NOT work (the worst "web nasties" will still be available) and it will only slow Australia's already laughable internet speed down to crawl. I also agree that a secret "black-list" controlled by "faceless" unelected bureaucrats that any future government can secretly alter to include ANY material it deems to be "inappropriate" is an extremely worrying idea for ANY government to even be considering.

joeDriver

10 Dec 2008 12:06pm

The internet filter is WRONG. It is so trivially easy to bypass, you have to question the government's motives on this issue. As for the NBN, please give it to anyone BUT Telstra!

Internet punter

10 Dec 2008 12:07pm

I resort to the internet because (unlike crappy free to air television) it gives me the freedom to browse whatever content I like.

I (like 99.999% of Australians) don't browse illegal content and I don't think that slowing the internet for the entire country is justified if it means the .0001 percent of Australians who are pedophiles/fraudsters and whatever else you're trying to crack down on will be "stopped".

As far as I know we are the only country who are unfortunate enough to have download limits and the average Australian ISP already has relatively slow download speeds, so making the internet worse (i.e restricted and even slower) for me and millions of others isn't really fair when whatever villains you're trying to combat will just find other means.

Why don't you allocate the budget for this stupid campaign to something good like caring for the homeless?

Sam Allen

10 Dec 2008 2:37pm

Claude

10 Dec 2008 12:15pm

I support very narrow censorship of films, books, and other media. I suspect I might support the govt's Internet censorship proposal if it was technically feasible and very narrow. However, what informs me that I am being conned is the govt desire to keep the list of banned items secret. What on earth is the govt ashamed of? The technical challenges are a mere tactical issue. The secrecy of the list is the key strategic issue. I cannot ever consider supporting the proposal until the banned list is open to scrutiny and legal challenge.

Bob

10 Dec 2008 12:18pm

I fully support the building of an Open Acesss FTTN or FTTH, so long as it's not awarded to Telstra for more of the same monopoly. The breaking of an election promise of an OPT IN net filter to become mandatory is beyond the pale.

Your building an FTTN to speed up the slow internet we have and then the filter will slow it back down again.

I'm also very concerned about filter creep, who decides what is considered objectionable, bureaucrats? Will we wake up one day to find that some special interest group or minor "balance of power" party has vastly expanded the filter to content previously allowed.

As soon as the filters in place, internet will do what school students are doing now: use a proxy to access facebook at school. If the filter goes live, instructions on how to bypass it will be shared on every social networking site within a day.

It's unworkable, bypassable and a hundred million dollar boondoggle.

Build the FTTN, scrap the filter and put the money that would be used for the filter to the Police who will do a far better job than any filter.

Freman

10 Dec 2008 12:21pm

You know, I can appreciate wanting to protect the kids from porn and the likes, but leave the adults alone - if you know what these evil sites are - go deal with them the right way. In truth, this filter won't stop VPNs, SSL, or Proxies which means any one who wants to get around ANY block be it child porn, or abortion will in fact get around it.

My mate Darren has seemingly come up with the best way to protect his children online (Amusingly enough, built into the browser we both lover to hate), he sets the IE parental controls to max - This basically lets his children access any site in the bookmarks, or any site he provides his password to.

It won't work for every child, but then bike locks don't stop every thief.

Censorship will stop no-one and irritate everyone.

RUDDOUT

10 Dec 2008 12:22pm

You don't need this blog to know you are already well outside the wishes of the majority. You already ignore the advice of experts and industry bodies therefore this is simple grandstanding.
The best thing the current government could do for the digital economy is quit.

ThoughtCrime

10 Dec 2008 12:24pm

Regardless of the particular arrangement of the pixels on the screen, all that a person reading "objectionable content" is actually doing is.. *Reading*.. Thinking and watching..

At the time of viewing, No one is being hurt, no one is engaging in non-consensual activities, and no crimes are being committed.

By all means, make the production of "objectionable content" illegal.. put the producers in jail if you think they deserve it, but making *looking* at something on a computer screen illegal ?

No thanks, keep your grubby fingers out of my head.. what goes on in there is *my* business and not yours.. Unless I act upon my thoughts and *do* something illegal, you have no right to say what I can and cant look at, read or think.

Everything else is irrelevant detail.. Thoughts are not crimes.

Bob Mills

10 Dec 2008 2:38pm

Congratulations on the blog - about time. A couple of comments: This is a Stephen Conroy hosted blog, not Lindsay Tanner's. So Senator Conroy, please drop the whole ISP filter thing as soon as Senator Fielding lets you get away with it. As stupid as any of his other contributions to public life so far. While we're all internet nuts, the digital economy isn't totally about the internet. It's about most forms of electronic communication. So I want to throw in a thought about digital TV (and by the way, why are they called set top boxes when they couldn't possibly sit on top of any box that could use them?). I'm a fan of digital TV but wonder about the blank incomprehension of most people I have enthused to about it - I'm probably in an older age group than most of your bloggers. A lot of older people rely on their TVs for entertainment, information, even just simply for company of a sort and I would guess that most of them have not the faintest idea that analogue is on the way out. While the free to air companies' promotion is a start, it isn't going to help people who've only just started to master a remote - and need help to change the batteries. Digital TV is going to be a huge thing in these people's lives and, Senator Conroy, I believe it is your Department's responsibility to make absolutely sure that the change works smoothly. In the consultative spirit of the blog, may I suggest that one way to do this without the usual digital billion-dollar bill would be to use the voluntary resources of the community so the digital savvy can initiate the naive. I'm thinking of service clubs, senior school children, even (gasp) Scouts. Who knows, in the process of fixing up the tele, there might even be a few relationships start up and a few isolated older people end up not quite so all on their own, just them and their TV. Bob Mills

Bob Mills

10 Dec 2008 12:28pm

Congratulations on the blog - about time. A couple of comments:

This is a Stephen Conroy hosted blog, not Lindsay Tanner's. So Senator Conroy, please drop the whole ISP filter thing as soon as Senator Fielding lets you get away with it. As stupid as any of his other contributions to public life so far.

While we're all internet nuts, the digital economy isn't totally about the internet. It's about most forms of electronic communication. So I want to throw in a thought about digital TV (and by the way, why are they called set top boxes when they couldn't possibly sit on top of any box that could use them?).

I'm a fan of digital TV but wonder about the blank incomprehension of most people I have enthused to about it - I'm probably in an older age group than most of your bloggers. A lot of older people rely on their TVs for entertainment, information, even just simply for company of a sort and I would guess that most of them have not the faintest idea that analogue is on the way out. While the free to air companies' promotion is a start, it isn't going to help people who've only just started to master a remote - and need help to change the batteries. Digital TV is going to be a huge thing in these people's lives and, Senator Conroy, I believe it is your Department's responsibility to make absolutely sure that the change works smoothly.

In the consultative spirit of the blog, may I suggest that one way to do this without the usual digital billion-dollar bill would be to use the voluntary resources of the community so the digital savvy can initiate the naive. I'm thinking of service clubs, senior school children, even (gasp) Scouts. Who knows, in the process of fixing up the tele, there might even be a few relationships start up and a few isolated older people end up not quite so all on their own, just them and their TV.

Bob Mills

Australian's appear to want free speech!

10 Dec 2008 12:28pm

I am happy, if somewhat surprised that the governmet has opened this blog and requested input from the general public on some of these issue.

It seems to me so far they done an overwhelming job of ignoring what the general public have been saying about their communications policies. I'm obviously speaking about their internet filtering plans.

My question is, at what point will senator Conroy address any of the myriad of questions\concerns being raised by the internet industry and the public about his misguided plans for mandatory internet content filtering?

just incase he's missed the problems people have, here's a few - 1. How do you plan to rectify the issue of dramaticly reducing acccess speeds, or do you believe that the current projects of speed loss are accceptable? 2. For a highly intrusive and expensive plan, you won't be able to cover the transmission of illegal content through peer-to-peer networks. Considering these networks are one of the most common methods of transferring illegal content such as child pornography, do you not see this as a major issue?

3. The Ban list. This is the biggest issue of all. firstly why will the blacklist not be available for public viewing? what assurances are there that this list won't be expanded to cover other topics such as religious and political views in the future?

4. Finally, your policy is, in my eye's a statement that the government doesn't believe Australian's have the ability to educuate their children about safe internet use... Don't you think this is slightly insulting towards your voters?

Australian's appear to want free speech!

10 Dec 2008 2:40pm

I am happy, if somewhat surprised that the governmet has opened this blog and requested input from the general public on some of these issue. It seems to me so far they done an overwhelming job of ignoring what the general public have been saying about their communications policies. I'm obviously speaking about their internet filtering plans. My question is, at what point will senator Conroy address any of the myriad of questions\concerns being raised by the internet industry and the public about his misguided plans for mandatory internet content filtering? just incase he's missed the problems people have, here's a few - 1. How do you plan to rectify the issue of dramaticly reducing acccess speeds, or do you believe that the current projects of speed loss are accceptable? 2. For a highly intrusive and expensive plan, you won't be able to cover the transmission of illegal content through peer-to-peer networks. Considering these networks are one of the most common methods of transferring illegal content such as child pornography, do you not see this as a major issue? 3. The Ban list. This is the biggest issue of all. firstly why will the blacklist not be available for public viewing? what assurances are there that this list won't be expanded to cover other topics such as religious and political views in the future? 4. Finally, your policy is, in my eye's a statement that the government doesn't believe Australian's have the ability to educuate their children about safe internet use... Don't you think this is slightly insulting towards your voters?

Joshua Farry

10 Dec 2008 12:33pm

This is a fantastic step into providing people with a simple means of broadcasting their views to the public around them and the relevant politicians. The web filtering project will be the test as to whether or not the politicians will actually listen to the people who've elected them though. With 11 pages after less than a full day of negative views on the proposed filter, it'll be interesting to see what the comments will be like once the actual forum starts. If the politicians ignore Australia's big "NO!" on this issue, then there's no hope for Australia at all.

you will take us down.

10 Dec 2008 12:36pm

We already sit at the bottom of the table when it comes to our internet speed and availability.
and now your trying have Australia set a new low in this table?
if you cant monitor what your kids do on the internet, you dont deserve it. learn to use it before you give it to them at least!
keep up with the times. "Education is the answer, not censorship." -Taz

fred

10 Dec 2008 12:38pm

On the topic of the filter, it simply will not work.

Since time immemorial mankind has worked its way around oppression. The French had thier underground in ww2, the Russians made vinyl records on old xray film, the Chinese find their way around their great firewall.

It simply cannot work, and if it APPEARS to work, it will merely be driving those sad people who indulge in this even more underground.

That's not to say that trying to stop it isnt admirable. But at what cost?

The cost of ignoring those poor children who ARE being abused by hiding them from view. It's a simple but effective way of putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and saying lalalalala! See no evil, hear no evil, there must be no evil. Right?

Wouldnt the more appropriate response be to create an international task force to take down the producers?

After all, this is the approach we take with drugs. Even though that policy is questionable in its merit, it is the only approach deemed acceptable to those in charge. How is this any different morally?

From a different angle, this is the thin end of the wedge so to speak. It's quite obvious to anyone with more than a smattering of brain cells that this is emotional manipulation intended to get a system put in place that can and most likely will be expanded on.

It's the age old first they came for the pedophiles, and I said nothing for I was not a pedophile. I think we all know how that ended.

Whos responsibility is this problem - a problem that to be frank, does not affect 99.99% of legitimate users? To back that claim up, in all my travels on the internet, way back to the days before google where the first 20 pages of ANY search were porn related, and in later times, even deliberate attempts to view porn I have not once accidently stumbled on child porn. Not once. I'd argue that yes, perhaps the government should intervene. But not by simply putting the technical equivalent of a flyscreen on a submarine, but by actively hunting these people. Also, I'd state that it is a parents responsibility to monitor their children. Lets face it, there are a LOT of things on the internet that a child could easily misinterperet or even interperet correctly. Without context, discussion and guidance there are vast numbers of topics, media and writings that could be deemed bad for children. Maybe they are. But we dont live in an ideal world. It's a mess, and bubble wrapping our youth and pretending that everything is roses will only lead to a lesser understanding of how to deal with life. The christians had it right eons ago, I have to wonder how they've managed to get it so so wrong lately. Read the bible some time. It's full of disgusting stories of human nature's most vile side, and yet we're happy to have these stories preached to children. Why does it morally work in this context and not in the context of the internet? Perhaps because we realise deep down that explaining that yes, this scenario is bad, these people are wicked, they victimise others with their behaviour, and please child, dont be like this person; is the better way to deal with evil. Providing evil with real context in a parable helps people deal with life. Pretending it isnt there doesnt make it go away. In summary, this issue I'd argue, been deliberately blown out of proportion to generate hysteria and push an adjenda beyond the initial scope of the project. Simultaneously it will have no real impact on the problem at hand and could well make it worse by forcing the perpetrators outside. Into the streets and playgrounds.

Glen

10 Dec 2008 12:39pm

Regarding Internet censorship: We have two challenging issues here; 1) information, freedom, knowledge, history, versus 2) protection, religion, law, personal views. I propose a simple solution: Build the web filter, but do it in conjunction with ISP's, in such a way that customers must choose to opt in, or out, of the filtering. This would enable adults (all ISP customers must be over 18) to make their own decision about the access allowed in their home. Parents with little computer knowledge (or time), wishing to protect their children, can simply opt in, and not worry. Other people, who have the knowledge and/or time, can opt out, thus enabling them be RESPONSIBLE for their own children. Personally, I believe it's a waste of my tax money, because technology can always be beaten with smarter technology. It's a never ending battle.

Pete

10 Dec 2008 12:41pm

When a politician says the word 'consultation' I take this to mean a decision has already been made and you want to 'manage' community opinion or limit political fallout. The sneaky way you have preplanned this including 'trials' makes me suspicious. 1. Weve lost the war on terror, drugs, the Murray river, kids-in-poverty and now you want a war on child porn when you are plainly clueless about how the net works and how the average geek will run rings around you. 2. Especially after Howards undemocratic reign, I dont trust you or anyone in Canberra with my rights or freedoms. Sadly such an ill conceived plan is more Howardesque than Labor. 3. If you want me to take you seriously clean up your own backyard, starting with the assortment of bodgey,criminal and incompetent fools that Nsw Labor seems attract in spades. Blogging may remind you that Aussies hate hypocrisy. 4.The biggest damage Ive seen in my lifetime from child molesters was at the hands of the most successful molestation worldwide web - the Catholic Church. Labor spent millions bringing a poor old bloke -the Pope - (someone else who has trouble cleaning up his backyard) to Sydney for some pompous righteousness with police state APEC undertone$-like we can afford that nonsense 5. Ive lost my job with the current financial 'crisis' and I am trying superhard to get retrained in mobile applications and start a business in the much chest beated field of the 'digital economy' and 'creative industries'. But you know what Ive found? We are a backward country. Its actually really difficult to get the programs and training. Plus I live in rural aussie where the net and mobile communications are simply retarded. Information superhighway? Digital economy ? More like a hillbilly lane with a roundabout and an episode of Fawlty Towers. (I am however happy with my tv service on fatscreen) 6. So focus on getting us into the 21st century rather than spending more money on dinosaur Howard schemes and meddling and guessing around the edges 7. Forget fuzzy consultation schemes roll up your sleaves and show us you are serious and not going to send us further backwards. 8. Let me know when you jokers have some hi-tech training schemes happening- I WANT A JOB or else I will see you at Centrelink Senator Conroy.9. Its now near midnight and Im having to stay up hoping for a slight mobile signal to send this off my phone- SIGNED NOT HAPPY

Jason

10 Dec 2008 12:41pm

I think the community has spoken out about this topic very clearly. The small amount of support garnered has been from people who are uninformed about the process and repercussions of the proposed filter. The rest of the public do NOT want this proposal to go ahead. I work in a job which affords me the opportunity to speak to the public about this every day. Initially they have no idea what it is, but when they are delivered the facts, the possibilities of what may happen, both positive and negative, most people support an opt-in model as opposed to having something thrust upon them. We are living in a democracy, and setting up the great firewall of Australia will not solve the underlying problems that this filter is meant to prevent.

JoeyC

10 Dec 2008 12:43pm

All I can say is, too little, too late.. While it's great idea to start a blog stating that the DBCDE has the best interests of the Australian community at heart, I am not convinced. Quite frankly Sen Conroy's conduct on the matter of the mandatory ISP filter has been disgraceful. He has turned child porn into the new terrorism and used it in the same manner, to squash any dissent and to allow him to sidestep any attempt at meaningful, rational rebuttal. I will be very interested to see if Sen Conroy/PM Rudd actually bring up any feedback left on this blog in the coming weeks as the ISP trials approach, or whether they again bring up this majority of Australians who say they need the filter and simply palm off dissenters as the misguided minority. Until Sen Conroy listens to the IT/Internet industry and to the Australian public, I do not have faith in this blog and its promise, however well-meaning, of involving the Australian public in the country's future.

Tim Franks

10 Dec 2008 12:43pm

Congrats on getting an open forum up and going, however I feel like others have mentioned this will be not much more than a place to make us feel warm and fuzzy about conversing with the pollies, who ultimately will pay no attention to anything we have to say, as has been proven time again over the mandatory filtering matter. Please note: I'd be VERY happy to be proven wrong on this!

James Carthew

10 Dec 2008 12:51pm

I agree that internet filtering as an idea is a joke. I know many people who already have plans to bypass any filter that is put in place. Our legal system with regards to electonic technologies overall needs a review.

I for one am fedup with corporate interests being the primary focus of governments. Last time I checked governments aren't voted in by companies they are voted in by citizens. Howard's handling of the Australia/USA free trade agreement was attrocious.

We're paying out $88 million dollars a year in royalties to the USA when most Australians are against an extension of copyright terms.

The government's handling of copyright law upto this point has been to defer to the USA in everything. We are not voting our government in to give us an unlimited copyright term which is what is currently happenning. We're not stupid we know Disney will lobby congress again when Mickey is about to enter public domain. Why won't the government be proactive in striking a fair balance? 99 years after the author is dead is not fair. Copyright is meant to encourage development of ideas and technologies. Instead it's being used to shovel money to trustfund babies. If I invent something I expect to be paid but seriously I don't expect to only get money from that idea forever. The current laws are supporting the view that an idea is your sole property for eternity. Even if the wording of the law is eternity -1 day it's still eternity just a mathematical semantic. Until a proper balance is achieved between consumer rights and artists rights people will continue to pirate and clone ideas and products with no regard for the law. People used to feel guilty about doing it. That guilt is very rapidly disappearing and if something isn't done to balance things soon people will stop buying things altogether except to support the 1-2 people they really like and even that might stop.

I guess I ran a bit off topic there but it's very frustrating to be a citizen and a voter. Who has voted for different sides of politics and rather than seeing a real influence or change from different political parties instead we're seeing the same old from both sides. This is weakening our country from within. People are becoming apathetic to our political system. They see that labor = Unions getting what they want and Liberals = bosses getting what they want and both sides = corporations getting what they want. Why is the community being left out of all of this? we're a stakeholder too.

Simon

10 Dec 2008 12:52pm

I am opposed to a mandatory filter - having worked in IT in a school I found education was always a better method than prohibition. While I believe an opt-in scheme is a very good idea for those parents that would like to protect their children I think parents today need to be made aware of the responsibilities they have to their children. Educate them on why they should be aware of their children's internet usage and give them the resources they need (such as the opt in filter). And perhaps in the process it will help them realise their responsibilities to their children in other areas...

Simon

10 Dec 2008 2:43pm

Marty

10 Dec 2008 12:55pm

Isn't it a brilliant idea to have an internet filter that stops child pornography ? Let's think about it, 1. We can make believe that it's all gone away. 2. We can stop protecting our children, because Conroy's doing that for us. 3. And to cap it off, the child pornographer has an excuse "Your Honour, it wasn't my fault, Conroys filter must have failed."

Come on Conroy, if you know the URL to block then go and get the people that put it there, if you really want to do something useful do that and leave the decent people of this country alone.

And if you would like to make me personally happy, then dismantle Telstra

Marty

10 Dec 2008 1:03pm

Isn't it a brilliant idea to have an internet filter that stops child pornography ? Let's think about it, 1. We can make believe that it's all gone away. 2. We can stop protecting our children, because Conroy's doing that for us. 3. And to cap it off, the child pornographer has an excuse "Your Honour, it wasn't my fault, Conroys filter must have failed." Come on Conroy, if you know the URL to block then go and get the people that put it there, if you really want to do something useful do that and leave the decent people of this country alone. And if you would like to make me personally happy, then dismantle Telstra

Confused

10 Dec 2008 1:03pm

Please don't waste tax payers money by implementing a net filter. Such a move will only prevent people lacking net skills from accessing this type of data.

Tax payers money would be better spent targeting the producers of such data. Implementing such a filter will increase the complexity at which these people will communicate. Which in turn increases the costs associated with capturing these people.

Anthony_

10 Dec 2008 1:08pm

Your filter is a joke, it will not work people who want to use the internet to distribute child porn will use other means like VPN's. Why waste the money?

Continue

10 Dec 2008 1:09pm

Continue with this mandatory filtering and censorship of the internet and you may well find yourself out of a job after the next election. People do NOT want to be dictated too by their EMPLOYEES!! Remember your last job as an office clerk Mr Conroy?? Your not fit nor qualified to be heading this portfolio.

Anthony English

10 Dec 2008 1:18pm

I am OPPOSSED to the internet filtering scheme proposed by the government. My main issues are as follows: 1) it will slow the speed of all current internet sending dialup users into even slower speeds and killing any benefit there would be for getting higher speed broadbands, internet in australia is already a joke compared to our overseas counterparts. 2) There are ways in which to bypass such software as was demonstrated back when i was at school when they implemented similar software techniques to block students accessing outside sites, yet we would still be able to access them anyway. 3) Countries with similar programs in place are not shining examples for showcasing any kind of benifits, China, Cuba, Korea both North and south, in fact they showcase how its possible to use such tools for limiting free speech.

Jonathan Paxman

10 Dec 2008 1:17pm

Congratulations on the blog. I hope you are serious about public consultation, and that you are listening to the overwhelming level of feedback so far. Nobody wants mandatory internet filtering. It will damage the usability of the internet and is very unlikely to be effective in stopping children from accessing undesirable material. Please do not press ahead with such a terrible idea in the face of both public opinion and expert opinion.

Steven Daniels

10 Dec 2008 1:12pm

Unless the Government's aim is to destroy the Digital Economy, the best thing to do is remove Senator Conroy from the portfolio straight away.

Mike S

10 Dec 2008 12:53pm

I would like to express my opposition to the governments proposed Internet content filtering! Myself and other adult Australians are capable of managing the content they view online!

New Liberal Voter

10 Dec 2008 12:56pm

If the Coalition explicitly promise to remove this disgusting attack on our hard won freedom of speech then they will have won my vote forever. I did not vote for Rudd to then be living in a communist society where my right to see, read and listen to what my heart desires is ripped apart. Goodbye Labour and bring on 2010, you have lost me forever as a supporter.

Henz

10 Dec 2008 12:58pm

I am paying tax money that is wasted for this totally stupid policy?

Tristan

10 Dec 2008 12:58pm

11 pages of comments and not 1, not even 1 supportive comment of Conroy's plan to filter the internet. Please start listening to the Australian people Mr Conroy. Either listen now, or be forced to listen in 2 years time at the polls when they are saying exactly what you don't want to hear.

NonSequitur

10 Dec 2008 1:00pm

I'd like to share the same concerns that everyone else already has about the ridiculous Mandatory Internet Censorship plan - it won't work. It will drive up prices for consumers. It will degrade internet speeds. It will overblock content that should not be blocked. Criminals will not be stopped, as illegal content will still slip through the cracks and make these people harder to track as they will learn to use VPNs and proxies. It will not protect children from the real dangers of sexual predators online - it will make this situation worse as parents will have a false sense of security. Even child welfare groups have come out in criticism of the proposed filter! It will make Australia a laughing stock of the digital world, and will deter people from visiting here because of the oppressive regime that rules what we can and can't see with an iron fist. There is NOTHING good about this policy, and if the government is not listening to us and the experts and child welfare groups, then what is the guarantee that anything anyone writes on this blog will even be heard or listened to? The people of Australia do not want or need your $44m paperweight of a filter!

Gaz-1

10 Dec 2008 1:00pm

I just wonder why this plan was arbitrarily pushed forward with little regard for the opinions of the Australian population. Is this going to work like how the current rating system is working right now?

RichardB

10 Dec 2008 1:03pm

I am alarmed and outraged that the government is misdirecting resources into an ultimately futile attempt at censoring the internet. And all for pandering to a very small minority of people, and I suspect one or two senators. 1. Censoring things out in the public realm, essentially "Broadcast" for broad uncontrolled access , that people have little control over - Billboards, TV, Newspapers etc -is one thing. But censoring what I specifically select to read or look at it in the privacy of my own home is quite another, a place no democratic government should go. 2. If some people want censorship (and it is clearly a small minority of the users of the internet), let them choose censorship for themselves, and their family. Let them choose to take a Censored feed. I should be free from THEM imposing their will on me. 3. We accept some censorship in the public realm because of the inability of people to avoid contact with the material broadcast. But even there, people know what is being censored. There are public processes in place to effect censorship. And any censorship is subject to judicial appeal. Whereas it would seem what is currently proposed for the internet is a very secretive form of censorship, where the public do not even have the right to know what is being censored. Far from being open and above board, and subject to judicial processes and appeal, it will be secret (not even revealed under FOI), and ultimately a matter of judgement for some officer not accountable to the public. The scope for personal agendas and taste to come into it is too tempting. Not to mention political influence to please internal and external lobbyists. This makes it a very dangerous form of censorship proposed. 4. What you are proposing to do is have an automatic system attempt to make judgements on every item I look at or transact. And yet nothing like this exists in the real world � no-one opens all my mail (I believe it is illegal). No one is allowed to monitor all my phone calls. That too is illegal. So what on earth makes you think that you should be able to do it on the internet traffic ? 5. If censorship comes in, it will play into criminal hands as much as Prohibition of Alcohol did in the 30�s in the USA. Those who want to maintain their freedoms will either learn how to get around the censorship, or pay other people to do it for them. You will be making petty criminals of a very large number of people, and putting them in contact with organized crime who will be only too happy to provide an uncensored feed. Is that what you want. To encourage a new breed of Al Capone�s 6. The whole issue is completely exaggerated in the first case. I have two teenage daughters who have free access to the internet (in the family room for our house, but not in all their friends� houses). Whenever we have discussed this matter, they have openly admitted to once or twice looking at porn (but not much because they don�t have credit cards to pay for the serious stuff). But they simply laugh it off, and don�t bother with it. They have much better things to do like sharing photos over the internet, messaging with their friends. It is not an issue to them or their many friends. It is not an issue to any of our friends, who believe in open communication with our children. Just who is it an issue to ? I suspect it is an issue to the type of people who try to scare their children with tales of the �bogeyman�, and then try to �protect� them from the world. To me, it is far more worrying to contemplate going into a 1984 type of world, where some anonymous bureaucrat has the right to monitor and control what I read and look at fro my own private purposes. who monitors those innocent photo swaps and messaging chats of my daughters. Who elects to break the security on my banking transactions. That is scary. 7 Senator Conroy appears very reluctant, perhaps even recalcitrant, when it comes to answering questions about these proposals. And seems to be completely ignoring the overwhelming advice from the experts. That too is a very worrying. Are we going to have our future Digital Economy designed for us by the likes of senators Fielding and Xenophon ? I voted for a rational Labor government, hoping to get rid of the fear mongering one we had which pandered to tiny minorities, and enjoyed trying to scare us. I am very very concerned by these very irrational developments.

Cooks View

10 Dec 2008 1:04pm

The concept of censorship is a good thing, but the application of it in the context of internet traffic is really a breach of an individual�s privacy. How will all internet traffic be censored without some instrument that looks at all internet activity? Once an individual or group or instrument has a view of all internet traffic they then would have the ability to act on things outside the initial intent of what was being censored. I was of the belief if the Govt wanted to snoop into private lives, homes or conversations they needed a warrant to do such things (some statutory exceptions accepted). Do we really want internet providers (who we all trust - not) being the moral Police for the state, and could we trust them not to use the information for commercial or other gain. Only time will tell.

TerjeP (say tay-a)

10 Dec 2008 1:05pm

I have three young kids. I filter the Internet connection we use. I would like the government to leave my Internet connection alone. Governments are not competent to decide what we should read or view (nothing personal Steve but you're not). Please go and break something else instead.

The Ghost Who Works

10 Dec 2008 1:08pm

Good idea to have a blog where we the community can have a direct line to the minister (who knows - maybe all ministers and portfolios eventually). It's a good step, and well overdue. Having a blog is one thing, using it effectively is another thing altogether. If you look at blogs that really work well on the internet, and that the users really re-visit and contribute to, it's those where the author/contributors are posting to it regularly. Responding to the information sent through - even on mass - is the only way to really make an effective blog. Giving the blog some structure, and having more than one post is a good idea also. Obviously there are many facets to your portfolio that you would like the community to contribute to, so let's see them! Give the blog some structure, and don't allow everyone to comment on everything in the blog, just on the information you want feedback on. Also I'd like the option of not making my comment publicly available. I may not, as a contributor/commentor on the blog, want to have read by others. I am commenting to you the blog owner and may sometimes want it for your eyes only. I should have that right. I can understand the difficulties being faced here, as anything on the blog is public domain and very easily accessible, and you could be opening yourself for attack (by Opposition, Media, the Public) on even the most basic and benign statements you make, but it'll be a valuable tool in the future - I'm sure. Sure, the Federal Opposition and anyone with a gripe is going to be on it regularly - communicating their agenda - but that's what this is all about right? Open Government and Communication. On the subject of the net filtering, I can understand the goal - limiting access to offensive material for all involved - but feel that this is a limiting and somewhat shortsighted way to go about this. As other have said on this blog. Persons wanting to view that kind of material have multiple "ports" on which they can search/share/download/upload etc.. It's not only (and more and more not even) over the web. A filter that blocks/censors ALL internet based traffic would be a very bad idea. I'm inclined to agree that a "one size fits all" mandatory filter on web traffic will be a huge limiting factor on internet peformance - regardless of the speed of your connection. No doubt you will be advised strongly (mainly by those wanting to sell their product/service) that the performance will not be degraded in any way. It would be naive to think so. Any reduction in internet performance would be a terrible blow to an already under-powered network. I do feel that this is an issue of education and supervision by families themselves and not one of "big brother". I hope my comments are of some use to you. As I said earlier - I hope this blog builds into a effective tool for communicating with us and receiving our feedback.

Will

10 Dec 2008 1:09pm

Richard Ames

10 Dec 2008 1:09pm

Thanks for this although I think it will be a bit like the talk shows on radio - not representative of the public at large. That why we have a representative democracy - so the reps can figure it out! :-) Please take this as my comment urging you to drop all ideas of filtering the Internet; 1. It won't work, and 2. Censorship is a bad idea anyway.

Towle

10 Dec 2008 2:51pm

Sen Conroy has gone down the wrong path. Turn back before it's too late . http://nocleanfeed.com/ I am totally against internet censorship in any shape or form but that doesn't mean I am a pedophile , despite what Sen Conroy wants everyone to believe.

russ

10 Dec 2008 1:12pm

Thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts Lindsay. What I would like to see is someone like yourself who claims to hold the interests of Australians as important, pressing Senator Conroy for details on exactly who are the ISP's he keeps saying he has been widely consulting with, and what it is they have discussed as well as the outcomes of the consultations to date. Because from what I have read, they all seem to think the whole idea if internet filtering is ridiculous.

Allan Simpson

10 Dec 2008 1:13pm

When I loved Labor it was NOT to censor my Internet access. Make it optional if you really think it is too hard for parents to teach their own children how to use the internet correctly. Also track who goes to those terrorist type sites that you are worried about . IF you start to censor the web, then we are becoming just like China. Australians wont put up with that..

Robert Merkel

10 Dec 2008 1:23pm

Congratulations on the establishment of this blog; it is indeed an interesting experiment that I hope goes welll. It is important, if you want to make a go of it, that it genuinely is a two-way process. Of course, there will be occasions where the tone of comments on this blog strongly oppose some policy that the government decides to take. It is essential o the success of the project that an effort is made to engage those who respectfully and thoughfully disagree with you. If that does not occur, the inevitable conclusion will be that the "blog" is just a venue for press releases.

Graham Porter

10 Dec 2008 1:24pm

good initative with yer blog. about time. I wonder if you are reading this on a piece of paper that one of your secretaries has printed off for you ... i want to announce my disapproval of the filter. waste of time, wont work, shouldnt be your job. all been said before - no brainer for you surely ..? Get on with educating the kids and their parents. You have a prime opportunity now with the PC for every child initative. grab that opportunity - dont hobble Australias internet, it's already poor compared to the countries we WANT to be compared with.

Shane of Brisbane

10 Dec 2008 1:26pm

Net filtering is a massive waste of resources and money. Its going to take me about 2 minutes to get around, the decision makers just don�t understand. Internet users are not dumb idiots. In fact it is going to be extremely easy. Amazing how much money the Rudd government is prepared to waste on useless initiatives that really produce nothing for the country at all. Money should be getting spent on proper infrastructure projects not on NBN which in a practical sense is less useable and competitive than already available ADSL2+ and Cable options. The Rudd Government is starting to looks like a one term government with similarities to the Gough Whitlam rein. It is amazing how much damage one person like Rudd can do in only 3 years.

Web Freedom

10 Dec 2008 1:26pm

This filter is the dumbest thing i have seen the govt try and do in a very long time. Only an ignorant person would try and pass this off as 'protecting children'. it wont. It will not stop anything conroy claims it will, it will not make the internet safer. Who will pay the ongoing costs for it? I dont want to, i dont have kids and i dont want my net filtered. ISPs wont, and apparently after the initial govt payment, they wont either. That means end users will end up forking out for something that will not work. Guess thats about par for the govt. In the current economy, how can labor validate spending this amount of money for this? Surely there are more important things to spend this money on, instead of pissing it away on a project that is guaranteed to fail. This is irresponsible of the labor govt, less than a year into power. The only reason i dont ask for conroy to be fired is that so far he has stood upto telstra. a replacement might not. Spend the money cutting out the heart of the child porn problem rather than wasting it on this.

Its Just My Opinion

10 Dec 2008 3:31pm

Now it could be just me (I doubt it though) but this content filtering system sounds remarkably like systems used by oppressive regimes in China, North Korea and Cuba. Any content filtering system made available to Australians should be completely voluntary. If I want to read about euthanasia - or any other topic I should be able to freely access it without Government interference. People have suggested that this will be a way of ensuring Child pornography is not available on the web in Australia - while this is a noble intention it is a complete fallacy as the proposed filter won't do anything about peer to peer file sharing sites. It is my view that it is wrong to become Big Brother for the whole country in terms of web access to prevent a very small minority of sick individuals from accessing content. The solution I believe is to give the police more resources to investigate and prosecute these online predators. BlogNow

tric

10 Dec 2008 1:31pm

Filtering the web will not stop child pornography! Nor will it protect children from pedophiles who stalk chat rooms. It will not hinder piracy, identity theft or fraud. It WILL slow the internet and block legitimate sites, and may even put children at more risk through complacency, as parents who are ignorent of how the internet works will feel that the filter will provide total protection. Spend the money on education, in a similar vein to 'stranger danger' taught in school and the home. This will be more effective in protecting children and educating parents. Filters can be worked around and criminals are not complacent in working around them. Criminals understand the technology and are well versed in protecting their interests. Why not spend the money on actively attacking sites that host child pornography? well done on the blog btw. i wonder though how much of this blog the minister will actually read, and if he will actually comment here himself???

Michael

10 Dec 2008 1:32pm

I hope the censorship plan at least makes everyone involved FEEL warm and fuzzy, because it isn't going to achieve a thing besides driving the real offenders further underground, and those with half a brain can easily circumvent it in any case. If the law is signed in, it is as good as the labor party's death certificate. Our country points a whole lot of criticism at China for their net filtering during the Olympics, and then just months later we turn around and face having our very own Great Firewall of Australia. No wonder Australia suffers from brain drain when we're run by the brain dead.

Scott C

10 Dec 2008 1:34pm

If only this filter could filter out the mis-information that comes out of your mouth Mr Conroy, have you found any support for this pathetic idea outside of your circle of influenced 'friends'? Instead of steamrolling ahead, and wasting money (your government likes to waste money, $3k bonus for having kids, $1k handouts for everyone with kids, $45m filtering for the 'kids') its like we arent hitting tough economic times. You and your party are spending large amounts of every tax-payers money that doesnt benefit all tax-payers, but rather secludes it to just those with kids. Why am I driving on dangerous potholled roads through main arteries of Newcastle? Instead of spending money to fix the roads (or hospitals?), ridiculous amounts of money the Australian economy cant afford is being allocated to fancyful ideas of 'protecting' the children (a parents job anyway!) instead of fixing basic needs of road users who pay for rego, income tax, gst, fines, stamp duty, fuel excises and then maintenance for their cars after they are shaken to pieces driving on rough roads and then fail their next pink slip. The solution to these roads, is rather than fix it properly, is to drop the speed limit 20km/h and spend $5 on a new speed limit sign. Why when I did night courses at Tafe for the past year, were 80% of lights blown in the classrooms? Walls that havnt been cleaned since blackboards were removed years back? Why is there no money in the budget for TAFE basic maintenance? But there is for your magical filter? What a great society we must live in. Take a look around and ask what the Australian people would like $45 million dollars spent on, and out of a choice of hospitals/medicare, roads, education, TAFE systems, pool safety even or and enabling broadband in rural areas, spending it frivolously on filters which will effectively kill any broadband benefits is NOT going to be high on anyones list. Even those with kids. The only people you will find to support your ideas are those who do NOT use the internet regularly, and do NOT understand what your filtering will do, and love the propaganda that dribbles out of your mouth. Email me Mr Conroy, Id love to hear from you personally while my internet connection still works properly. I will take an early guess that theres no proper answer to be had. -Scott.

Mark

10 Dec 2008 1:45pm

I commented yesterday and would just like to reiterate that, in my opinion, perceiving free wireless internet access as a public good should be at the heart of any e-commerce policy or strategy - especially any proposing to encourage innovation and confront major social and economomic challenges. Free wireless internet access in public spaces and pseudo public spaces (coffee shops, etc.) is a great equaliser. I'm used to seeing the homeless person with a battered laptop sitting next to the student researching online sitting next to the business person telecommuting etc., at the local coffee shop, library, park, commmuter train etc. computing away for free to god knows what hour. Who cares what they are doing online - eventually, they will buy or sell something. Free and relatively unrestricted access (in terms of time and cost - I'll let y'all fight about content filtering till your blue in the face) is essential to opening up e-commerce to everyone and building the tech. literacy and ground support needed to make e-commerce work and push innovation. When I can buy a $400 laptop at a petrol station in any outback location and get online for free or nearly free (like you can on some of the most isolated American Indian reservations in the U. S. - visit Montana some time), then I'll know that the e-commerce revolution has landed down under.

River Basil

10 Dec 2008 1:45pm

Education is the answer, not censorship.

Andre Caldera

10 Dec 2008 1:48pm

After rejoicing at the electoral devastation of the former paternalistic Liberal government, I was absolutely devastated to hear that the Labor government was canvassing the idea of mandatory governmental control of information. We are in a Web 2.0 world. Web citizens create and manage their own content. We help each other combat viruses and threats. We help each other develop systems and solutions. Nothing is handed down. Filtering of certain content from minors is desirable, however, we should be empowered to choose what we want filtered and when it gets filtered. Harness the power of the internet and those skilled in it to assist you to protect minors, but don't treat us all as children.

ThoughtCrime

10 Dec 2008 1:50pm

Regardless of the particular arrangement of the pixels on the screen, all that a person reading "objectionable content" is actually doing is.. *Reading*.. Thinking and watching.. At the time of viewing, No one is being hurt, no one is engaging in non-consensual activities, and no crimes are being committed. By all means, make the production of "objectionable content" illegal.. put the producers in jail if you think they deserve it, but making *looking* at something on a computer screen illegal ? No thanks, keep your grubby fingers out of my head.. what goes on in there is *my* business and not yours.. Unless I act upon my thoughts and *do* something illegal, you have no right to say what I can and cant look at, read or think. Everything else is irrelevant detail.. Thoughts are not crimes.

Peppie

10 Dec 2008 1:34pm

Why not spend our money actually prosecuting the small minority of people accessing child pornography on the net instead of punishing everyone with inferior internet speeds. I think this topic may be the "WorkChoices" for the current government. If it does go ahead, you will be definitely losing my vote!!!

Listen to the people you are meant to represent and not the vocal minority!!!

Dominic Hare

10 Dec 2008 1:35pm

Well done Senator on launching this blog, though I only hope you read and respond to these comments, particularly about your ill-advised net filter, better than you do to my letters and emails.

zog

10 Dec 2008 1:36pm

I'm an adult, an IT professional, and I'm not a paedophile or pervert. I also vote. I'll remember you at the next election.

Chris Sager

10 Dec 2008 1:40pm

Let the parents do their job, its not government's responsibility. Either introduce opt in or create a ISP thats for families. Its already bad enough adults in this country can not experience all the games that comes out because some one in SA thinks its not appropriate for children even though research shows average age of a gamer is around 30. I am sick and tired of our government acting as our children's parent. Australian people are not ignorant, they can make decision of their own, understand filter is a good idea but not appropriate for everyone. Please reconsider before you go ahead with it.

Mattius

10 Dec 2008 1:42pm

For a communications minister you sure don't seem to have a clue about basic internet principles. How exactly did you get this job. I have no idea about the army, can I be the minister of defense? Here's a real simple idea you could put forward (as your own of course). How about suggesting that all pornographic website have '.sex' attached after the URL. For example 'www.hotstuff.com.sex'. You might actually get praise for such a simple solution to trying to clean up the internet. And seeing you have no idea of how the internet actually functions, you'll think that this proposed idea will actually be able to be implemented. Have another word to Mao Rudd. I'm sure there are some other oppressive communist ideals you could cook up, better than this. -MG

Rob Kennedy

10 Dec 2008 1:47pm

I did not vote the Labor party in to introduce this waste of time and money. This was not made clear at election time and trying to introduce Internet Censorship after you've been elected will make me vote for the Coalition in the next election and many others I know, solely on this issue alone. If it is implemented, we will be demonstration loud and long until this government is driven out of office. We elected you so we could tell you what to do, not you tell us; get rid of this stupid idea or you will be out of power as soon as we can get you out.

Lina

10 Dec 2008 1:49pm

Great idea having a blog, I applaud the move to implement this communication technology. I wish to add my voice to the overwhelming majority here in rejecting the idea of an internet filter for Australians. I truly do not understand the push to impose this upon the populace and I strongly oppose this move, along with many other Australians as demonstrated in all of the feedback.

Giving individuals and families a choice to opt-in to internet filtering is fair. Forcing the rest of the population to only see what one group of people has deemed as 'appropriate' is quite simply ridiculous and by my way of thinking completely 'inappropriate'.

Mark Elliott

10 Dec 2008 1:58pm

And I also want to request (please please) full text feeds for blog posts *&* comments!

Lina

10 Dec 2008 1:59pm

Great idea having a blog, I applaud the move to implement this communication technology. I wish to add my voice to the overwhelming majority here in rejecting the idea of an internet filter for Australians. I truly do not understand the push to impose this upon the populace and I strongly oppose this move, along with many other Australians as demonstrated in all of the feedback. Giving individuals and families a choice to opt-in to internet filtering is fair. Forcing the rest of the population to only see what one group of people has deemed as 'appropriate' is quite simply ridiculous and by my way of thinking completely 'inappropriate'.

Andrew Burley

10 Dec 2008 2:04pm

I am very pleased to see the outcry against allowing the government to, yet again, interfere with our daily lives. Having the government decide what information we should have access to is an obscene proposal and it is encouraging to see the general population taking a stand for a change. Not only is the proposal for a mandatory filter offensive, it is ill-conceived. The costs involved are astronomical, the cost to business through retarded internet access is untold, and the effect on curtailing child porn is questionable at best. If the people who like the government to make their decisions for them; those who can't trust themselves to not look for kiddie porn when they are on the internet; or parents who can't supervise their children want their information restricted then give them personal filters for their own PC. This would be much more economical, address the access of inappropriate material by children, reduce the need for another government bureaucracy to maintain the system and, most importantly, not have mysterious blacklists decided by the government. In seven years of being employed in a position that requires spending several hours a day on the internet I have not once been directed to a kiddie porn site. Exactly what are the supporters of this proposal doing when they claim that this type of 'accidental' access is a frequent occurrence??

Seen-it-before

10 Dec 2008 2:05pm

This internet filtering initiative sounds a lot like some politicians have found inspiration in the Great Firewall of China. (I'm not going to make any comments about Chinese language proficiency being an advantage here.) The question for Australians is: Are we looking at the birth of the Great Firewall of Australia? Perhaps we'll call it "the Great Barrier e-Reef" - after all, it's a perfect, local equivalent (visible from space, filtering function, etc.)

david3172

10 Dec 2008 2:06pm

I'm pleased to see the Government's continued interest in Internet Filtering and hope the anti-censorship, open-slather people don't win out. Despite claims to the contrary it is clear Internet filtering does work. The current Internet filtering clients already work well, but there is room for improvement, and that technology is out there already. Just look at the sophistication of the anti-spam products. But in my view, and that of most Christians, we need to focus on protecting the kids. It should be mandatory to filter the Internet at the ISP, and then allow adults who want to by-pass that filtering to do so. This is the way other censorship in our society works. Adult television programs are restricted and can only be shown after a certain time. Porn magazines are restricted for sale to minors and are sealed. The anti-filtering brigade appear to be the same people who basically oppose all forms of censorship. Examples of how people can circumvent a filter in no way voids the idea itself. People can still sell porn magazine to kids if they choose, but it is illegal. And just because people can circumvent the censorship of magazines, does not mean we want to do away with this censorship. There�s plenty of scope for the anti-filtering adults to continue to negligently subject their kids to porn if they so choose, but the majority of parents want their kids protected. And I as an adult do not want to stumble upon porn websites when I�m using the Internet and I know my staff at work feel the same.

clappers

10 Dec 2008 2:07pm

Go ahead and try. I wonder where they are getting their technical advice from, it's just not possible at all. Proxies, tunnels, TOR and encryption are just a few ways that you can get around anything the government is trying to do here, all are easy to setup and not easy to block.

brettk

10 Dec 2008 2:08pm

I have read the comments about filtering , public comment, Telstra's stranglehold on infrastructure etc. I would like to table two comments relevant to any discussion and Australia's future technology growth; 1 why are we NOT utilising more wireless technology and opening up the restrictive regulations surrounding such uses, this could cost a quarter of NBN proposal in a quarter of the time ,Australia is a vast company and could be better served both economically and speed through the use of high speed wireless technology 2 secondly, no matter what, we are living and operating in a digital age with online transactions globally however very little in the way of security for the public user, government or business has been enacted via legislation yet alone by law enforcement agencies. Australians as a rule need to be educated and provided the tools to protect themselves and their assets against organised international crime syndicates. Why is it that we must purchase overseas products that are already compromised by the time we purchase? The research and investment could push Australia to the forefront of security technology securing online transactions in the digital age.

John Coombes

10 Dec 2008 2:11pm

RE: Internet filter - I all for an "opt-in" option (not a mandatory opt-out one ONLY) for any internet filter of Australia. NOT the concept of "If" you live in Australia you are going to be compulsorily opt'd in regardless if you want it or not.

This is just an effort by the few to control the many and is called censorship, which is not your job, or the Governments, (elected or employees) I believe it is the "end users" job to apply any required censorship, not the "big brother" department of the Government.

Now to ensure that you don't ignore my post by being dismissive just because mine is Gmail email address ! So you could say that I might not even live in Australia ? I am on the electoral role, you have my name, I am in Elsternwick, 3185, look me up.

Unhappy Voter

10 Dec 2008 2:12pm

I'd like to express my utter disgust at the proposed filtering scheme outlined by Sen. Conroy. It is completely unworkable and a blatant waste of taxpayer money designed to placate a few vocal minorities. Sen. Conroy, you promised to be a breath of fresh air into the communications portfolio. You made us believe you would be superior to your predecessors. How wrong we were to place our faith in you. You can tell Mr Rudd you are the reason you have lost my vote when it comes to the next election.

civil libertarian

10 Dec 2008 2:13pm

Well done on conducting this blog. Apart from the technical issues involved in internet filtering, it is important not to overlook the issues involved in determining any list of banned or restricted sites. An important part of the existing regime for classification of films, books and computer games is that there is a transparent process, where ultimately decisions are reviewed by a board comprising community representatives who must provide reasons for their classification decisions. There is no equivalent transparency in relation to how ACMA chooses sites to list as banned or restricted. While many probably relate to child pornography, a significant number do not. We have a right to now what decisions government agencies are making to ban or restrict sites, and people affected should have an effective way of seeking review of such decisions.

clappers

10 Dec 2008 2:21pm

Dave

10 Dec 2008 2:22pm

Thank you Chairman Tanner for starting this wonderful blog to make benefit glorious nation of Australia. We welcome with open arms and hearts the looming mandatory filtering of internet proposed by Chairman Conroy and President Nazibayev Rudd. The citizens of glorious Australistan look forward to your regulating and moderating of incoming internet information to ensure cultural compliance is achieved for the benefit of the state.

Michael D

10 Dec 2008 2:23pm

Nice thought, this blog, however, I would have to assume that in the end it will do nothing. What I dont understand, is why the government feels its necassary for them to tell us what is right and wrong and what we should and shouldnt see. Why they feel the need to take the responsibility of our lives and morals into their hands. When are people going to start to take this resposibility themselves? On one hand parents scream and shout if their kids come across porn on the net, yet they are not supervising them or installing their own filters at home. Why not!!?? If parents did the job they are suposed to, then the rest of us need not suffer and be reigned over by the government and their filter. I have no children, I dont get hand out after hand out from the government, yet I can take responsibility for myself and anyone else i CHOOSE to let use my internet connection. Parents, it about time you did the same thing! PS. NO FILTER!

Annabey

10 Dec 2008 2:25pm

So we have 17 days left of this blog... That's not long at all! When will we start seeing some real, organised "online consultation" ???('Minister Tanner's welcome' isn't really a very useful consultation discussion starter now is it??). ....... Bit more like your typical "it's going to be tough people, but we're trying, look at us, we're using the internet to talk to you, aren't we clever" Maybe 'online consultation' means - hey we're going to stick up a little story and then count how many people complain about the new planned internet filter. If that is the case, then judging by the comments on here you have already done quite well Mr Tanner.

swk

10 Dec 2008 2:26pm

The Net Filter should be only for those that wish to sign up for it and I am not one of these people.

Good bye Labour

OzGal

10 Dec 2008 3:26pm

Who went and gave the Labour Party the right to become the thought police. We the voters, are not a pack of children that need to be protected from the big wide world nor if my memory serves me correctly was your party voted in on this basis. As a parent, it is my responsibility to protect my children and have knowledge of the danger that certain activities in their lives present, not the Governments. How happy do you honestly think the public is going to be when the net speeds ground to a halt because some mother is trying to find information about cracked nipples when breastfeeding!

Andye

10 Dec 2008 2:47pm

Any form of content filtering should be based on the content providers not the delivery mechanism. In this case content providers would enter into an agreement with an ISP guaranteeing only clean content will be supplied. It is a form of self regulation on the part of the content providers, not unlike broadcast media. In this way breaches are the onus of the individual suppliers of content rather than the ISP.

Sam Douglas

10 Dec 2008 2:48pm

First off, congratulations on this move to consult with the community. It is, in my opinion, sorely overdue. Niceties aside, I would like to register my profound opposition to the ISP level filtering pan. Even with my modest technical skills I can see several ways to circumvent it. But more importantly, there are definite ethical and political problems with this idea. If the internet becomes the main way that we get our information about the outside world, then the ability to control what we see on it is an extremely powerful tool. It is too powerful for governments to not use it to their own ends. Without a system of senatorial oversight, procedural transparency and judicial accountability we would have no protection from the whims of political parties and lobby groups who seek to force society to fit their ideals.

Heyallo Stylez

10 Dec 2008 2:50pm

My question to the minister is: If your taking away my right to view any and all information as I wish, will YOU be paying for my relocation to a country (USA) where my rights to free speech and information are protected/guaranteed by the constitution...?

OK

10 Dec 2008 2:52pm

Few people, if anyone, want internet censorship. Please stop wasting time and money on this and do something ***positive*** that people really do want e.g. improve the situation regarding spam or e.g. improve Australia's broadband. After one year of Rudd Government, your track record so far in this policy area ... killed OPEL, delayed NBN, threatened internet censorship. How's that working for you? It isn't working for me.

Sansha

10 Dec 2008 2:53pm

As I've said before: Work Choices lost the Liberals last election. If the mandatory ISP filter goes through, it will definitely lose Labor the next election.

bingo

10 Dec 2008 2:58pm

this is a very blinkered, small minded approach and highlights the governement naieve outlook about the internet. You are trying to create a chinese intranet without saying it. is that the country we want to be?

Adam

10 Dec 2008 2:00pm

With all the negative comments you guys are getting I am still bemused at the fact you have not recalled your decision on mandatory filtering, what must be done for you guys to stop talking and start listening to the people. The blog is only effective and relevant if you people listen to the people. The government is a representative for the people, you are not the dictators of policy on your own or minor member whims, remember that and the oath when you took office.

Yert

10 Dec 2008 2:03pm

I'm disgusted every time I hear about how a child has been exploited. We all want child pornography wiped from the face of this earth. However, this filtering will not stop child pornography. There is absolutely no way the filtering can detect images which have been gone through a simple transformation, let alone encrypted. All it will do is make life hell for the 99.9% of us that are trying to use the Internet for work/study/games/socialising. It will also be a heavy burden on the routers. Cisco will love you for it because ISPs will have to buy many more routers to cope. Spend this money on: 1.) Law enforcement - these people are good at what they do and are better informed at where the child porn viewers frequent. 2.) An awareness campaign for adults to supervise these kids. How do we stop gets getting kidnapped? Through supervision and education. The Internet is no different.

Carl M

10 Dec 2008 2:13pm

It's slightly ironic that the Government has discovered the technology of blogging at the same time thinking they can control the Internet with the old-fashioned principles which guide the Office of Film and Literature Classification.

On the subject of the "clean feed" why is this policy being persued at all? The ISP's don't agree with it for technical reasons. Users don't support it because it will slow the net and block valid content. The only support I have seen is coming from people who don't understand the Internet or its operation and conservative groups who dream of social mind control.

Why is the Minister being so dishonest in his intentions of broad censorship and classification? Why even raise the issue of child pornography when this proposed filter will have negligible on child porn? Is fear the only valid reason he can muster or does he truly not understand the technology?

The Internet was studied as a means of maintaining communication in the event of a nuclear attack. Does the government really think it can control something capable of surviving a nuclear war? And how much economic activity and civil liberties will it suppress in trying?

beefcake_101

10 Dec 2008 2:16pm

To Dan and others that support the filter you must try to understand that this filter will not prevent the majority of child pornography distribution over the web - you clearly don't understand how the web works. The filter is not going to effect peer to peer file sharing which you would assume would be the most popular method of distribution of such material by the pedophile rings which the police track.

Surely the government would be better advised to spend money on provision of free Net Nanny type software to parents with relevant educational material to assist them to implement it effectively in their family homes. This should be done in conjuction with a program to significantly increase the AFP's budget for electronic surveillance, so instead of making life more difficult for pedophiles we can catch them and put them behind bars - stopping their activities for good rather than just making them form tighter and less visible underground communities!

Jess L

10 Dec 2008 2:24pm

Congrats on providing a place for Australian citizens to leave direct feedback.

I, like many here, am firmly opposed to Senator Conroy's plans to effectively censor and impair the internet. Asserting that this is in the name of child protection just doesn't hold up, as the filter won't affect peer-to-peer sharing or email attachments, which are both far more popular ways of moving files than using normal, blockable websites. The fact that some child protection agencies are actually against the filter speaks for itself.

I am also vehemently opposed to the government having control over what I, an adult, am able to view online. A mandatory government maintained blacklist does not inspire trust at any level, and it is open to abuse by parties who wish to withhold sensitive, but not illegal, information from the public. What guarantees will you provide to ensure that this won�t happen? How open will you be in regards to the feed policy? Senator Conroy has so far refused to answer legitimate concerns from opposition parties, technology professionals, and the Australian media. And yet I am not surprised. My voice, and many others, will be heard at the anti-feed protests on Saturday the 13th of Dec. I hope the government is able to address our significant concerns.

KMonline

10 Dec 2008 2:26pm

Knowledge management, or lack of it, in government astounds me.

In the private sector the market capitalisation of a company is a combination of what they have (assets) and what they know (intellectual capital). Due to the fact that government is not driven by a profit motive, the value of what people in their employment know is never managed. This is the function of Knowledge Management.

The federal government is loosing a large swag of SES personnel. These baby boomers are simply leaving without any management of their corporate knowledge. Yet they concentrate on looking for new apprentices in the gen Y group that on average will move on within a couple of years (and take their learning's with them).

A combination of technology and human resource management is required to train departments to manage knowledge as an asset. Unfortunately, the lack of understanding of knowledge as a reportable asset means that it can be safely ignored in government. Private industry however understand its value simply by reviewing their stock price.

You have written best practice guides on the subject but you still do nothing about.

Get on with it and start saving the billions it costs to train people up to where they could have been if simple retention plans, succession plans along with information and communications strategies where built and used.

Why is an effort to protect and manage information only made when it is registered via a copyright, patent or trademark?

w

10 Dec 2008 2:37pm

Bring back NetAlert. Combined with parenting, it solves all of your stated goals (protecting children).

ruben

10 Dec 2008 2:39pm

So glad to see you are finally joining us here online.

Next up, admit that this whole internet censorship malarkey is a mistake and get back to the business of improving internet access for Australian citizens.

Oh... and enable an rss feed so we can follow your blog.

Sams

10 Dec 2008 2:40pm

This is a very basic (poor) blog. I take it you blew a load of cash and rolled your own instead of taking an existing mature product? i.e. a typical Australian Government IT project.

Jon Seymour

10 Dec 2008 2:44pm

As at 10:15 Dec 10, my previous comment (dated Dec 9, 20:07) had not been published even though surrounding comments had been.

I believe it was on topic and measured. It did, however, question whether this blog was a question of "Good Cop, Bad Cop"

If it was not published for reasons other than suppressing an opinion that got a little to close to the truth, then I am sure you won't mind publishing a link to an original copy of the comment so people can judge for themselves.

http://tinyurl.com/5j4mgl Alternatively, please publish an explanation for my original comment was not published since I believe it did not violate the moderation policy.

Aggie

10 Dec 2008 2:49pm

I have been reading through most of the comments here and agree with most of the sentiments against the proposed internet filter.

I did notice, however, that at one point, the number of comments dropped from 230s to 207. I hope that there was legitimately due to an abusive comment and not the government's suppression of opinion. Could the moderators of this blog be more transparent when deleting comments? eg. write something like "this comment was deleted due to abusive content" and not just let them disappear without a trace.

Umit

10 Dec 2008 2:58pm

I strongly disagree with the proposed internet filtering plans. It is technically infeasible, and it is easily able to be by-passed. It is a trivial matter to open an encrypted connection to an overseas proxy. Not only that, but I feel it is an attack on democracy and on my personal freedom. I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself what I want to see on the internet and what I don't. I do not need the government or anyone else to baby sit me. Don't turn this country into a police state, Say NO to censorship!

agibson

10 Dec 2008 2:59pm

The censorship filter will dominate this blog until it is withdrawn as a policy, so please do so.

The problem (for politicians) with digital participation is that it makes stupid political policies open for criticism by an informed, educated and empowered public. You are not going to win this one Conroy, give it up or be removed from power.

Aspring

10 Dec 2008 3:05pm

I'm a rational, educated, informed and well-adjusted member of society, and as such I'd like to apply my own judgement to my web browsing. As such, i'd rather you didn't arbritrarily censor my access to the net, due to the lowest common denominator's potential to abuse such access. Less still have you attempt to censor with completely innefective tools and methodology.

agibson

10 Dec 2008 3:06pm

Kieran

10 Dec 2008 3:07pm

My veiws have been expressed in many other posts so I won't go over them again.

I have only voted twice at a federal election, both times for a Labor Candidate. If this bill gets passed you will lose my vote. You decide.

-Kieran

OzAtheist

10 Dec 2008 3:08pm

Please drop this ridiculous idea of filtering the internet. It has no merits whatsoever, will be unworkable, relatively easy to bypass, slow the (already slow) internet and not protect anyone.

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.

There are already many laws and systems in place to catch child abusers, as has been evidenced by recent cases of large numbers of people being caught.

I have no idea why the government ever thought this was a good idea, and wonder if anyone in the government really thinks its a good idea.

Or is the government just pandering to a small minority? That's not supposed to be how democracy works.

Mark

10 Dec 2008 3:09pm

Mr Conroy, you stated in the Senate that the previous government's filtering solution was a disaster because only 2% of the population voluntarily used the Net Alert services etc.

That is a pretty clear signal that the other 98% do not want or need to have any filtering at all.

Therefore if you are prepared to hear from the people you represent, then you must also be prepared to listen to what they are saying.

Bob

10 Dec 2008 3:11pm

Where are our rights? Give us options but don't dictate. Who's been spending too much time in China??

Balanced Observation

10 Dec 2008 3:13pm

The way I see it is that parents have a very valid argument that their children should be protected, however the reality is they need to do it. Within 24 hours of the filter being switched on, the newspapers will be running front page stories about how easy the average ten year old finds it to get around the filtering. More to the point, your filtering does not scan the images - so a naked picture of a child could simply be renamed christianangel.jpg and posted on a legitimate but hacked Christian website which would make everyone more at risk of exposure to this filth, not less. To not understand this concept shows a distinct and complete lack of the technology, which we expected from John Howard.

What I can't figure out - is the point of this to steal the family first vote, appease Fielding who gets voted out in 2010 or this is to spend taxpayer dollars enforcing music / movie companies whims. All I can say is that Implementing ISP filtering is an utterly ludicrous concept that will be more ridiculed than the alcopops tax, fuelwatch and grocerywatch combined.

I ask everyone this. How many perverts are currently in jail or facing court because of the superb effort of the police in tracking them on the internet, both here and abroad. Were these people arrested when they sent child pornography by mail? Nowhere near as often they weren't. For that the unfettered internet deserves praise, praise and more praise.

Oh and please, nail telsra to the wall. Credit Howard with the incompetence he showed in ignoring ten years of industry advice that retail and infrastructure should have been separated.

OzAtheist

10 Dec 2008 3:20pm

Bill

10 Dec 2008 3:21pm

Offshore servers offering encrypted connections bypassing the filter in 3...2...1...

Thanks government, criminal activities will become even harder to trace. Way to protect the children.

OzAtheist

10 Dec 2008 3:26pm

and if anyone thinks this system would never be abused, think again. Look what happened recently in the UK, and they have a "supposedly" opt-in system here

IT Manager

10 Dec 2008 3:27pm

Labor's Internet Filtering policy protects ignorance, not children. Child pornographers will get around this technology very easily. Meanwhile the other 99.999% of Australians will suffer and endure your technologically-ignorant and morally twisted campaign of ignorance.
Every word out of Conroy's mouth says he has no idea what is going on here.
This plan is doomed to fail, so why must the Labor party persist purely on being idiots, purely for the sake of trying not to look like idiots?
And why aren't the Liberals kicking some crotches on this?

Filter Our Roads

10 Dec 2008 3:35pm

Thanks, guys. Your internet filter is a wonderful idea. In fact, I think this should be applied on a much wider scale. Every car in Australia should have a built-in GPS filter to stop people from going to illegal "earthsites", and just to mix things up, we won't actually tell anyone what sites are illegal. Okay... we'll block access to half the country accidentally. And we probably won't block access to all the illegal "earthsites" either. And the cars will be limited to a top speed of 40 km/h. And you'll be able to get anywhere by motorcycle, taxi, bus, or foot, avoiding the GPS filter altogether. And anyone who knows how to change their oil will be able to disable the GPS anyway. And when people find out what "earthsites" are illegal, people will end up going there out of curiosity. But you don't hate children, do you?

Outraged

10 Dec 2008 3:36pm

I'm outraged at the Government forcing mandatory filtering on all Australians. It's a slippery slope towards becoming China!

Ray Young

10 Dec 2008 3:39pm

Good day Senator Conroy,

A question please in relation to the Internet Filtering system: With the expected filtering of Web based traffic (HTTP/HTTPS) on ports 80, 443 and the like, what plans are there to also inspect, and filter all the other 64,000 other ports that are available other than these 2?

I assume that your IT advisors indicated to you that the internet is made up not just of addresses, but communication ports ranging above 64,000 different ways to communicate. The most common are below the 1,023 mark, with web using ports 80,81 and 443. Also, in question I am interested especially, does the filtering policy actually cover port 443, ie: Internet banking? Not to mention, who are we trusting with this entire system? What level of trust is established, and where are the cutouts?

Clearly there is a bit of thought required sir, and I would be interested in knowing your thoughts.

Sincerely

Ray Young DCC: Canberra

Dave

10 Dec 2008 3:44pm

With the amount of money this project is going to cost, would it not be better to put the money into child welfare services and the police to get to the root of the crimes?

Charles Heunemann

10 Dec 2008 3:46pm

The governments new scheme is anti-family and has been doomed to failure from the very beginning. Our previous government was cajoled into agreeing to support this bill (back in 1999 by Senator Brian Harradine who wanted the government to block internet pornography in return for his vote on the GST). Harradine duded the government on that one.

Fast forward 6 years and the government announced a National Filter Scheme where families could download �Family Side� (client side PC filters) for free. It took the coalition a further 12 months to get the scheme together just in time for the election. The big mistake here was the scheme didn�t have any time to take effect or be properly evaluated, bar one student, Tom Wood who got his 15 mins of fame when he worked out how to circumvent, and only temporarily mind you, one of the free filters on offer. Didn�t the media and the Labor opposition fly into hysterics over that one :-)

Exploiting these conditions our new government, Mr. Conroy and Mr. Tanner, were so hell bent on discrediting the coalitions long awaited National Filter Scheme they failed to consider just how impossible their alternative would be. Mr. Conroy�s all but saying that anyone not supporting the ISP filter scheme is a pedophile was a despicable statement guaranteeing opposition from both sides of the debate. Well Mr. Conroy your deal lust may well be catching up with you now.

Examples of how ludicrous Labors scheme is and how doomed it is to failure are already showing themselves. The governments �black list� is reported to contain only 10,000 banned sites! Internet porn alone is estimated to make up about 12% of all Web sites. That is one out of every 8 Internet websites is pornographic, and there are over 400 million pornographic web pages on the net.

What the government is failing to understand is that users of the Internet access content via a variety of means. For example what is it doing to stop illegal content coming into Australia via email? What about controlling the use of free Peer to Peer file sharing software applications like Limewire, Kaza and Bittorrent? Are those applications or the web sites that serve them going to be banned? Kids already use Free Anonymous Proxies to circumvent unsophisticated filters in their schools. Are Free Anonymous Proxies included in the �banned list�? What about free Instant Messenger software like Skype and Live Messenger? They can be used to share illegal files. Are they on the banned list? These are just a few of the popular Internet technologies being used now that are outside the control of the government�s proposed scheme. They cannot be controlled by ISPs however they can be controlled by a wide range of Family side filters.

The government�s scheme is actually Anti-family. By not supporting family side filtering the government is exposing children to sites that may be potentially harmful because you cannot possibly control the content on the web via ISP�s. This scheme was a dud in 1999 and it�s still a dud in 2008 and will go down as the most reckless waste of tax payer money in Australia�s digital history.

NoOther

10 Dec 2008 3:47pm

The internet filter will not solve any of the issues it sets out to solve. The filter will end up doing more harm then good, slowing down the internet greatly, and forcing a blacklist of websites which contains the category "Unwanted", which could mean just about anything. It will likely be abused and many legit sites that shouldn't be blocked will end up blocked.

ISP providers such as iiNet who are going to be a part of the trial for this filtering is only doing so to prove how bad of an idea it is (there are quotes on whirlpool forums). Other providers don't even want to touch it with a 50 ft poll.

We live in a free country and as such should be allowed to choose what websites we want to look at without big brother blocking them because it may be "unwanted" to someone else.

Syd Walker

10 Dec 2008 3:50pm

Dear Ministers

I am one of the people who, when I realized the government seems serious about censoring the Internet, chose to devote a significant amount of time to fighting this proposal. I intend to continue to do that until it's defeated. This major change to Australia's social environment was not well-publicized before the last election. Labor has no popular mandate for this policy. It is beyond annoying that you are forcing busy people to fight you, when we really want to work with you on policies we DO support, such as getting a decent broadband network and saving our beleagured environment. See here for more.

Suggestion: Make an immediate announcement this proposal will NOT be implemented and let the public get back to normal life. Also, have a nice day!

Asmodai

10 Dec 2008 3:57pm

It is entirely shameful that the Australian government should waste time/money on such an ill conceived plan as ISP level filtering.

I think Mark Newton said it best...here

The arguments against it are clear:

* there's no problem to solve because actual illegal material on the Internet is so rare that nobody ever finds it;

* even if there was a problem to solve, there's no public demand to solve it;

* even if there was a public demand to solve it, none of the proposed solutions will be effective;

* even if they were effective, they'll slow down Internet access and reduce Internet reliability;

* even if the proposed solutions had perfect performance and reliability, none of them are affordable;

* even if they were affordable, they'll be implemented terribly by the same class of bureaucrats that decided Haneef was a terrorist and Hanson was a pornographer, and will consequently be overbroad and subject to political manipulation;

* even if they were implemented perfectly, the blacklist will leak, be published on the Internet, fall into the hands of nefarious individuals, and consequently ENABLE CHILD ABUSE; and

* there's no possibility that the blacklist won't leak. It might take a month, a year, five years, ten years, or 2 hours. But it will leak. Pressing it into service will be like setting a ticking time bomb.

kris

10 Dec 2008 3:59pm

i have children and neither they nor i have ever stumbled across child porn in our internet usage. as for other inappropriate content; my husband and i are the parents so we monitor, control and educate for our childrens' access. ISP level filtering is ineffective, crippling and inappropriate.

ivMichael

10 Dec 2008 2:12pm

Some excellent points have already been made here so I won't repeat them. Let me start by stating that I'm no advocate of porn nor allowing children to access it. I have a vested interest in the debate as I'm part owner of a video-conferencing company that uses peer-to-peer communication. The Internet in Australia is already lagging the rest of the world in terms of both upload and download capability and we're a long way from the speedy synchronous connections I'd like to see (and which would benefit my business). Attempting to filter Internet content, whilst well meaning, will a) impose severe restrictions and limitations on innocent users and b) not work (as has been proven in other countries). The core of the debate is surely parental responsibility and education in the use of appropriate tools not a great firewall of china approach.

George Commins

10 Dec 2008 2:14pm

I am completely against mandatory internet filtering. It is highly undemocratic and undermines our basic right to free speech. If parents can't monitor their children on the internet then how on earth are they going to teach them basic concepts like stranger danger.

wizzi

10 Dec 2008 4:28pm

Whilst I do agree with the aim of the filter, I don't believe it should be mandatory.

ISP-level SPAM filtering through some (most) ISP's is enabled by default with the freedom of being able to opt-out if it's not desired. Why can't this type of approach be adopted by the Government with this filter? Why does it have to be mandatory?

Surely, this opt-in/opt-out approach would give the less tech-savvy parents (who wish to protect their children) the chance of better controlling their children's internet usage whilst also allowing the people who do not wish to be affect by the filtering the freedom of browsing any/all content they so desire.

What one person deems to be unsuitable content may be the subject of another person's research or hobby. I don't believe any one person/group/organisation/body is able to decide on behalf of the nation.

If all supposed illicit content and websites are blocked, how is the wider population (or even research groups) supposed to learn about and learn from it? Surely this learning aids in the protection of those who are at risk of being affected either directly or indirectly by predators who mis-use the privilege of being able to access the blocked material/content.

Although it seems that the Government has (regrettably) already made their decision as to the outcome of this proposal, it would be good to see them adopt a more sensible approach to ISP-level filtering rather than a 'blanket' that affects all Australians. This is not the way the majority of the population agree with which is why there's such a huge uproar about it. More acceptance would be received for an enabled-by-default-with-the-option-of-opting-o solution. At least this way the efforts, time, money and input that has been contributed to this idea can be used without going to waste.

wizzi

10 Dec 2008 2:16pm

Whilst I do agree with the aim of the filter, I don't believe it should be mandatory. ISP-level SPAM filtering through some (most) ISP's is enabled by default with the freedom of being able to opt-out if it's not desired. Why can't this type of approach be adopted by the Government with this filter? Why does it have to be mandatory? Surely, this opt-in/opt-out approach would give the less tech-savvy parents (who wish to protect their children) the chance of better controlling their children's internet usage whilst also allowing the people who do not wish to be affect by the filtering the freedom of browsing any/all content they so desire. What one person deems to be unsuitable content may be the subject of another person's research or hobby. I don't believe any one person/group/organisation/body is able to decide on behalf of the nation. If all supposed illicit content and websites are blocked, how is the wider population (or even research groups) supposed to learn about and learn from it? Surely this learning aids in the protection of those who are at risk of being affected either directly or indirectly by predators who mis-use the privilege of being able to access the blocked material/content. Although it seems that the Government has (regrettably) already made their decision as to the outcome of this proposal, it would be good to see them adopt a more sensible approach to ISP-level filtering rather than a 'blanket' that affects all Australians. This is not the way the majority of the population agree with which is why there's such a huge uproar about it. More acceptance would be received for an enabled-by-default-with-the-option-of-opting-o solution. At least this way the efforts, time, money and input that has been contributed to this idea can be used without going to waste.

Peter

10 Dec 2008 2:18pm

I can't understand why the government would attempt to implement something that is counter-intuitive. You want to increase the bandwidth to homes with your National Broadband Network, yet you want to decrease our speed to the internet by up to 80% with your Internet filter. I commend the department on trying to honour their election promises, however this is definitely not the way to go. We are already eons behind the world, and this will only make us more of a laughing stock then we already are. There is no doubt that parents need to take more responsibility for their children. It has come to a point where everyone but the parent receives blames for their children's wrong doings. I think the government needs to take a stranglehold of the situation and simply provide the service to parents (and others who want it), and leave other users be. I don't think there is anything wrong with a filter. Just don't force people on it. Perhaps the department could reform their policy so that it is mandatory for ISPs to place users on the filter - but users have the ability to opt out the filter entirely (instead of partially). You could also get those opt-out users to sign a form which indicates that in doing so, they are opening themselves up to the internet, and if they (or their children) come across something inappropriate (i.e. Child pornography), that it is their no one but their fault for leaving the filter. If the plan does go ahead as is, then it is nothing more than a waste of money. You will only hurt those who are innocent and simply create another channel for illegal material to be distributed. If you had any real technical people in your department (and if you listened to the community) you will know by now that the filter will be quite easy to circumvent through other technologies. I will be apart of the filter trial (with iinet) and will no doubt join Michael Malone in proving that this is a waste of time and money. Our hard earned dollars are better spent on catching these crooks, rather than crippling our country.

Keong

10 Dec 2008 2:20pm

The ACMA blacklist must be made easily accessible by the general public for peer review. If the filtering does go ahead, those of us who are not children will need a copy of the blacklist to confirm that the children have indeed been protected as promised. If the filtering does not go ahead, those of us who are not children may choose to implement our own filtering based on our own research, so will still need a copy of the blacklist.

Mifkin

10 Dec 2008 2:22pm

Senator Conroy why will you not answer any direct questions regarding this filter. And if you are doing it for the children as you claim why has Save the Children, the largest independent childrens rights agency in the world spoken out against this filter? The Age

Dave

10 Dec 2008 2:23pm

When a policy originating from the Senator for the digital economy is leading to public protests on the 13DEC2008 all across the country then surely there is something serverely wrong to get people off the couch.....

ex federal public servant

10 Dec 2008 2:24pm

As an ex federal government public servant with many years in communications.... it concerns me greatly that many of the initiatives being proposed show a complete lack of understanding of the technology and how it should be used and controlled. Measures being proposed are generally emotive of support (from certain areas of the population only) but are impractical to implement and won't solve any of the current problems...... they will inconvenience the many.... whilst those being "targeted" can easily find ways around the system (internet filtering)..... Yes, feedback from consumers is a great idea..... there are many more informed consumers than there appear to be informed Ministers. Before the Federal Government can make worthwhile changesthey require informed advice. The Ministers are not getting this from their advisors (quite clearly)..... so public consultation might be the best way to prevent disastrous legislation which will cripple the information technology services - for no gain what so ever.

Kathryn Small | BanThisURL

10 Dec 2008 2:25pm

I oppose the net filtering scheme in the strongest possible terms. I oppose it because: 1. ACMA trials have already demonstrated that it won't work properly; 2. The newly-invented scope of "unwanted content" wasn't voted on and has no oversight; 3. I believe in an internet free of censorship -- including pro-euthanasia websites. Senator Conroy, this proposal has been rejected by the Opposition, the Greens, NSW Young Labor, the computer industry, parents and more. Hear the voice of the people. I strongly welcome this blog as a mechanism for hearing the voices of the Australian people. Thank you for opening it, and for printing comments whose views diverge with yours.

Stephan

10 Dec 2008 2:26pm

Use of the Internet has created developing communities that show every sign of turning into social structures independant of the nations that the members currently reside in. I believe Australia is simply exercising what it perceives as it's right to curtail this "loss". The "Spin" is that they will block certain sites as yet unnamed for the good of the individuals and, more importantly, the community of Australia. Site blocking will be directed by and is the responsibility of an, as yet, unselected group of firms/people/industry specialists. Media promotions focus on the fact that sites being blocked will be providers of pornography or other material deemed unacceptable through either black listing or value judgement. At the basic level, this removes an individual's right to choose. At the slightly more complex level this opens up all sorts of opportunities for the Government of the day to predispose the community to the views and values IT wants the community to adhere to. The Government is our employee and it listens to us, the voter, or it should. I see this sort of thing as the thin edge of the wedge to a form of totalitarian domination of the individuals in the community of Australia. This is like the GST, once introduced it will be hard to remove. It will prove quite effective for the uneducated digital illiterates out there but is wholly farcicle for those of us who know better. It's blatantly obvious most of our politicians haven't got a digital clue although I'd quite happily tell them where to insert one.

Daniel from SA

10 Dec 2008 2:27pm

As a Masters Gradute in Information Security I am in strong opposition to this "security theatre".

Ben

10 Dec 2008 2:28pm

A filter that is forced upon adults without choice, to protect the children - please refer to the below translated xxtract from Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler: "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."

Lyn

10 Dec 2008 2:34pm

Well done bloggy ministers. Like others here, I don't want your ISP filters, but very much appreciate being able to tell you so on a government blog. Way to go. Props to you for engaging with the citizenry. Did it ever occur to you that instead of imposing censorship on the citizens you could utilise them? Could we have kiddie porn fridge magnets instead? You know as well as we do that the creeps use P2P and proxy servers already. Parents can get filters if they want them. How about a little trust here?

Kevin Davies

10 Dec 2008 2:36pm

The blog is a great step in the right direction. Allowing Telstra, who failed to bid on the NBN, still be part of the Tender process is making a laughing stock of you and your department Senator Conroy. Good luck filtering the Internet! Be far better to just offer a clean feed.

matteovinci

10 Dec 2008 2:40pm

like ive said before & will say again the best filter is education & self choice Open DNS

Steve

10 Dec 2008 2:41pm

I'd like to join those who fully oppose this filtering plan. The potential for bad censorship aside it's a totally un-feasible idea. I work in IT, my work is closely related to web so I know a bit more about it than the average. I suspected that some ministers have no idea of the area they are responsible for, but this is just totally overboard. At least try to find some people who have an idea of IT before making decisions like this, those advisers currently on are apparently useless. If this goes ahead and the NBN is similarly botched there goes my vote for this party. Yes I've voted for you gents, but I'm starting to regret it.

Filters_are_useless

10 Dec 2008 2:42pm

I oppose the proposed Web filter scheme because it will be of no practical value, and because of the important principle that it violates. The practical side: any internet-savvy child can get around the filter within minutes, so its value in technical terms is nil. In addition, as many people have already said, you can't possibly catch all illegal material using just a filter. The criminals are 10 steps ahead of this idea already. The principle: I believe that, with this proposed filter, the Government is on completely the wrong track. In a democratic and free society, it is _not_ the Government's job to _prevent_ illegal things from happening. This is what totalitarian states do. It _is_ the Government's job to define what's illegal, educate the public about it, and then catch and punish (appropriately!) any offenders. People then have the ability to make an informed choice about their activities, and can exercise their own moral judgment. If they disagree with the Government about the legality of any activity, they have the democratic right to vote in a different Government that will change the law. But attempting to prevent illegal activity is the height of folly: it's impossible, and it brings us down to the level of the worst sort of dictatorial Communist regimes. The whole idea is bad - fundamentally the wrong approach. It won't work on a practical level, and it's not what Government is for.

Seth

10 Dec 2008 2:42pm

It is never the governments duty to tell it's citizens what they can and cannot watch, read and listen.

Mark

10 Dec 2008 2:44pm

davesquirrel

10 Dec 2008 2:45pm

Ridiculous. This is like 1984 meets China. Whatever happened to the free world?

Brendan

10 Dec 2008 2:48pm

Congratulations minister, we know the "Kevin 07" team to be hip to the net, and as you point out not quite at the edge like change.gov Well done. Here's the thing about Blogging and Web 2.0 Honesty in intent is a fundamental in successful long term channels. Nobody in the online(digital) economy really believes the filtering initiative is about child porn. The consensus seems to be.. we know they are not that stupid, naive or badly advised that they believe that people with any real interest in child porn will be stopped by an ISP filter. Therefore...it is censorship or restriction of -----------------------------. (PLEASE FILL IN THE BLANKS)

Lothar

10 Dec 2008 2:49pm

I'm all for the net being filtered. I was getting so tired of installing my own filters, having to monitor my children's internet usage, and educating my children about net safety. Now I can just sit back and relax knowing that the government will protect them from not only anything bad, but also anything "unwanted". I don't know what "unwanted" means but I'm sure it can't be good, otherwise it wouldn't be "unwanted" I can't wait to see other government initiatives that make raising children even less of a responsibility for parents. Because if you can't trust the government to make these decisions for you, then who can you trust?

Surprised

10 Dec 2008 2:52pm

A very interesting blog I must say, and I agree with other bnlogers in that I do hope this is actually read and considered rather than beinag PR gimmick with no true chance for consideration, if so, this my friends is not not demcocracy, and if so would the present mionstr in charge of this project please condier better using his skills in lpace like China. With that context I pros either follwing qwuestions: 1) If this is just for child exploitation isues, then I concur, a great wothy envevour, however I ask wh this is not explciiny stated? My concern is plictical content will be sesnored, which again serves and policatial party whose is in powers self interest and does not serve the people who elcted them best interstes, in which case.. wrong country again.. back to china.. 2) With the current situation in world funding crisis how can we afford to waste precious resources on the maathod task and resources required to sesnotr the net when in time like this we should encourage and open the pathways for open dialogue everywhere to ride out the storm. The government should be investing time and energy into system to help everyday people be smart with their money. 3) This is reactive rather than proactive. Givernments should focus on sensorship aof mainstream meadia when they portray young girls in the wrong ways.. this is more effective and stops the intiators of the issue. 4) Wouldn�t a better investment be offering a free net blocking software so families can be proactive in this? 5) Why not invest resources in educated people of the value of children .

Santaria

10 Dec 2008 3:05pm

Aside from the fact it is impossible and will not work, what happened to people having consequences for their own actions? Parents need to take action for their own children and not rely on government to do something that a parent should do.... WATCH YOUR KIDS WHILE THEIR ON THE NET!!! Also the fact that the filter will NOT stop p2p or HTTPS. My money is better spent on old fashioned police work to catch kiddie fiddlers, not some crazy idea that is just going to drive them further underground.

asanque

10 Dec 2008 3:06pm

The internet filter is a horribly flawed idea doomed to failure. Even Telstra have opted out of the initial trial, that should tell you something. Cancel it now and stop wasting taxpayers money.

Adam

10 Dec 2008 3:16pm

The proposed filter is flawed for reasons both technical and social. Its up to parents to police their children's Internet exposure, not some governing body. As a voter and ICT professional for may years, I vehermently oppose such a useless attempt at pandering to the ignorant an uninformed.

John

10 Dec 2008 3:17pm

Waste of money on a flawed system, the money would be better spent on federal police funding to track down people who view child pornography and busting them.

unimpressed

10 Dec 2008 3:23pm

I'm sorry, but the blog you have requested cannot be shown, as it is on the government's block list. You IP has been recorded and will be forwarded to the relevant authorities. Welcome to your version of the internet. I find it rather ironic that you 'moderate' comments on here as well. Is this the true censorship trial?

Viveka Weiley

10 Dec 2008 4:31pm

Please note: community consultation doesn't mean you set up a forum and then ignore it. The arguments against the mandatory clean feed are strong, the arguments for it are broken. Community consultation requires listening and being prepared to change an existing plan.

Katoomba

10 Dec 2008 4:33pm

Will Sen Conroy's filtering plan be the ALP's Archilles Heel as was the Liberal's WorkChoices?

Kane

10 Dec 2008 4:43pm

Surely, if the need and demand for an ISP based content filter were so high, then surely in this free market capitalist environment there would already be an ISP that specialises in providing 'family friendly' internet connections.

Then again I guess maybe the whole five people in the country who want the filter wouldn't be enough to make that plan viable.

Viveka Weiley

10 Dec 2008 4:44pm

Matthew

10 Dec 2008 4:45pm

It is well known that those who distribute child pornography over the internet typically do it via closed and secrative channels and communities to avoid detection.

Both the FBI and Interpol have acknowledged that underground pedophile rings are where most of this material is created and shared from. Blocking website access of child porography while helpful, is not going to dent the availability or ease of access for those in these communities, they don't share their content via websites, yet alone servers accessable or listed to the public.

Methods such as https, ssl, and encryption are all frequently used to prevent FBI, Federal Police, Interpol, and their respective ISPs from monitoring the data coming down their lines as well as identifying them.

It's not as simple as banning a wesbite. These people are mentally sick and perverted, most don't share their material in the public arena but with highly private and secrative communities using complete encryption and security methods.

Also in regards to filtering in general, i opose it 100%. If you want to stop child porn, allocate more money and resources to the Federal Police and ISPs to track and identify sites and users. This is nothing more then a political stunt to justify it, if not that then you're seriously missguided as to how effective this method will be.

Also as others have commented on, I do not want to entrust the government, privte corporations, or any political or religious affliliated organization with the right to restrict what i can and cant access and download on the internet. There's to much trust there to be broken, and there are far more effective ways for the government to hunt down pedophiles.

Dags

10 Dec 2008 5:01pm

One of the reasons I voted Labor in the recent election was because of labors promise to do something about Australia's pathetically slow and expensive Internet. One year later not only is the Internet unchanged but its freedom of information is under threat by Sen Conroys proposed draconian Filter/Censorship plan.

As you may be aware, prior to the election, an OPT OUT filter plan was mentioned. Now this has suddenly changed to a NO OPT OUT scheme! I am personally disgusted with Sen Conroys antics in the senate when asked questions about this Censorship plan by other senators.

He simply refuses to answer the questions asked.

I cannot believe you are even considering this plan to bring in censorship of Australian Internet that will bring us inline with Iran, Saudi Arabia and China.

The main facts are as follows! It will waste well over 100 Miliion of our taxes!
It will NOT work and will be easily circumvented by any 13 year old.
It will slow our already slow internet.
It will force ISPs to increase fees.
It is the beginning of a very slippery slope towards a Police state.
It of course had Nothing to do with protecting children! Concerned parents have FREE programs available NOW to do this on their home computers.

The Labor party were NOT given a mandate to introduce such censorship. I hope you will take the time to investigate this for yourself?

Sadly most Labor senators are sending a form letter in reply to questions sent to them, containing the same rubbish and blatant lies spoken by Sen Conroy in the Senate.

I attach some URLs for you. Save the Net Cash for anticensorship childrens-welfare-groups-slam-net-filters net-censorship-backlash School of Rock and post comments about the filtering policy.

But this first post was about the use of on-line tools for consultation, and apart from the obvious conclusion (that Goverment could have engaged in more wideranging consultation on the policy objective of applying existing content classification schemes to websites) there is little in the posts of read thus far about consultation.

I'd like to state a few here. The first is that this doesn't really feel like a "blog". This is more a "forum" like whilpool than a "blog". Secondly (as is pointed out elsewhere) blogs are by people not "teams". Thirdly true "blogs" belong in the "blogsphere" where participants cross link to each other. Good examples are Josh Gans and John Quiggin blogs. The queen of all is Laurel Papworth.

The next question is the siting of the blog - as just another page to navgate to within the context of the DBCDE website. Other major Government initiatives have been given their own site - e.g. Digital Education Revolution. (I'm typing the HTML for a link here having no idea how the comment will finally render on the site.) A Digital Economy page could have included more than just the blog. As an example I have a Google Alert set for "Digital Economy" and get a daly list of items. A panel on the right side could have included a "new stories" field to talk about other activities around the world.

That's all for now. My mission is to post everyday. Be warned.

Jimmy

10 Dec 2008 3:44pm

Like many others here I'm very keen to see a FTTN rolled out ASAP - built and owned by anyone but Telstra. The anit-competivie and antisocial nature of Telstra is a result of government intervention in the market, and demonstrates what happens when governments put ideology before democracy. Which is exactly the problem with the proposed internet filter -it's an insult to our intelligence as individuals and an assault on the freedoms which are essential to maintaining a vibrant liberal democracy. What justification does the government have for imposing a filter where the public are unable to find out what content is blocked? Other than to perserve their own power...

russell

10 Dec 2008 3:45pm

For Australia to reduce it's import expenses and reliance on computer software, a local industry based on creating and supporting Free Open-Source software should be established. It will save billions of dollars in senseless licence fees to inferior overseas software vendors, and the increase in programming expertise can be applied to all areas of science, industry, and products for the home, resulting in a snowballing effect of cutting software import costs and increasing employment. Internet filtering/censoring will dramatically increase internet costs and reduce internet performance. It also blocks valid content from lawful users, whilst the target users simply find easy ways around it such as with peer-to-peer networks. The vastly increased burden on ISPs will reduce competition in the market because smaller startups will be incapable of manning the high amount of manual person scanning content and administration that would be required.

Dennis

10 Dec 2008 3:50pm

Just to let everyone know, we are tracking and recording all comments coming in from Whirlpool users - and will be holding this blog accountable if it fails to publish legitimate comments from the public. The purpose of this blog is to solicit ideas and opinions, and we are keeping a log of which opinions the Government feels the need to block. The list will be made available to media outlets, and opposing parties as necessary.

police_state

10 Dec 2008 3:52pm

This clean feed policy is nothing but a joke. Put aside all the morality issues, lets just focus on the technical ones for now... do the people in charge really think that the filter will work? Why wont they listen to industry experts on this matter? It doesn't even filter p2p traffic or secure connections... (how can it without grinding traffic to a halt!)

All the filter will do is force everyone to start using secure connections + oversea proxies... (who wants to risk having the "secret police" knocking on your door one day because you clicked a link and it sent you to an "illegal" site?) The clean feed filter will not stop people who wish to access illegal material, but it WILL slow down everyone's internet connection! Next the government will ban all male/female contact because to violence against women, Australia says no!

Want to protect your child on the internet? Simple, parents should monitor what they're doing! As a tax payer and an expecting father, I'm disgusted that the government is wasting money on such a stupid idea when the money can be better spent in so many other places! The only consolation I have is that I didn't vote for KRudd, and this stupidity is going to ensure I continue not to!

Annwar

10 Dec 2008 3:58pm

It's as simple as this... I don't want mandatory filtering, none of my family want mandoatory filtering and no-one I have ever conversed with (IRL or online) want mandatory filtering. I must admit I don't really hang out with Christian fundamentalists or do-gooder crusaders very much though. I look forward to the net filter destroying the digital medium in Australia and I am stocking up on slates and chisels as I type... YABBA DABBA DOO!

russell

10 Dec 2008 4:03pm

Selling Telstra as a single entity was stupid.

The customer services side could have been sold, but the national infrastructure should have remained government controlled.

Like water pipes and roads, only one set of phone lines exists in streets and homes. This does not lend itself to being duplicated by startup phone companies. Therefore, the hardware needs to be leased from a central provider such as Telstra. Therefore, Telstra should be *only* a wholesaler, to avoid conflicts of interest.

Only with a central government provider, can communications improvements be rolled out in a coordinated fashion nationally.

As it is now, the previous corrupt government has led Australia down the Stupid American Way of privatization and fragmentation.

Now all Telstra does is bicker about "shareholder value" instead of doing any real work.

When will Australia polititions learn to stop following the Stupid Yanks and think for themselves?

bj

10 Dec 2008 4:05pm

This is totally against freedom of speech.A parent is responsible for teaching their children Internet safety.I can not understand how a person who did not even know what a mac address is could understand the working of the Internet.Any self respecting computer savy tean ager could get through the fire wall fairly quickly.School in nsw have a portal which blocks out sites such as naked penguin but shows a picture of a naked women when water is typed in.Some sites are blocked when kids use it for research to much The classic of unsafe Internet the kids have to use their full and schools name as there email address.

J_Doug

10 Dec 2008 4:06pm

I would like to add my name to the many that oppose ISP level filtering. The internet gives us the chance to perfectly share knowledge and culture. Filtering this will not stop 'unwanted' content or the people who demand it. Let families and individuals make their own decisions, we have been doing it successfully for years.

Taipan

10 Dec 2008 4:13pm

It's about ignorance and a lazy culture which does not wish to be held accountable for their (in)actions. Whilst I agree that there are inappropriate (in my view) things on the net, I believe that inappropriate actions are for the criminal code. I note that the spin-doctors are trying to go for the quick byte by using the 'think of the children' argument, however the internet has and will always be about information. Perhaps the harder questions that need to be addressed are: 1. How do we embrace the technology and educate people to sift the garbage from the gold and manage/acquire their information properly; and 2. Rather than censoring discussion, enabling it. The Second point means that whilst I have firm views about many issues out there, I am surely prepared to discuss them with people and take their views on board. However an overarching information strategy needs to be thought out. For Example, I am very cautious of criticising the 'extreme' (read crazy misinformed and ignorant) views expressed over the internet/media as a result of the draconian libel/slander legislation within this country and the ability for the large corporations to use their corporate powers in civil court, should they feel that their interests (profits?) are threatened. I am sure that this would make us a much smarter country and perhaps would be a better policy. I beg you that rather than going for an unimplementable costly, but useless filter, you actually embrace the 'education revolution' that you promised at the last election and actually put in the hard yards.

Les

10 Dec 2008 4:16pm

Perhaps this blog should be censored

John

10 Dec 2008 4:17pm

What a waste of money, the money would be better spent on federal police funding to track down people who view child porn and busting them.

cometfish

10 Dec 2008 4:19pm

I would like to express my view that censoring the internet is a poor idea. What happened to our 'world-class broadband' from Labor? We seem to be going backwards now, as a filter will slow down everyone's internet access.

Cynic Al

10 Dec 2008 4:26pm

Cynically, given the strong oppositition to this internet filtering idea, most of which has been based on factual assesments of its (lack of) value or efficacy, it would appear that the 'initiative' is driven by another agenda.

What could that be?

I'm guessing it is more about obtaining support from independant senators for other, unrelated proposals than it is about filtering or 'protecting the children'.

Disgruntled Labour Supporter

10 Dec 2008 4:30pm

When I voted for Labour, I had no idea they would do something like this. It makes me sick to think that I may have contributed (via my vote) to censorship and central planning controls. I also find it most disturbing that they are trying to associate the filter with helping to combat child pornography - they are belittling what is a very serious issue because I believe they know full well that the filter will not work to that aim.

James

10 Dec 2008 4:40pm

Those that wish to download the content that this filter is supposed to block will still have the ability to do so. It will just drive it more underground thus making it harder for the authorities to track it. If the main point of this filter is so easily circumnavigated then why do this? Is it to placate all the would-be moral crusaders? What happens if a future ultra conservative government suddenly wants to add gay health websites, information on abortion and other "morally questionable" information to the blacklist? Do we want to live in a country that breeds ignorance? This is a slippery slope because there will ALWAYS be those wanting to use it to push their personal/political/religious/moral agenda on the rest of Australia.

Ash

10 Dec 2008 4:49pm

I have read that a number of Australia's ISPs have said that the internet filter will not work. Telstra have refused to be involved in the tests and iiNet have agreed to be involved simply to prove to the Government that it will not work. Where is Senator Conroy getting his advice from? Or does the Government know that it will not work but are going though the motions so that they can say to the fundamentalist Christians that they tried? In this political process how much of our money will be wasted? How much attention will this filter project receive at the expensive of worthwhile projects like faster broadband and better communications in rural areas?

cometfish

10 Dec 2008 5:03pm

What better example of 'filtering is slow' than this blog? The comments are 5 hours behind. I hope the person reading them all before allowing them is keeping a tally on for and against :)

FDB

10 Dec 2008 5:06pm

Great idea Lindsay et al - it's gratifying that my own federal member is doing this, and (it appears) doing it with a long view of the real benefits. As opposed to just-another-regurgitated-presser; we've got Fairfax and News for that, haven't we?

Concrete-ish suggestion: >whatever your moderation policy (yes I've read it), make your application of it consistent and transparent. It will be difficult, but the most important thing to get right is creating space for dialogue. This means emplying someone to do the job who has extensive experience as a participant in blogdom at least, or ideally an administrator. Whimsical-ish suggestion: >Try for a light tone sometimes. Save your gravitas for situations that deserve it, and make the thing fun to read. Don't get stuck in the rut of presenting a consistent "voice" - there's room for dry policy announcements, impassioned polemics, captioned pictures of cats, angry swipes, whatever. I'll be paying attention.

Tahj Minniecon

10 Dec 2008 4:21pm

I can't see the blog.

Dave

10 Dec 2008 4:21pm

Well done with setting up a public consultation blog. It's only a start, but its a start never the less. I only hope that the feedback gathered here will get to the communications minister.

Parent from Australia

10 Dec 2008 4:25pm

I care enough about my kids to be pro-active in their development so having someone filter internet content will only be detrimental to myself and my family. As I am involved in their activities, I find it much better for their development to encounter and learn rather than shelter. Filtering the internet is akin to lepper colonies. Hiding the problem away does not solve it.

madduff

10 Dec 2008 4:25pm

1. Drop the mandatory internet filter. All filters should be opt-in and the filtered list should be made public online. 2. Split Telstra up. They do not deserve to build the NBN. 3. Why do we have R18+ and X18+ movie ratings, but none in the media of computer games? The type of media the content is in should have no bearing on its classification.

Mick

10 Dec 2008 4:26pm

I live on my own, I am an adult. I should be able to look at anything I like on the Internet and make my own decisions. How dare some government minister who has no clue in how the internet works decide what I can and can't look at as an adult and my connection is not used by any children, why should it be filtered?? If I had kids in my home I would do the job as a parent and monitor what my kids looked at using one of the many internet filters available for home use, even Windows Vista and MacOSX Leopard come with filters built in. This is Australia, a free country, not China or Iran! I now know why I always have and will vote Liberal. This is a joke and a policy that was done just to satisfy the Christian minority that want to lay the blame on the internet for their lack of basic parenting... remember on the internet Porn never ever just pops up out of nowhere, you have to be deliberately looking for it. Maybe look else where that if children are looking at porn on the internet then introduce better sex ed in schools so they don't have to learn on their own.

Tony khairy

10 Dec 2008 4:28pm

Dear Sir,, Thank you for your assistance in bringing my voice to the public arena. I go one step further and ask you to please call a poll on the Internet to see how much this is really being supported out there. Please do whatever it takes to filter this smut business away from our children for a better future. We live in a free country but many seem to forget that our freedom is built around responsibilities and since many parents and individuals don�t understand this word, the Government of the day rightly has the option to intervene. Those sick individuals or group of individuals who watch this filth and those who support the right to watch it are the one and the same, they have sick minds it has nothing to do with freedom of choice. Psychologically you can become accustom to certain visual, auditory or verbal garbage if you involve yourself in it enough, internet sexual addiction is becoming a reality, it is researched and often documented in recent mainstream psychological studies, those who are involved in it has a persona that seems to think it is right to use and abuse sexually explicit materials, unlike the real world on the internet there is no objection to giving or receiving this form of material so why not abuse it. For those who object to censorship I really believe there is an ulterior motive for their objection. Censorship is needed for the Internet on a global scale not just in Australia it is very very refreshing to see Australia lead the world once again in such a way. Censorship applied in television in advertising in sales in promotion and in many public domains the only open media that has no form of global censorship is the Internet. Not so long ago and for whatever reasons an Internet consortium involving the previous government also rejected the creation of a new domain name for sexually immoral and perverted individuals, that was a good option to leave all sexually explicit materials in certain types of domain ie (sex.au) for example, it made perfect sense then. Leaving it to individuals is just a joke it is very clear when you read some of the posts here that some individuals don�t understand the concept of child protection, you don�t have to have a child to protect a child. Democracy for some means I can behave in whatever immoral way and no one can to tell me I am wrong. We must go to whatever length and do whatever it takes to protect our future (The Children), Censorship is needed right now in whatever shape if it needs tweaking in future that is fine but you cant watch a cancerous tumour growing in your body and take a local shot of anastatic to ease the pain, this is what is happing with (individual filtering) it does not work we need a radical method such as this or similar. Thank you very much once again for your actions and for reading my opinion, which many share but don�t voice.

FDB

10 Dec 2008 4:29pm

Further to my last comment (and of obvious relevance!) >INSIST on relevance in comments. This post, for example, clearly does not invite comments on ISP filtering. You've got to resist the blog becoming just another forum for criticising the Government. It should be that, but on an issue-by-issue basis; otherwise what chance is there of anything genuinely new and interesting being heard above the din? Commenters who persist in failing on this score should be banned after appropriate warning. >Anonymous posts (as opposed to comments) are anathema to blogging - e.g. your other post at the moment by "The Digital Economy Team". Nobody expects Lindsay or Steven to create all the content - by all means employ staffers to write posts, but give the poor dears an identity we can engage with, that is stable over time.

bj

10 Dec 2008 4:32pm

If you honestly think a filter is going to block out pedophile you have rocks in your head.educating children on the dangers of the Internet is the only sane way to go.Internet filters don't work properly look at the school portals. In case you have forgotten this not a dictator ship i think. My son goes on game site through his xbox he has random friends that could be any age .Am i worried?No. Because he knows that you never give personal details or agree to meet any one.He has been taught the basic safety rules of the Internet .That is a parents job

Dags

10 Dec 2008 4:35pm

I cannot believe you are even considering this plan to bring in censorship of Australian Internet that will bring us inline with Iran, Saudi Arabia and China.

The main facts are as follows!

It will waste well over 100 Miliion of our taxes!
It will NOT work and will be easily circumvented by any 13 year old.
It will slow our already slow internet.
It will force ISPs to increase fees.
It is the beginning of a very slippery slope towards a Police state.
It of course had Nothing to do with protecting children! Concerned parents have FREE programs available NOW to do this on their home computers.

The Labor party were NOT given a mandate to introduce such censorship. I hope you will take the time to investigate this for yourself? Sadly most Labor senators are sending a form letter in reply to questions sent to them, containing the same rubbish and blatant lies spoken by Sen Conroy in the Senate. I attach some URLs for you.

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442

http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/cash-floods-in-for-anticensorship-protests/2008/12/05/1228257282965.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/childrens-welfare-groups-slam-net-filters/2008/11/28/1227491813497.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/net-censorship-plan-backlash/2008/11/11/1226318639085.html

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1099785

I thank you for this opportunity to voice my concerns and look forward to your reply. I can assure you that IF this censorship comes to pass, I and my family will never vote Labor again.

R

10 Dec 2008 4:36pm

Yet another example of the government not trusting its people. Do you think everyone with an internet connection secretly lusts for child pornograhpy? The web is such a small percentage of traffic that even a completely effective filter will not hinder those who wish to break the law. And how long until the RIAA and MPAA cousins here come knocking at your door with bags of cash?

Stuart French

10 Dec 2008 4:42pm

Congratulations! I was sad to see a blog without any comments (which isn't a blog), but today I find a thriving conversation! Brilliant. I expect the flow will slow somewhat as you show that you are listening. I look forward to seeing how this technology can be used in the Australian culture to allow the government access to the many great minds in corporate, academic, religious and secular society. A great first step.

Tony khairy

10 Dec 2008 7:40pm

Robin Chow

10 Dec 2008 7:41pm

I think most people have already said this, but then again, you don't seem to be listening, so here's another voice. This Internet filtering initiative will be a useless piece of junk that doesn't solve the issue of child pornography in any way whatsoever, or any other real issue. It'll only serve to slow down our Internet connections, put lots of money into equipment we don't need, and allow unrestricted blacklisting and censorship of whatever website -you- think is inappropriate. The real sad bit about this though is everyone is telling you how unrealistic and useless this filtering will be, but you are still trying to push ahead with it. Why!?

Marcin

10 Dec 2008 7:43pm

Hey everyone, Just wanted to thank the government for launching this blog. I think it's a great step in the right direction and I'd like to express my opinions on why I think a mandatory filter is absolutely wrong. I do agree children need protection but instead of implementing a mandatory filter, costing tax payers millions of dollars. We should be looking at educating parents about the current issues facing young children browsing the internet and possible solutions to those problems. Parents should be educated about things such as: - Software Filters (Browsers, Addons). - ISP Level Filters. - Social Networks. - Instant Messengers. - Common internet terms and technologies. - And potential problems that children could run into online. A parent should have at least some idea on how the internet works. If their children are young enough. They should know what websites and internet services their children use. If their children won't tell them, they should know at least how to check a browsers history. A mandatory filter threatens all that the Internet is about. Free access to information for all. It allows small lobby groups to decide what the majority should have access too. (Christian lobby groups, Anti Abortion Right Groups, Etc) All while at the same time having little to no effect on actual predators that will do anything to trade in illicit material. Through such methods as encrypted networks, VPNs and whatever other technologies and means that may be out there. With all the technologies and methods out there, how much would a mandatory filter have to block to be actually effective? Onto a bit of a different point.. With the National Broadband Network coming online in the next few years. I can't believe the Opposition hasn't picked the government up on a pretty important point. We're told most Internet filters slow access by a certain margin. Some even slow the internet by a whopping 87%. By combining the National Broadband Network with a mandatory filter. Wouldn't we be getting a lemon? What would the real speeds be of our National Broadband Network with a mandatory filter? With everything taken under consideration. Is a mandatory internet filter a good idea? Several million dollars for something that has the potential to slow down our future NBN, limit access to some of the best rich content material and block legitimate content? (Ala, Britains watch group preventing anonymous access to Wikipedia) Stephen, spend the money in a better way. Educate the parents, pay a reward to people who help bring down online predators and invest in the NBN. ..Oh I hope to see a lot of you people at the anti mandatory filter rallies over the weekend. :) - Marcin

fifers

10 Dec 2008 7:45pm

This is a bit confusing, given that Minister Tanner is consulting through the Blog, and yet that this is hosted on DBCDE's website? Perhaps explain that Minister Tanner is minister of Finance and Deregulation?

concerned

10 Dec 2008 5:06pm

Hi Minister Tanner, nice blog! In my opinion, our government should not play the role of parents. Government should not censor whatever it deems inappropriate because its simply not their job, instead it should comment on the appropriateness of certain materials and public related information to educate the general public. It is up to the general public to decide what material is right or wrong for themselves and for their children. Education is the key here because parents are expected to make informed decision on choosing materials suitable for their children. However, education is also the harder way to fix the problem because it involves committing more time and resources. I can understand that many politicians who only care about votes do not like undertaking such projects. These politicians prefer quick doses of pain killers to pretend that they are fixing the problem. Policing information on the internet is remarkably similar to banning firearms, "if you outlaw the guns, only the outlaws would have guns." Blocking access to inappropriate web sites do not stop the determined persons (the "outlaws") to gain access to and distribute inappropriate contents. Blocking web sites may make the problem less visible, but it does not make the problem go away.

Evan Weston

10 Dec 2008 5:09pm

Welcome to 1984. Australias internet infrastructure is a joke compared to most other developed nations and instead of fix it this is the solution we get. No matter how bad the Howard government was at least they didn't try and pull this communist rubbish. Needless to say I will never vote labor again if this thing goes ahead.

Rich

10 Dec 2008 5:12pm

The totalitarian regime in mainland China have an internet filter to block from it citizens anything not to the liking of the regime. It by a large measure is successful only because of the thousands employed to maintain it (good for employment). However I have occasion to communicate with some of those citizens via online means that the net provides and it does not stop me from passing on to them anything I like. Perhaps the only way to get an effective filter is to get the G20 together and develop a world wide one. That would surely spur economic activity to an extent that would bring the world out of the currently slump.

Moses @ BeerandSport.net

10 Dec 2008 5:13pm

I'm glad to see the government embracing Web 2.0, what's next, RSS Syndication? I am concerned that my favourite government blog may be blocked as "unwanted" by Conroy's Firewall comes thus forcing me to visit this site through a firewall. That'll add literally seconds to the time it takes to load.

Simon

10 Dec 2008 5:14pm

So if a child circumvents the filter and views unsavory material, the parents of said child can hold the government accountable and sue them for child endangerment? I really like this idea :)

no filter thank you parent of 5

10 Dec 2008 5:18pm

I am just waiting For Senator Conroy to announce the "boiling the ocean" plan...

cupcake

10 Dec 2008 5:19pm

The filter will only block one type of Internet protocol, HTTP. It is common knowledge in the IT industry that 99% of illegal media is obtained via file sharing networks such as P2P (peer to peer), Bittorrent and FTP. Guaranteed within 5 minutes of searching Google, Internet users will be armed with instructions on how to get around the filter.

I am a network engineer, so deal with firewalls/blocklists etc every day. Its a nightmare due to the false positives.

Besides, taxpayers already funded a FREE filter available for EVERYONE to download.

People need to learn how to parent effectively. You wouldn't let your child play on a busy road without supervision, so why let them on the internet?

Mr Angry

10 Dec 2008 5:23pm

I will advise my clients not to use Australia as an internet feed as it is filtered. This will result in job losses and Australia no longer being a choice for Asia Pacific HQs.

All Australian offices will eventually VPN to say Singapore for thier internet feed. This is how we currently avoid the Chinese filter. Have your Shanghai office VPN to Sydney to get the internet feed. This simply turns companies away from Australia and will cost jobs.

puredistortion

10 Dec 2008 5:25pm

Great so instead of looking at my email I sent you about my outrage you have been adding a blog to the internet. GREAT this shows Mr Conroy that you rae actually able to use a computer not just talk about legislation that affects every single computer in Australia.

You know this relieves me greatly as my concerns began when you presented ideas for a flawed internet filtering system. Then my fears were furthered when you... even your staff are unable to reply to an email.

I am so glad you are Blogging now as now I can see that you know what a computer is and how to use one and the internet filter is just a way for the government to further control what information is appropriate (what ever the motivation) for us to see to have further control over the people.

The quest for power and control over people is so much easier to understand than someone with no clue about technology having you cabniet position.

Panther

10 Dec 2008 5:29pm

A mandatory, ISP based filter will not make the Internet a safe place for children. It is not possible to block all inappropriate content, there is too much and it is too fluid.

The best way to protect children is to make sure they are supervised when they are online. This supervision should be at the same level that they are supervised with any other activity. Treat the Internet like your swimming pool.

gollstar

10 Dec 2008 5:32pm

Look this silly talk of blocking the internet has to stop,How can any australian government say they are going to control what we read and what we cant are you going to block jeff rense/alex jones like england, are you going to block youtube as well are you going to bring out a nazi/soviet style state run media thats the only media.

I am very stressed at the power you are assuming.Control of the internet is control of the sheeple control of the sheeple is limitless power that is what you seek, i know my history very very well,howard offered every one a free filter and guess what the people didnt byte so now your going force people who enjoy there freedom to accept your censor on lies and misleading infomation you in the labour party should all be ashamed of yourself FOR WE ARE YOUNG AND FREE dont forget it

Jason B

10 Dec 2008 5:33pm

Just add my vote against internet filtering [and any govt. who imposes it] for all the reasons well documented recently. The most despicable action of Conroy and friends is hiding behind the chosen smokescreen of 'It's all about child pornography!' when it's all about censorship and social control.

These are the tactics of the Howard and Bush govts., to make the public swallow the destruction of civil and human rights in the name of 'security'. Just withdraw quietly Conroy - you must have got the message by now that the plan won't work, is undesirable and won't have any effect on what you pretend it is attacking.

The police know what they are doing [by using the internet actually!] in tracking and tracing the users and perpetrators of child porn - let them get on with it and leave everyone else to go about their internet use without a nanny govenments hindrance.

Dean C

10 Dec 2008 5:43pm

I notice that the politely written post I submitted last night at 7:00pm has not appeared on this blog at all.

I suggested that Senator Conroy be moved to a more appropriate portfolio that he can demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of.

To put it succinctly - a post that was critical of the current federal government and one its ministers has been censored.

You've lost my vote.
You've lost my wife's vote.

There is no room for censorship or those who support it in this country.

Colin

10 Dec 2008 5:45pm

Internet filtering - a waste of resources for all the reasons others in this blog have mentioned. Stephen Covey and his Principled Centred Leadership needs to come to the fore. You do not, nor can you solve social problems with technology. Technology is always an enabling tool, but implemented from flawed principles it becomes an unproductive and crippling mechanism that will harm more than it protects.

Digital Economy - no such thing in my book. We have the economy, and you have people that form communities that influence the economy with a range of mechanisms and tools, and one such tool happens to be electronic communications pipes and systems that data and knowledge get transferred by at increasing speeds.

If Australia is to become the nation built on knowledge then it needs a digital network that in order of importance is: - reliable
- accessible
- fast
- publically owned

This network then needs to be available to enterprises who pay the same price to access it who then build value adding services such as online business applications, entertainment offerings, education etc. It is pointless having a national network that is also owned by a service provider who does not equitably wholesale price access to that network.

The free market economy and the greed of corporations makes such a model unworkable. The priority will always be to the shareholders and the share price. With public ownership of the network this problem disappears.

Of course, the government must not get in its mind that a national broadband network once implemented is "mission accomplished". The network will require continual upgrading and maintenance, and no doubt yet to be invented technologies will supplant current ideas of what a national network should be capable of achieving.

jason

10 Dec 2008 5:46pm

Parents need to be responsible for their children when online through supervision or private filtering programs such as net nanny.

Please dont wast millions of our tax payers money making the rest of us suffer.

Honestly Next election ill be voting for which ever political party promises to never filter our internet.

I work in IT, I know that this will not work. The people who want to get around it will, and everyone else will just get annoyed.

Please see reason and drop this rediculous waste of money.

The only people who think this is a good idea are the ones who do not understand the technology.

Anaesthetic

10 Dec 2008 5:47pm

Just another anti-internet filter comment to add to the masses, hoping that sheer volume will prevent the filter from being implemented.

Nothing to ad that hasn't been said, spend the money instead on catching the criminals and the onus for filtering the net should be on parents.

gollstar

10 Dec 2008 5:15pm

Look this silly talk of blocking the internet has to stop,How can any australian government say they are going to control what we read and what we cant are you going to block jeff rense/alex jones like england, are you going to block youtube as well are you going to bring out a nazi/soviet style state run media thats the only media. I am very stressed at the power you are assuming.Control of the internet is control of the sheeple control of the sheeple is limitless power that is what you seek, i know my history very very well,howard offered every one a free filter and guess what the people didnt byte so now your going force people who enjoy there freedom to accept your censor on lies and misleading infomation you in the labour party should all be ashamed of yourself FOR WE ARE YOUNG AND FREE dont forget it

Andrew

10 Dec 2008 5:24pm

"hear your thoughts on how we should interact with you online."

Please, talk to the folks with at www.openaustralia.org. Make the actual raw output of government (Hansard, Bills before the house, video/audio of sessions, members' voting records in parliament, committees' reports, Register of Members' Interests, etc etc) are readily and freely accessible online in open formats.

In short: use the internet as way to make goverment as accessible and transparent as possible.

Allow the community to innovate with the raw data, rather than trying to anticipate all the ways we want to consume the data.

est

10 Dec 2008 5:28pm

Aah, www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/industry_development/digital_economy/future_directions_blog - it has such a ring to it. The blog URL is unwieldly, the layout is completely abysmal and as you already seem to have your hearts set on both the ineffectual filter system and the monopoly-creating version of the broadband plan I doubt you will take anything said in the comments of these entries to heart one iota.

Stephen

10 Dec 2008 5:29pm

Like the majority of others who've posted on this blog, I also oppose the concept of mandatory ISP filtering. I'm not going to go through all the reasons why it's a bad idea because many others on this blog have already gone through the details. But considering the recent debacle in the UK with regards to censoring Wikipedia, mandatory ISP filtering will create more problems in terms of what content filtered, overall download speeds and the cost to the consumer (not to mention the Government come election time). The general reception to this idea (which is cold) should give this Government department a clue that this filtering regime won't work and it should be scrapped. I do agree more needs to be done to protect children online, but a giant blanket that affects adults like myself is NOT the solution. It's time to listen to the majority and scrap the idea of mandatory filtering, an OPT-IN system in collaboration with ISPs would be better. (P.S. I applaud the decision of setting up these blogs so everyday folk can add their comments and opinions, time to take notice Minister).

china

10 Dec 2008 5:48pm

well might as well move to China, Same internet and a huge saving on postage, glad i payed the extra for my router with 8 vpn pipes !! Bring on the Unfiltered Internet Blackmarket !! ROFL

Jake

10 Dec 2008 5:54pm

Add me to the list of people who are AGAINST the mandatory filtering. I have signed every petition I can find to try and stop this nonsense.

Tim

10 Dec 2008 5:55pm

Great way to push a policy through. Knowing that you can't get the public to agree to an internet filter intended to curb illegal downloads in a ham-fisted fashion and block access to sites deemed "undesirable" not by the public, but by a small group of cherry-picked like-minded conservatives. All knowing the public would never agree to give up their right to total freedom of speech on the web, never agree to the government banning access to sites deemed "obscene" by the prurient media ratings boards, you instead cry "CHILD MOLESTERS! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" It's cheap, it's transparent, and it's disgusting. You could be taking real measures against child sex offenders by putting this money into the appropriate sectors of the police force. You could be helping the growth of the Australian software industry by lobbying local companies to produce user-end filters for retail sale. Instead you waste millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars on a project that will drag us even further behind the rest of the world in internet speeds, which in turn will only further decrease our ability to be part of the global digital marketplace. Your policy runs completely contrary to your vocation, Minister.

uz3r

10 Dec 2008 5:56pm

Stephen Conroy, I simply want the option to opt out of this silly, ill thoughtout filtering ISP scheme.

Implement whatever you deem fit, but I wont no part of it.

Jinjirrie

10 Dec 2008 5:58pm

Whew! up to 413 responses in 1 day, and the majority are anti-net censorship - very telling. I've been told that some legit posts haven't been published here - if anyone thinks they have been moderated unfairly, please twitter me @Jinjirrie

funkygorilla

10 Dec 2008 6:07pm

I am going to try and be as balanced as I can on this one!
1. Internet filtering - this just won't work. Those that want to find their way around it will without any problems. This means the only people it will actually effect are genuine people who get incorrect false positives.
2. NBN - Unfortunately I think you have painted yourself into a corner with this one. Insisting on fttn does not make sense in the bush, you would have been better to set a minimum speed requirement. The other problem is that you speed you are trying to achieve will be totally inadequate within the 5 year period you have set for the project. I would consider myself an early adoptor and I know that I have a speed similar to this now, and it feels slow. This sort of makes me think I am favouring the Telstra proposal, but without structural separation this would be a disaster. We are already far behind on speed and accessibility compared with other first world countries. Telstra would price to 'maximise value' to their shareholders as they should, but this will mean high price, low adoption, and we fall even further behind.

Overall advice. Forget internet filtering and rethink the nbn I'm afraid.

no filter thank you parent of 5

10 Dec 2008 6:09pm

I am just waiting For Senator Conroy to announce the "boiling the ocean" plan...

Tony Searl

10 Dec 2008 6:11pm

You asked, you posted and now you are receiving valuable, albeit repititious and predictable, feedback. That does not concern me, its what you now do in response to this overwhelming vote of "no clean feed"

shirro

10 Dec 2008 6:14pm

Dear Minister Tanner and ALP leadership, When I voted ALP I was voting for a progressive party after the blight of Howard social conservatism. With respect, Senator Conroy is not the right man to be in charge of Communications at this time. Perhaps he might be very good in another portfolio. What we need is a social progressive who understands the Internet and is able to take a consultative approach. Senator Conroy seems to have lost the confidence of most stakeholders in the Internet. Someone like Kate Lundy would be a very popular choice with Internet users.

Shaun

10 Dec 2008 6:16pm

Are there going to be government LOLcats?

Andrew

10 Dec 2008 6:17pm

i am old enough to decide for myself what is appropriate and do not consent to someone else viewing websites on my behalf and deciding that I cannot. We do not live in china and will vote the government of the day out of office if they do listen to me and the hundreds and thousands of others. Lets not beat around the proverbial bush, this censorship plan is intended for certain special interest groups to deny others access to content they have a personal disagreement with. You were very smart enough to throw up the issue of child porn from the very beginning. This will only fool most people for a short period of time before they relies what you really are up to. It does make any reasoned debate about censorship difficult but not impossible, without it being made to seem that I am somehow are pro child porn. I should not have to state that I find child porn reprehensible, it is a given. And I strongly refute the implication. We are standing at the precipice from living in a free democratic country and the government does not have a mandate to turn this country into a totalitarian dictatorship, The last election was a close one. I don't think it will be close this time, good luck with your new job after the next election. I will not make the mistake of voting labour again and will urge others who value freedom to do the same.

why

10 Dec 2008 6:18pm

The Minister is not listening to the industry, believing instead that politically, this is a good thing to do. Whether it works or not, all he cares about his himself,

NOTOCENSORSHIP

10 Dec 2008 6:22pm

As a 25 year old who has spent much of my life on the internet (since i was 14) I have to say this proposed filtering of the internet is a big waste of money, and all in all will get us -NOWHERE-!! If people want something bad enough they will always find ways to get it. I never had a problem with porn when i was a kid, Never stumbled accross anything because I never even bothered to look! I live on my own now so I dont even have to worry about other kids stumbling accross anything.

The ecconomy of the world is at an all time low and it is only going to get worse... Put your money into something worth wile, and DONT censor the internet.

JBB

10 Dec 2008 6:23pm

Great, one more thing that the government wants to 'nanny' Australians about - web filters. You must be joking! Do you think we're a bunch of child pornographers? Or is it that you think Australians have no self-control? Better yet you want to take control of our access to sites like countries such as China and North Korea. Give us a break and a bit of credit please.

raysydney

10 Dec 2008 5:17pm

Why does the government continue to go ahead with these web filter trials? It's obvious to any technical person that filtering out the type of material the government is suggesting is a technical impossibility. Most of this type of garbage being traded amongst people is not done on public websites, but rather in private irc chat rooms, bulletin boards, p2p sites etc.. and none of this will (or even can) be filtered. Not to mention web proxies and VPNs which will get around the filters even for any publicly available web material. This policy will NOT AFFECT THE DISTRIBUTION OF PEDOPHILE MATERIAL, but at the same time provide an opportunity for this government or any future government to restrict freedom of speech, or anything else the government deems "morally inappropriate". No court orders or legislation required. No recourse. It WONT remove legitimately bad material. It WILL slow down the internet. It WILL cost a lot of money. It WILL ensure that pedophiles and the like use proxies or VPNs which will make it even harder for law enforcement to find them. It WILL inadvertently block legitimate sites. The government is going ahead with this trial purely to save face. There seems to be a pattern of this government "saving face" in a number of other issues as well. All at the expense of the taxpayer, and potential at the expense of our freedom and liberties.

matteovinci

10 Dec 2008 7:21pm

to have something inplace without the end user being able to opt-out is no different to being a cowardly spammer sending people unsolicited email or letters to which they can not unsubscribe from you are doing well at putting the image of criminal activity as the definition of government

Anthony Voevodin

10 Dec 2008 5:49pm

If the Government truly wants to stamp out illegal activity as it suggests, then it should be pouring its efforts into law enforcement and education and encouraging people to be responsible with their children and partake in teaching kids how to decipher information not just taking information away from them. However history shows that this is a recurring practice, like witch hunts and communist scare mongering, from days gone by. It's not that the government can't see that this is a flawed idea, they know its a flawed idea, but that�s not the point, the point is that they count on everyone�s reluctance to be seen defending illegal activity, using a "you're with us or against us" mentality to accomplish what they are actually trying to do, which is further intrude on people and their choices. Once the mechanism is in place to filter information before we know we have lost the choice to examine it then we are in a blindfolded looping pattern of deception. Do not think that this can�t happen to us, that�s an easy mistake to make. This is not the desired behaviour of our Australian government, Don't insult our intelligence, do the job you are paid to do in the manner you are paid to do it, Public servants are called public servants for a reason, they are supposed to serve the public not dictate and railroad them. Show us you sincerity or show us your hypocrisy. But call it what it is. This is my opinion based on the information I have gathered and deciphered throughout my life. Anthony Voevodin

Steele Clifton-Berry

10 Dec 2008 5:53pm

Let me put this as bluntly as possible: if this Internet censorship scheme goes forward, I will convince every friend I know and stranger I meet to vote for either the Greens or Liberals instead of Labour. On a lighter note, I encourage you to completely avoid Telstra for the NBN. They have repeatedly shown they care only about money and protecting their monopoly. The NBN is for the Australian people, not to make fatcat shareholders rich. - Steele

The last free Australian

10 Dec 2008 7:23pm

This internet filtering business has to stop, the money would be far better spent on parks, or schools... scratch that, parks and schools are where pedophiles congregate. spend the money on PRISONS then but dont mess with my internet. i should have the freedom to break the law, and the good sense not to.

Thomo17

10 Dec 2008 6:03pm

I am glad to see so many people active and voicing their concerns over the proposed internet filter. As a Computer Security Analyst I can honestly say that the filter will do little, if at all anything, to stop child pornography on the internet. The sad fact is that individuals who collect/seek this information rarely use web based pages to access the content (which is where the filter plans to block content), rather they opt to use peer-to-peer programs and user groups(yes they still exist) to trade information. The money this government is wasting on a filter could be better used to fund online investigation, and to give the police more resources to respond to online problems sooner. The forensic labs in Australia are backed up with the amount of work hat is flowing through them, so an injection of funds could speed up the analysis of evidence and get criminals off the street sooner. To all those who feel this filter is necessary to protect children from obscene content, I would ask you why you are not supervising your children�s use of the internet. No filter is going to work 100%, and as such the best filter is a parent sitting with their child. Other than that I do not oppose a filter that you can opt out of, I do however oppose a mandatory filter which is being touted as a defence against child pornography, that quite frankly will never work.

shauno

10 Dec 2008 7:32pm

We can only hope that the Greens and Liberals block this tragic un Australian and undemocratic legislation through Parliament. This is some thing Stalinist USSR would have done and I can not believe this is happening in Australia. We should be an example to the rest of the world on free speech and uncensored access to the 21st century main route information. This issue is not about child pornography its about censorship brought on by political ideals and the need to control the population and its already happening since they have mentioned online gambling and euthanasia sites and mark my words there will be many other sites on that list and it will only grow. This is the sort of thing that starts and deservedly so I might ad a civil war. If this ridiculous legislation gets passed I will make every effort along with countless 1000's of others to publish details on how to circumvent this with Tor and VPN networks and encryption. Based only on the principal of the matter and any WW2 veteran that fought to uphold our freedom and liberty would agree. This will do untold amounts of damage to our reputation at the UN and will severely limit our ability to be critical of other countries human rights democratic issues etc.

William Song

10 Dec 2008 7:33pm

The internet censorship plan is ridiculous. i knew kevin rudd would make all these stupid communist policies. its against our rights and freedom. and it won't even work. getup.org.au has a petition with over 85, 000 signatures against this internet censorship policy. STOP THIS POLICY IMMEDIATELY.

Nicholas Walmsley

10 Dec 2008 6:15pm

I am very concerned by the compulsory internet filter project. A much more positive contribution from the Government would to establish an agency that would constantly review internet security and offer advice to citizens about current risks and strategies to deal with them. The agency could also test and rate commercially available internet filters, using a standards based approach. Let private companies develop internet filtering software. Let individual users decide if they want to use the filter software. The Government can help with things like formal ratings, advice and testing - but they should not go down the path of compulsory internet filtering.

Thought...

10 Dec 2008 6:28pm

THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T KNOW ENOUGH TO MEDDLE IN OUR INTAWEBS! /rage off The government already offers a filter for parents/schools etc for the protection of children on the internet. If this is not sufficient, surely if there is so much NEED for it in the eye's of the community, there would be a profit to be made. The public support private enterprise with dollars. Let the dollars speak in my opion. Have an ISP that offers clean feed, and see how far it doesn't get off the ground.

Unhappy

10 Dec 2008 7:37pm

Warning, your comment has been completely censored as deemed "unwanted" and "inappropriate" by the government.

JS

10 Dec 2008 6:31pm

this blog idea is great! it seems to be generating a lot of good topical one-way conversation. Are there plans to respond to anyones questions?

UnAustralianAction

10 Dec 2008 7:50pm

Seriously, I vote and I want this recorded as a no from me to this waste of time and money. Tell the truth about why this is going ahead because it is nothing about protecting children. But I guess now you will know my opinions as I email them and you read them? Time to go back to 1995 and install PGP? Or do we make all the internet traffic dissappear from port 80 as all out raffic will be tunnelled via VPN or SSH? Sigh....

Rob

10 Dec 2008 9:28pm

I wonder if Stephen Conroy knows what an SSH tunnel is, or the specifics of VPN. I wonder if Stephen Conroy really does think that the Clean Feed will do _anything_ to restrict the flow of child pornography in the country. I wonder if Stephen Conroy understands that any geeky highschool student would be able to bypass any possible filtering. I wonder if Stephen Conroy would want to censor private conversations if it weren't for the logistical problems. Rob.

Statler

10 Dec 2008 9:29pm

The sad thing about this is that as usual, the Rudd government is proceeding in what it thinks is best without listening to the opinions of people who actually know what is going on, or the general public. Who wants this, other than some of Kevin's church mates who want someone to remove the temptation from their computers? It won't even work. More importantly, what gives you the right to censor the media. It is evident that Rudd and his team are arrogant and rude. I had high hopes for this government but this is just another example of their pseudo intellectual conservatism. How about you have another whit paper, or green paper, or senate committee. You can happily commit to guaranteeing deposits and handing out $10B of our taxes on a whim, but everything else seems to take forever. Good job. Retards.

Owen

10 Dec 2008 9:32pm

I think it is about time the internet got professionally filtered by the government / ISPs. Mind you, what gets filtered, in my opinion, would need to be very carefully resolved between people and policy makers in order for it to work well.

I personally support two levels of filtering:
1) Mandatory filtering at a country level, like filtering illegal things like child pornography and the like, and
2) ISP filtering upon request, to the orders of individual customisation and individual preference

That way, there would not need to be so much country-wide filtering necessary so as to hold in jeapordy internet traffic speed, but people that want strict filtering can go to their ISP and request it.

But it needs to be professional, most filter software blocks too many pages to be usable.

Sarah Dwight

10 Dec 2008 9:32pm

One more voice to add to the masses. Conroy, please stop pandering to the Family First nutters. They won't still be in the senate after the next election when they lose their only seat (which you will remember they only won on the back of your traitorous preferences). You're making a permanent, long-term decision as a bribe to a party who won't be around for more than 3 or 4 years. How about you try representing us, the voters, instead of those loonies???

Bob

10 Dec 2008 9:38pm

As with most here, I don't support the filtering proposal as it stands now. Everyone who is against this filter is not a dirty person with a filthy mind as some put it, but a person concerned with the waste of our (taxpayer) money, and has the foresight to see that this proposal will not work. I'm fine with an Opt-in version of the filter if the government is set on spending our money, but this blanket filter will harm Australian business and spend money that could be much better spent elsewhere (education, health, law enforcement, infrastructure etc). Is it more important for a few people to die waiting for a bed in an underfunded hospital, then to have this ineffective filter which people will be able to get around? I know which one I would choose. How about you Sen. Conroy?

Jack

10 Dec 2008 9:39pm

I don't know too much about the mechanics of filtering or how this slows the internet down and I of course find child porn abhorrent like the vast majority of people. Those who are truly interested in the sordid subject will find ways and use networks so it is a matter of the many suffer for the few. Also it really seems controlling and big brother stuff to be controlling what sites people visit and it is surely up to them what sites they filter for their children,, and who chooses what other sites mustn't be visited. It all seems a bit like China to me and Chairman Rudd. I am not supportive of it at all. Leave censoring the net alone and find other ways of net policing.

Graeme

10 Dec 2008 9:41pm

What a farce! Spend billions on the NBN and throttle it to death with filtering.

Graeme

10 Dec 2008 9:42pm

What a farce! Spend billions on the NBN and throttle it to death with filtering.

Joel B1

10 Dec 2008 9:48pm

Why? This is an ill-conceived, poorly examined and retrograde idea. Any Government intervention that slows internet speeds is counter-productive. If the Rudd Labor government were serious about child protection they'ld support dedicated child-friendly ISPs. And for families who like to live in a free world they could provide free home-based software to counter the stated problems. This scheme smacks more of religious ideals than real world measures.

concernedcitizen

10 Dec 2008 9:50pm

This filtering proposal is an assault on the civil liberties of Australians. It should not proceed

Daniel

10 Dec 2008 9:54pm

I wrote this as a letter to the department, but never got any reply. So I'm posting it here instead: I would like to express my serious concern about the proposed mandatory Internet-wide filtering system that had been announced. What is of greatest concern to me are reports that the filter will inevitably slow down the internet, possibly by as much as 80%. I work online as an English teacher for a company based overseas and I am totally reliant on a high speed connection that has direct, unfiltered access to the website where I work, whose server is located in the USA. My company's policy is that it will not hire teachers living in countries where mandatory packet or Internet filtering is imposed (such as China, for example) due to the fact that there is too much risk of filtering degrading the teacher's connection to the extent that it is no longer possible to run an effective online classroom. After speaking to my manager, I have been told that if a web-wide internet filter, such as the one currently proposed, is introduced in Australia, I and two other Australian teachers will lose our jobs, due to technical concerns my company has about this technology. Apart from all the other technical concerns and concerns regarding free speech that seem to circle around this filter, I find it totally unacceptable that I will lose my job thanks to the government filtering the internet in this very inefficient and nightmarish manner. I have lived in and seen first-hand how internet filtering slows down and constantly disrupts the internet in general in China, often making it difficult to communicate and access websites which the government has no problems with, due to the inefficiency of the technology (apart from helping to suppress free speech, stop any public debate around and maintain mass ignorance of "unwanted material"). Considering the appalling and totally undemocratic levels of secrecy that surround this filtering scheme, I would like to know if you can guarantee that the internet will not be degraded or slowed down in any way if mandatory filtering is applied. If you cannot guarantee this, then I will seriously contemplate and plan to moving to New Zealand if this scheme goes ahead, this is the extent of my concern about keeping my job.

ADH

10 Dec 2008 9:54pm

Minister Please listen to the advice you are given on this blog. If we follow your logic for the internet filter why dont we limit all cars to 10km to reduce the road toll. It its the misuse of the motor vehicle that causes most accidents, injuries and death.

Jason

10 Dec 2008 10:00pm

Give up on the filter idea. A huge waste of money that will cripple the internet and in the end will be completely ineffectual at stopping hard-core paedo's. Focus on education and enforcement instead.

JP

10 Dec 2008 10:05pm

What digital economy? I do believe, speaking as an IT Professional with five years experience, that the proposed Internet Filter will destroy any chance of Australia having any sort of worthwhile digital economy.

Jon

10 Dec 2008 10:11pm

You've never heard of me, and if all goes well, you never will. I'm one of the couple of hundred people who design, build and deploy front line banking applications in Australia. I've worked in IT for over a decade now in a wide variety of positions across federal and state government and private enterprise. I have been involved in the internet in Australia since before the first commercial ISP's. What you've proposed makes no sense; will not work as you intend; and will do nothing to further the greater good of the Australian people. It will waste a lot of time and money. I understand that you stand to lose face by backing down from this. Given the noise the idiocy of this policy is generating across the on- and offline worlds I think that it has reached the point where continuing this course of action can do nothing to recover the respect you previously held and the unfulfilled promise of the new Labor government. I (and my entire family) have always voted Labor in the past. This fiasco is a betrayal, and an amazing triumph of ignorance over consultation and research. I will not be voting Labor again, this truly is a step too far.

Joel B1

10 Dec 2008 10:16pm

What's with the recent "excellent", "excellent initiative" comments? We're not talking about this blog people. We're talking about a dramatic reduction in internet-speed and subsequent reduction in business, commerce etc. Tanner get your staff off this blog. There is nothing "excellent" about this. Even my kids have a blog...

Pits

10 Dec 2008 10:17pm

Do not filter my traffic China and down with communism!

Drew

10 Dec 2008 10:19pm

I am all for methods of capturing or restricting these criminals, AS LONG AS it does not effect the speed of broadband in Australia (which is already behind other countries such as Japan and the USA). Civil freedoms are another matter, but lets deal with each disappointing problem one at a time. The entire approach has been done incorrectly, and this could well be the first major mistake that may lead to Labor's 2011 election loss. The american election proved that you have to have your national internet users on-side to win an election in this current technological era, and this filter is putting us ALL off-side. Trust me, you really don't want to upset the "YouTube, Digg, Facebook and MySpace generation". A blanket internet firewall will do exactly this. I'm a bit of a Labor devotee (my dad is a Labor party member), but more than that I am an internet devotee. I've basically decided that if you proceed with the policy of implementing a blanket firewall filter, I'm going to campaign and vote against federal Labor for the first time in my life in the next election. I imagine there are plenty more like me you will turn away from the party. And thus the problems are: 1) Slowing the current broadband speeds within our country, which are already disappointingly slow when compared to the US and Japan. This is going to set our country back 5 years in terms of technological advancement. 2) Senator Conroy's office's early letters and attempts to silence the industry critics of the plan, which amounts to nearly a dictatorship. What ever happened to the left aligned Labor movement? With the Democrats all but gone and Labor moving further to the right, the Greens are now the only party with leftist roots. Even the Libs have been sounding more left aligned than federal Labor, which is entirely disappointing. If the Libs ever dump their ex-Howard ministry, the lefties will start to give preference to Liberal rather than Labor. 3) Presumption of guilt - that all Australian internet users are guilty and therefore must be restricted. 4) Missing the source of the problem, which is the perpetuators. 5) False positives ie. legitimate websites that are blocked because no AI/filter is perfect. 6) Potential for civil rights abuse from future governments. Imagine a corrupt government is voted into power down the track, and starts blocking sites that are legal but do not match their own sinister agenda. 7) The inability to block other networking methods such as encrypted peer to peer. Criminals will simply move onto alternate methods to avoid the law. Better to catch the criminals than to scare them away making them that much harder to find.

Sam, Wollongong

10 Dec 2008 10:58pm

I just want to add my voice to the masses here and say that i hope you end this ill-advised plan for a national filter. I applaud your efforts to get a dialog going through your blog but it will only be effective if you genuinely listen to the public.

I condemn the filter plan mainly on basis of the snail's pace our connections will be reduced to and the money that it will cost the government but also on the ineffectivness of any filter and my disgust that any democratic government would attempt to censor the media in such a way. Please take my comment into consideration.

Perth Sysadmin

10 Dec 2008 10:57pm

I haven't even read anything in this article, I just found out that you guys were starting a blog, so I came here.

Look, I work as a systems administrator for a place that has to block certain things for children, which WE DO. it is not an easy task, and slows our network, so it definitely can't be done at ISP level.

Please reconsider this, every Labor voting nerd I know is going to be thinking differently about how they vote next time, this isn't the information revolution you promised us.

Rastko Petrovic

10 Dec 2008 10:42pm

In spite that closed testing had shown that internet filter doesn't work and I quote from Government own PDF ( chapter 1 page 15) Did you read it senator "�" Despite of a general nature of advances in current trial and previous trial most filters are not presently able to identify illegal content and content that may be regarded as inappropriate that is carried via majority of non-web protocols" Internet speed will greatly affected, even CEO of WEBSHIELD has admited that there is huge network implications but yet senator you refuse to see it. And the sot will go up because It will cost ISP in access of 100k or more it implements hardware required for testing purposes + cost for filtering software. filtering software, implementation, licensing, operational management all cost money. Businesses past these costs onto consumers.

3% of over blocking has huge impact. Let me put in in prospective for you A large ISP (Telstra, Optus) will have 10000 hits per second for http sites. 3% = 300. 3600 second in 1 hour x 300 =1080000 * false positives in 1 hour? x 24 hours. Get the picture It will cause for a family to lose their online business and all possession they worked hard for. Is government open to civil suit?

How does Senator Conroy proposing to do live trials without actual real people /customers?

The appropriate methods of protecting oneself and one's family from disturbing exercises of free speech are to block it out at the thresholds of our spheres of legitimate personal control � our households, our families, and so on. It cannot, should not, must not be made the responsibility of government to emplace limitations on the free exercise of speech. Those limits will ultimately be used against the citizenry in ways none of us on the right or left can imagine or accept... but then it may be too late. The testimony of history is unrelenting about this danger.

Minister listen to industry experts...You are not one.

John D

10 Dec 2008 10:41pm

I will add my voice to those in strong opposition to the government censoring the Internet. As a parent I am quite capable of looking after my own children and do not want the government making any ill informed attempts to determine what my children are exposed to. Your government will have lost one vote if this attempt at censorship goes ahead in ANY form.

Furball

10 Dec 2008 9:35pm

For the love of jebus! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!?!11!ELEVENTY!!

Scb

10 Dec 2008 9:42pm

It's such a pity that the Government's current focus is to shift the Internet security responsibilities off parents and guardians at home, to placing the responsibility on the general community and ISP's who have every right to join the unmoderated Internet community. There will be ratbags and deviates in any level of society; of course the Internet is no exception, and the only real hope of reducing the risk to our children (as this seems to be the primary reason for establishing such an unworkable filter) is at the Internet user level, with some firm parental guidance and robust software filtering in the home - in place.

Daniel

10 Dec 2008 9:46pm

I have another question about the filter. If the blacklist is supposed to be secret does that mean everytime we try and access a banned site we will get a deceitful �404 Error: This page does not exist� or �Time out Error� message like they do in China? This is how the Chinese government manages to keep its list secret - because you can never quite know for sure if the internet�s really busy, if the site is just down at its own end or if you�re blocked by the government filter there. Apparently, they even block and then unblock and then re-block sites with totally harmless content for no other reason than just to keep people guessing about what�s really blocked and what isn�t. I ask this, because if we get a big red screen saying something like �This site is on the ACMA blacklist of banned sites. You are not permitted to access it� then I�m guessing the secret blacklist would not be very secret for very long. Is the government here going to lie to us about the sites we�re trying to access like the Chinese government lies to its people when its filter is activated in order to keep what�s being filtered a secret? That would be less than honest.

Ted

10 Dec 2008 9:49pm

Just take a look at the UK's trials and you can see what a dismal failure the net-filter is.

Any Federal or State police investigator will tell you that child pornography is shared via peer to peer file sharing, emails and via the post, not through websites per se.

These filters will end up blocking many legitimate sites as well as considerably slowing down bandwidth, and speeds are already dismally slow in Australia.

Why should the entire country have to pay for the misdemeanors of a depraved few? Why can't the government allow the average person to make their own decisions rather than have have these decisions made for them by the government.

We don't need some Chinese style firewall.

Japius

11 Dec 2008 3:18pm

So you have a blog but you cannot respond to constituents via email only snail mail? You are supposed to be the broadband minister and yet the only real policy you have is one that broadband users do not want nor need, I can parent my own kids thank you very much I do not need you to do it for me. I am STILL awaiting a reply to an email I sent over a month ago?? Email too hard for you?

Scott of Cromer

10 Dec 2008 10:10pm

Mr Conroy, what gives you the idea that a half baked, easily circumvented, cumbersome and expensive band aid solution will protect children? My children have been taught about respect, personal responsibility, and a range of other skills relating to their personal safety and the internet. I guarantee you that they are safer un-supervised on the web as it is now, than any average child will be un-supervised on your filtered internet. The reason for this? Too many middle class parents in todays community who think that you bring children up by throwing money and posessions at them. Maybe these 'parents groups' should stop their bleating and inject a bit of personal effort into bringing their kids up instead of relying on schools and government to do it for them. No clean feed!

Brad Thomas

10 Dec 2008 10:08pm

I want to add my comment to stop this ridiculous filtering project - waste of time and money and there are so many ways to get around filter that a 10 year old could do. Stop trying to protect me from myself. I am an adult and can make my own decisions and on behalf of my children. back to the job of running the economy and stop trying to be my mum!

internet filter lacks concrete goals

10 Dec 2008 10:19pm

What problem is the internet filter solving? What other solutions have been considered? What are the measures for success?

If the problem is child pornography, an internet filter will only hinder the efforts of the police. Paedophiles have historically been very early adopters of technology, and will go more underground into encrypted peer-to-peer networks to evade the filter.

The filter will have a huge negative impact on the Australian digital economy. What business would host e-services in Australia, where customer access to their sites could be blocked by a filter false-positive? With cheap overseas colocation services available they will move overseas en-masse.

Please stop wasting my tax dollars on this proposal. If it goes ahead you will lose my vote.

etc.

11 Dec 2008 3:19pm

Please note that all comments are subject to moderation before publication. must every internet service mr. conroy deals with have a mandatory filter?

ThoughtCrime

10 Dec 2008 10:30pm

Dingo_aus

10 Dec 2008 10:32pm

Attempting to censor the Internet will slow it down. Then all the industries that rely on it will be slowed down. It will hurt our economy model than the average person thinks

Felicia

11 Dec 2008 3:21pm

I am grateful that we have been given this opportunity to share our thoughts regarding the Internet filter. I only hope that you will pay attention to the comments here, and pay heed to them. Australians do not want this filter and, quite frankly, to press ahead with it regardless is political and career suicide. It is not that we condone child pornography, it's that we know darn well that the filter will not stop CP, yet in the process of *trying* (and failing) to stop it, the filter will make our internet third-world standard. Please if you won't rethink this plan for us, do it for the sake of your own phony-baloney job.

Cliff

11 Dec 2008 6:06am

Any control of information allowed will soon lead to the desire of total control. Wowsers are a part of the history of Australia, let us keep them there. The last thing we need are neo-wowsers demanding their standards be for all. However well meaning the original purpose of any censorship may be, it soon expands into areas which trample upon freedom of information and expression. We do not need this asinine experiment in an internet 'Nanny' state. It is technologically and morally questionable as well as un-forgivably intrusive. Censorship is inherently non-productive in moral questions where education should be the answer. There is a 'delete' button on every computer.

Mike

11 Dec 2008 6:06am

Warning, your comment has been completely censored as deemed "unwanted" and "inappropriate" by the government.

Scott of Cromer

11 Dec 2008 6:07am

thefletch

11 Dec 2008 6:09am

At the risk of being repetitive, I have been a life long Labor voter. I believed that we would get a progressive Government and held high hopes after the change in 2007. I advocated, I donated, I helped Labor get across the line in my own small way. I remember the high fives and screams of joy on election night. However, this has changed, if this filter goes through, my vote and everyone I can influence will be gone. The filter policy is purely radioactive and the sooner that Kevin gets this, the better. Every day this goes on sees more people made aware of this policy. Every day more people question their voting intentions. This is not a vote winner, it can't be worth it just to get Stephen Fielding's vote. Call a double dissolution before before bringing this in - anything is better than what is proposed. In short, a nice quiet cabinet re-shuffle on Christmas Eve would be well in order, please get a grown-up in charge of this critical area.

Winston Smith

11 Dec 2008 6:11am

Don't use my money for a filter I don't want. Don't use our money for a filter we don't want. Don't use your own money for a filter that won't work.

Anthony Sochan

11 Dec 2008 6:13am

This is disgusting and only demonstrates a lack of understanding and laziness in wanting to deal with the problems at hand. Not only do I question the governments judgment in this manner but I also loose confidence in their ability to make us a competitive nation in an increasingly computer orientated global society. To any child protection group that believes this is viable solution - your wrong - child pornography will still exist it will be less accessible and simply be driven underground.

Ross

11 Dec 2008 6:14am

I'd like to echo the suggestion to move Senator Conroy away from this portfolio and replace him with Kate Lundy. There's some major confidence rebuilding to be done here in both Broadband and the ALP as a whole, and she's got the best chance to do it. I voted ALP in good faith, and Senator Conroy has single-handedly made me regret that deeply, in so many ways. It would have been so easy for him to put our minds at ease.

EE

11 Dec 2008 8:06am

Hello I think the Rudd Government is doing a great job. I am a member of the Party and the Right faction... ...however the ISP filtering plan is completely wrong. All my friends in the party (left and right) oppose it because of the obvious reasons: 1: it will slow down speeds regardless 2: it will fail to block peer to peer networks which is where most bad content is exchanged; 3: it is open to future government's exploiting it to make black lists of things. Please Hon Conroy listen to the youth of Australia, we were brought up with a free internet, it will be our future not yours. The liberals will eventually get in, and it will be exploited. don't tempt them.

Goat Boy

11 Dec 2008 8:06am

There is no such office as "The Office of the President-Elect." And for your own sake, listen to these people, the Internet filtering will not work. It was a stupid idea. Let it go.

Ricki

11 Dec 2008 8:07am

It will be very important to the ability of Australia to remain in touch with the rest of the world to have unfettered communications on the web. Therefore, I am against filtering being instigated on the web. It will be a part of being a mature citizen to handle all the information available. Censorship is not the answer. Parental guidance is the appropriate filter. We can install filters on our own computers if we want, but as adults, Australian deserve FULL access to all information.

James

11 Dec 2008 8:08am

I understand the need to filter to protect children. Parents should have an option for opt in software like net nanny's while the rest of us can continue to enjoy our speeds and freedom. Censorship is unaustralian and will envitably end in tons more being censored thanintended. Just please drop this monster waste of money and focus on something which actually helps society.

Rastko Petrovic

11 Dec 2008 8:08am

In spite that closed testing had shown that internet filter doesn't work and I quote from Government own PDF ( chapter 1 page 15) Did you read it senator "�" Despite of a general nature of advances in current trial and previous trial most filters are not presently able to identify illegal content and content that may be regarded as inappropriate that is carried via majority of non-web protocols" Internet speed will greatly affected, even CEO of WEBSHIELD has admited that there is huge network implications but yet senator you refuse to see it. And the sot will go up because It will cost ISP in access of 100k or more it implements hardware required for testing purposes + cost for filtering software. filtering software, implementation, licensing, operational management all cost money. Businesses past these costs onto consumers. 3% of over blocking has huge impact. Let me put in in prospective for you A large ISP (Telstra, Optus) will have 10000 hits per second for http sites. 3% = 300. 3600 second in 1 hour x 300 =1080000 * false positives in 1 hour? x 24 hours. Get the picture It will cause for a family to lose their online business and all possession they worked hard for. Is government open to civil suit? How does Senator Conroy proposing to do live trials without actual real people /customers? The appropriate methods of protecting oneself and one's family from disturbing exercises of free speech are to block it out at the thresholds of our spheres of legitimate personal control � our households, our families, and so on. It cannot, should not, must not be made the responsibility of government to emplace limitations on the free exercise of speech. Those limits will ultimately be used against the citizenry in ways none of us on the right or left can imagine or accept... but then it may be too late. The testimony of history is unrelenting about this danger. Minister listen to industry experts...You are not one.

Cameron Christie

11 Dec 2008 8:09am

This is Tor. It is a free, simple and easy to use application which, not only provides complete anomnity to its users, but will also be able to completely circumnavigate whatever firewall this lunatic government proposes.

It works in China and it will work here and due to the decentralised nature of the program it cannot be shut down.

Anyone devious enough to get to kiddie porn will already know about this, as just about everyone with a clue does by now.

You are not in any way protecting the kids with this plan of yours and you have been told this time and time again by the industry elite.

You are politicians. You know politics. You do not know about Information and Communications technology. The industry does. Listen to them.

-X

David Cake

11 Dec 2008 8:10am

On the one hand, I am pleased to see so much strong opposition to the internet filtering proposal being expressed. I am a board member of Electronic Frontiers Australia, so I am involved in the campaign against this proposal. On the other hand, I am concerned that this experiment with online consultation will be deemed not a success due to the strong domination of the comments by a single viewpoint. Please, take the strong feedback on the online filtering issue to heart, acknowledge it, and hopefully we can move on. I have great regards for Minister Tanners understanding of the issues involved in the communications sector and the digital economy (if not Minister Conroys), and I hope that this experiment in online consultation will be a success.

moofactory

11 Dec 2008 8:11am

You going to ban wikipedia too like the Uk has? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer YES that is an under age naked girl on the album cover. NO you CANT control the internet.

Sarah D.

11 Dec 2008 8:13am

I'm not sure Conroy realises that we voted Labor in IN SPITE of this policy, not because of it. There was a more pressing need to get rid of the Howard government, that doesn't mean that we supported every policy promise that Labor made. There was no "mandate" for this ridiculous legislation.

Ross

11 Dec 2008 8:13am

OK

11 Dec 2008 2:00pm

It seems as if filtering is a faulty solution in search of a problem. /// Maybe that's part of the issue with the very poor way the government has handled this. They haven't explained clearly what problem they are trying to solve or exactly what they intend to do in response. /// To Furball ("think of the children"), lots of us have thought of the children. /// The children could easily be worse off under this scheme and are not likely to be better off. /// If internet in Australia doesn't grind to a complete standstill as a result of the filtering then the filtering simply won't be effective. We will get unreliability and slowness and annoyance without actually achieving anything.

Sarah D.

11 Dec 2008 3:23pm

Panther

11 Dec 2008 2:03pm

This was not accepted when I posted it earlier for some reason. A mandatory, ISP based filter will not make the Internet a safe place for children. It is not possible to block all inappropriate content, there is too much and it is too fluid. The best way to protect children is to make sure they are supervised when they are online. This supervision should be at the same level that they are supervised with any other activity. Treat the Internet like your swimming pool.

Ron One

11 Dec 2008 3:51pm

A stupid policy thought up by public servant and labour party clowns who know nothing about technology or business. Scrap the policy now. It is a joke. It will not work. It is unwanted censorship. It is another Kevin 07 joke that is doomed to fail

Ash

11 Dec 2008 2:16pm

Only a few months ago, during the olympics, there were many artivles about the internet restrictions in China and how bad it is. How can we adopt such a filtering system and not be hypocritical? Yes, children need to be protected but that need to start in the home with the parents. In a democratic society no one group's rights supercede any other group. Yes children have a right to be protected, but every person has a right to choose what lawful sites they visit. If instead of mandatory filtering that only the government has control of (like what we bag in China) the money was spent on education for parents so they can protect their children at home no group's rights would be infringed. How can Austalia have any valid voice in the world if we adopt a system that we label deplorable when another country uses it? No one is suggesting that unlawful sites shouldn't be taken down, but as long as a site in able to be lawfully viewed, there cannot be any mandatory restriction on that site. If parents were empowered to allow them to protect their children this wouldnt be an issue.

Maximilian Wittmann

11 Dec 2008 3:52pm

Please stop trying to censor the internet. It's not becoming of a democratic nation. Thank you

Ash

11 Dec 2008 2:17pm

dissapointed Australian

11 Dec 2008 2:33pm

the thing that really gets goat is the point that not only are we the only place in the world that has CAPPED internet which in my opinion is a completely unfair discrimination to australians when the rest have no download limits and no caps as well as cheaper pricing but now they are wanting to control what we choose to see?? i find this disturbing. the fact that the internet is a free resource and should be accessible to any human worldwide and now Australia wants to "net nanny" the whole internet because some people haven't taught ethics into their children or couldn't be bothered looking after their children because they are two busy making MORE so they can get government handouts and live off centerlink (maybe the better solution would be to give families free copies of net nanny instead so that can choose if they want to allow their children access to the internet or not) i think the first thing to do is fix up Australia's pityfull excuse for internet so its inline with the rest of the world FIRST before trying to make it worse and control our rights like they did in china. we are after all Australians and we should be free and be able to be proud to be living here and know that we are up to date with the rest of the world and not still living in the 90's with sub par services. there is a saying IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT well in this case IT IS BROKE SO FIX IT get us the quality we deserve and pay a super premium for! and then maybe finally the Ameicans will stop laughing at us Suckers down there in Australia!

frustrated tasmanian

11 Dec 2008 4:05pm

its unbelievable that we pay a premium for totally crap internet compared to the rest of the world !! CAPS and SLOW internet for literally two to three times the price of the rest of the world!!! Australians did you know we are the only place in the WORLD that has capped internet?? the rest of the world must laugh in hysterics at us Aussies!...and now when they hear about this incredibly stupid idea the government want to do with implimenting a net filter of all things they must be wetting themselves as they enjoy their super relyable and fast internet at cheap prices with no limits and no caps !

upset

11 Dec 2008 3:03pm

My freedom of speech as an Australian is what is important. The government is now talking about having a look at a bill of rights next year. Well it seems we now know ahead of time, that the charter won't include free speech. Because the internet filter is going to block free speech in the media of the future.

UnAustralianAction

11 Dec 2008 4:13pm

Niels

11 Dec 2008 4:14pm

Please senators gather there is massive negative bias on this issue. Industry, users, parents and (sane) advocates alike are all against this proposition for a plethora or reasons. I'm sure at best this will be used as a stat's counter so I won't crap on, just take this as a qualified 'No' to the proposition.

Sharif Oerton

11 Dec 2008 3:47pm

I too would like to offer my $0.02 on the proposed censorship laws.

They are simply not workable. Any thirteen-year-old nerd can circumvent Web filtering if they try. How do I know this? I was one of those nerds.

On top of this, the proposed filter would not block peer-to-peer transmissions, which alone would make it completely and utterly ineffective for the blocking of illegal content.

Add to that the massive Internet slowdown and you have my case against the filter.

--Sharif Oerton

Kit

11 Dec 2008 3:48pm

Quite simply, the idea is terrible. And who decides what 'objectionable content' is? At point will the term become as constrictive for the Australian populace as it is for the Chinese?

Ross M

11 Dec 2008 3:53pm

For anyone here who thinks the Federal Government cant tell you what to do, heres a small list. Child Support Agency. I rest my case.

If "our" government, people we have put in place to speak for us, enact any sort of internet filtering system, the simple fact is that they will lose office to anyone offering to remove it. Judging by the negative feedback here, as mine is intended to be, the Labor party could kiss goodbye any chance of winning office for the next 30 years over this one topic.

This isnt about filtering to protect children, from my POV its about controlling the populus (orwellian), and if they can make a buck in the process, they will find a way (a fee to opt out sound interesting but it wont improve bandwidth).

As a member of a group on the Child Support Stakeholders Group, I have to tell you that they (the government in power at the time) take our input into the subject matter, such as this blog with internet filtering and then do what their policy writers think is best. Even 524 negative comments out of 524 comments so far 100% negative wont sway their opinion to do whatever the f*** they want.

This blog would be unavailable if the plan goes ahead because it is anti government opinion, you wont be able to access sites like facebook, moblog, myspace etc. because you might see a picture of a child.

I moderate on a web forum that has some very anti government opinion posted to it at times, that site would be blacklisted.

The Family Court of Australia website quite often has the words Child Pornography and child sexual abuse in text content of case descriptions, any indiscriminate filter would blacklist it.

Opt in? Opt out? heres how they sway the populus, sure you can opt out, but that means you support child pornography, terrorism whatever the bean is today. No free citizen of Australia should accept opt out, because accusations could then be laid against you.

They (as above) are conning the populus with this garbage, like global warming (since 1999 global temps on average are dropping) yet we now have a Carbon Polution Reduction Scheme, anti terrorism (when was the last terrorist attack in Australia) NEVER, I mean really....

Now we have Robert McClelland asking us if we all want our own charter of human rights, he should blog like this, but no, he's spending our hard earned touring the country listening to accademics. Just like the Minister for Discrimination did (aptly named) listening to women around teh country. You only have to look at how fathers fare in Family Law or YouTube Ezra Levant to know what a joke any UN based charter will do. And the government will make sure they are immune (they allready do).

The only way to stop this garbage continuing is to write to your MP threatening to never vote for their party again, because that is the only thing that matters to them (bums in seats) at election time.

Otherwise, let the sheeple have their filter

Fishy

11 Dec 2008 3:54pm

I strongly appose the filter. The slow down of internet and misblocking of websites could cause further economic troubles as businesses find they cannot operate on the internet effectively.

peterx

11 Dec 2008 3:55pm

If you want to do something to help abused kids have a look at the whole legal system. From judges that don't impose harsh enough sentences to the uphill battle that abuse victims face to get any justice - the government could be doing something a lot more productive than introducing more nanny state laws. You'd rather waste time and money on something that won't work than do anything substantial.

ewe2

11 Dec 2008 4:02pm

Your choice: the filter or government. You can't have both. Choose wisely.

Adam Mc

11 Dec 2008 4:18pm

The government (Liberal or Labour) does not have the right to stop me from accessing information... Anyone who believes it will be used _just_ to stop pornography is very nieve.

David M

11 Dec 2008 4:30pm

Imposing a compulsary internet filter is an enormous waste of public funds. It seems counter productive to want to improve internet access with plans for a national broadband network and then cripple it with content filtering. As far as the filtering goes, most children, even the younger ones, would easily learn how to circumvent the technology anyway so it serves as little more than an annoyance to the average person. As an adult I should be allowed the freedom to choose for myself what content is appropriate for me and my family and not have such things dictated to me by people who do not necessarly share my morals and values and who might have a political/religious/other interest in regard to what content they don't want me to see. Stop treating us like children and try investing the money on something like the health system will actually help the average Australian.

Jay

11 Dec 2008 4:32pm

Thin edge of the wedge. Not just for Australia, but for other countries as well. What other countries will parade Australia as a shining example of Internet "filtering" then go ahead and impose their more draconian censorship regime on the Internet in the name of 'protecting' their people? Once any system is in place, it is just too easy to start adding 'little things' on whenever it is needed without ever thinking of having them removed in future.

debs

11 Dec 2008 4:36pm

I voted for this government because I despised the previous Howard reign of terror upon the Australian public. If this crazy, stupid mandatory filtering of the internet goes ahead, I will never vote Labor again, that's a promise. How you can squander the goodwill of the people on a scheme that violates our right to privacy, free speech, freedom from religion and right to information is beyond me. I am offended that Minister Conroy will not be open and honest about the policy and is refusing to be held accountable in parliament also. I am even greater offended that my demand not to have the internet censored as befits a totalitarian and undemocratic nation is simply referred to as 'wanting to view child pornography!'

This is an ideological attack upon the freedoms and rights of the Australian public and I won't stand for it. It is way past time that a Bill Of Rights came into being.

lukesh

11 Dec 2008 4:37pm

Filtering the internet wont stop the import of child porn. Think of p2p software, encrypted files like passworded zip files, chat software, none of this will be effected. A mandatory filter is NOT the correct solution to this problem, any regular internet user will be able to tell you this.

Jane

11 Dec 2008 4:43pm

industry experts say effective internet filtering in the form you have proposed is impossible, why don't you put an end to this crusade for incompetent parents.

Rod Rye

11 Dec 2008 4:44pm

I am concerned this filter will place children in danger the same way a faulty parachute would place someone in danger. If you expect something to work and it doesn't the results will be far worse than knowing an activity is going to be dangerous.

I am interested in what safeguards will be in place to ensure the filter ONLY applies to child pornography as the minster insists that love of child pornography is the only reason to oppose the filter. Quite clearly this is not the case.

Ivan M

11 Dec 2008 4:33pm

I believe this is a complete & utter waste of taxpayers time & money... The perverts will just go deeper into newsgroups & forums to exchange data and I suspect you will then need to develop some sort of genital recognition software to scan for these images. Its a stupid idea to tackle a serious issue that needs to be addressed in a serious manner, we should perhaps be looking at giving police more power in this case. Workplace safety has the power to walk into any business to inspect the premesis for safety reasons, perhaps the police should have a similar ability to inspect peoples PC's....

Stevo

11 Dec 2008 4:34pm

I think we can call the ISP filtering plan KIA, nobody would be stupid enough to continue it with this ammount of opposition. It would be political suicide.

Censorship is a slippery slope

11 Dec 2008 4:35pm

On the subject of net filtering. While I believe the intent is noble, horribly misguided as it may be, the mechanism in which it is to be enacted is flawed. The technical limitations of such a system aside, it will do little to prevent 'objectionable' (who gets to define this worries me) material from finding gaps and squeezing its way through. I can envisage such a system constantly tightening its control to close the gaps until we are truly an island state; physically, culturally and socially.

Phil, Melbourne

11 Dec 2008 4:36pm

Well Senator Conroy, we should at least acknowledge your progressiveness in the use of technology to garner feedback from the public, so well done on that. But I'm afraid that's as far as my positive comments go. It is quite clear that what is driving your zealous attempt to censor the Internet is the support of the independents in the senate, so there's little point in appealing to your common sense, is there? But can you at least call a spade a spade. You are proposing a Chinese-style censorship, where any sites that are considered "unacceptable" will be blocked. Have you so quickly forgotten the outcry when the world's journalists were subjected to such censorship at the recent Beijing Olympics? I don't believe many who are up in arms about your censorship plans are objecting because it will interfere with access to child porn, as you seem to infer. I believe it is simply that WE DON'T TRUST YOU! We don't trust that you will limit your censorship to child porn. We believe that you will use your blacklist to censor all kinds of things that are considered "unacceptable" and that you will have no accountability in doing so. As Senators Xenophon and Fielding are persuaded to support upcoming Labor legislation, what other censorship concessions will you be offering? And how will we know? If you are dogmatic enough to continue with this censorship plan, and you are doing so because it is in the best interests of Australians, then you need to put your money where your mouth is. The blacklist needs to be open to regular independent review to ensure that only those categories that you publicly declare are censored. Anything less will be seen for what it is, a blatant attempt to severely limit our basic freedoms.

gilbert

11 Dec 2008 4:38pm

Internet filtering will NOT solve the problems that most people are worried about. To believe that it will is to lack understanding of the nature of the internet. I have worked assessing children with emotional distress. During a six month term, I was alarmed by the extent of internet bullying, and risk that particularly vulnerable children were exposed to. The most vulnerable children are at risk because of the combination of the content they are exposed to, and the incapacity of their parents (via long working hours, or emotional inavailability) to sit down with their children and listen to their problems, concerns, joys, and general life experiences. The problem is that chat rooms cannot be filtered. Predatory older persons, and bullying youngsters can pose as anyone in a chat room forum, establish trust and be at risk of harm to vulnerable young persons. The people who are concerned about these things are not wowsers, but tapping into a real problem. My point is that internet filtering WILL NOT solve this problem. There is no way to filter this kind of problem. The only solution as parents is to provide constant support and supervision of their children, and establish a trust relationship where they feel confident their children will bring them their worries, or avoid contact with unknown persons. From a governance role, where the internet can be monitored is to provide an ongoing forum for monitoring, reporting and prosecuting predatory internet behaviour. May I repeat that internet filtering will NOT solve the problems that most people are worried about. To believe that it will is to lack understanding of the nature of the internet.

mike from Townsville

11 Dec 2008 4:40pm

Do not attack my free speech or our democracy. At which point did you believe you could interfere in my home, i have not invited you in so get out. Gov's today believe that they have to meddle in every aspect of everyone's lives we must all say NO. My children do not need your protection they have mine. Spend my tax money on something worthwhile like parent education and policing.

Rob Willett

11 Dec 2008 4:42pm

Are you getting the hint here Mr Conroy? We don't want it. Focus on health, education, roads, infrastructure. All of the above are basket cases and you want to control the net. Get a grip. Do what you siad you would do befoe the last election and listen to the people and stop governing from on high. We didn't vote for you to do that. we can get that in china if thats what we want. Put this legislation to the people chap AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS, YOu'LL BE RUN OUT OF TOWN AND RIGHTLY SO

Clint

11 Dec 2008 4:49pm

Whats wrong with being a good parent? This filter is like using a cannon to get rid of a mosquito

Slakewell

11 Dec 2008 4:50pm

Senator Conroy Having more than 10 years experience working online I have a better understanding than most how unrealistic your solutions are. You appear to be an educated man that should accept reasonable facts. May I be so bold to suggest a simple test? Download many of the per to per tools available free online a good example would be limewire which is already on 80% of children's computers already. Turn your filters to 100% then open limewire and type child porn into the search. If this simple demonstration doesn't convince you how ineffective these filters are you may not have been honest in telling us your real motives.

Onno Benschop

11 Dec 2008 4:53pm

An internet filter such as Senator Conroy is proposing is at best a misguided attempt to provide a safe environment for children and at worst a totalitarian tool to placate the population. The internet is a social tool that will continue to grow in its scope and penetration. As the internet evolves from the teenager that it is, filtering will become less and less effective - despite developers best efforts, just look at how SPAM filters have failed to meet the raising tide since 1993. A better use of the proposed funds is to provide education to the population about how to deal with inappropriate content, rather than attempt to construct a centralised solution for a decentralised problem.

Nick

11 Dec 2008 4:56pm

I'm fifty. My generation fought "the Establishment" and gained important freedoms and recognition for women; and minorities like gays. I suspect that our children will be fighting for their privacy and freedom from state oversight. How dare any government, particularly this self-styled "intellectual" administration, propose to reduce individual freedom in such a swinging, arrogant and, let's face it, stupid fashion. Get a reality check, people!

Roy1983

11 Dec 2008 4:57pm

The best way to filter is using a model/router that has built in ways to filter the net it also cannot be bypassed as you use a admin password, you can also use software to filter with this software installed on a admin login (thats created by default in windows) this allows you to create standard users for your kids, they will be unable to bypass any filters. Option two, sit the computer in the lounge and be a parent that watches their kid.

Aaron

11 Dec 2008 4:58pm

I am a paid up Labor member working in an Electorate Office for a State Labor MP in Victoria. I am strictly against this stupid, ill conceived policy. Police the illegal content at the source, do not punish everyone for the actions of very few. This stupid filter will be bypassable, exploitable and will have a negative effect on the amentiy of the internet. Drop this policy now and put the money into building relations with other countries to police illegal content together.

tric

11 Dec 2008 5:00pm

ok my first comment wasn't loaded...was this because i used a hotmail address?? trying again with a gmail address. my points were this...1/the filter will not stop child pornography. the creators of child porn do not use the web for the most part for the proliferation of their porn 2/the filter will not protect children from pornography, unless all porn is to be filtered, which will simply make pornographers work around the filter 3/the filter will not protect children from paedophiles, as it will not be blocking chat rooms or emails or social webpages 4/the filter will not stop electronic crime, as criminals will work around it if they effected by it at all. phishing scams are effective only because people are ignorant of the risks, likewise identity theft will not be hindered by the filter 5/the filter will not effect piracy as it will not be blocking p2p networks. even if p2p web pages are blocked initially, the fact that the people who set up these pages are coders will mean they will quickly work around the filter 6/the responsibility of protecting children from unwanted web information is the duty of parents and the education system in the same way as 'stranger danger' is 7/ what's next? protecting children from the soft porn of music videos by censoring visual media? 8/ perhaps we should censor print media for perpetuating body image problems in children with their thin youth worshiping photoshoped images that bombard us on a daily basis along with the advertising industry that is well aware that 'sex sells' 9/ the filter will slow internet speeds which is not why people voted for labours promise of a national broadband network 10/the slowing of the internet (and australia is already behind the rest of the electronic world in terms of access and speed) will HARM e-trade and our economy 11/ the filter will hinder police activity in the apprehension of child sex offenders 12/the filter will hinder research and protection agencies who's goal is the safegaurding of children at risk 13/the pro filter arguments all seem to be focussed on protecting the children from child pornography. the filter will simply NOT do this! and now i will wait and see if this comment is loaded...while wondering how many other peoples comments were 'unwanted'

DB

11 Dec 2008 5:03pm

A "clean feed" will never work, there is no intelligent sector of the community that backs a clean feed, not even child advocacy groups. Give up, stop wasting tax payer money and time.

Mauthil

11 Dec 2008 5:04pm

At a technical and policy standpoint, the filter will inherently reduce broadband speeds significantly if they plan to censor all "unwanted" content, and that is a direct contradiction of the NBN goals, of faster broadband speeds. The planned internet filter is unwanted, and a waste of the taxpayers dollar, when the funding for this program can go to other places that have proven success such as the police's internet watchdog schemes, and education into safe internet surfing.

Theo Plugov

11 Dec 2008 5:05pm

The first rule of every economy is: DO NOT WASTE MONEY. Economies neglecting that rule have failed horribly; can I can remind e.g. of Soviet Union. Now, in this "digital economy" as you name it, would you please stop wasting taxpayers' money on Clean Feed filtering solution. That's also the point about consulting with the public: you should have done it before starting such a project. Good luck.

Mick

11 Dec 2008 5:16pm

On the one hand the Government is promoting a new, fast broadband network and on the other hand they want to cripple it with policy! That said, the real issue is not one related to technical matters but rather the underlying issue of censorship. We look at many countries (such as China, North Korea, etc.) and blast them for not giving their citizens free access to the wider world. Our solution? To join them! Furthermore preventing access to sites containing material does not put a halt to the activity. Children will still be photographed. Peodophiles will still find a way to look at the photos. Why not treat the cause instead of the symptom? Does a falling tree make a noise if there is no one there to hear it? Of course it does. Hiding a crime does not make it go away. Removing it from the public eye just makes us think it has and we will forget about it. Making it hard to access questionable material won't cure the problem, it just forces shady characters to use means to disguise their activities. Oh wait, they are already doing this. Seems to me the filter will punish those doing the right thing by slowing their access while those doing the wrong thing will just continue to do so. Bravo Conroy, bravo Labor. Or should I say Nanny Conroy and Nanny Labor because that's what we are moving to - a Nanny state.

ITDad

11 Dec 2008 5:23pm

The proposed compulsory 'Clean Feed' is without doubt the most appalling idea to have come from the Rudd government. Apart from the obvious technical flaws (it won't have any effect real child porn - which does not exist on the web), bandwidth effects and false positives such a scheme would produce, the single most offensive aspect is that Senator Conroy believes he and the Government should have the unfettered right to decide what adult Australian citizens can read and see on the internet. No Government has any right to be a defacto parent or moral guardian my children or myself. That is my sovereign right alone. This insane censorship is the wet dream of ignorant Christians who are technologically clueless and appallingly conceited in believing they have a monopoly on morality. The AFP should be funded to find real child porn rather than waste a cent on this farce. There are more important problems to be worried about. Sack Conroy immediately.

Oh My God

11 Dec 2008 5:20pm

Well, enough said... I think not. So may posts and only after a few days, image after a few months, Mr Conroy, are your ears & eyes open, cause I'm sure if you bothered to listen to the majority, instead of a minority, you would see its time to stop wasting money on this ridiculous plan. education is the answer, always has been and always will be, it not my fault will not do anymore. give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him for ever....

Tim Hooper

11 Dec 2008 5:22pm

Dear Kevvy, I see that are wanting to stop us: your constituents, doing moral harm to ourselves, by you, our perfect and wonderful government; blocking everything on the internet you think might damage our precious souls. How very very noble of you. We all know what a clever little chap you are and how like shiny things. Take Kochie�s noggin for example, you love that shiny bald head of his as he craps on every morning. And we also know how much you like all things Chinese. Don�t get me wrong. Szechuan Beef from the Dungog Bowling Club is quite a delight! And who doesn�t get a chuckle out of singing that old Monty Python favourite (with its tiny little trees) �I like Chinese�. But where do you get off on internet censorship? We all know how all those journalists couldn�t log onto anything while at the Olympics, and with the Party Propaganda machine on full afterburner, Beijing became Beige-ing (I�ve been dying to use that one!), a colorless and frankly crap event. Apart from when the Cuban dude booted the umpire in the head- that was pretty gnarly. Oh yeah, and the pole vaulting babe. She was awesome. I bet President Hu gave you some handy tips on controlling the docile masses, but lets not get to the point where tanks are rolling up Martin Plaza or Swanston Street. No one wants that, do we Kevvy? Uh- before you get a head of steam up about protecting �the children� shut the hell up for a minute. I don�t want to look up kiddie porn. I don�t particularly want to delve into the darker, unsavoury corners of the internet. But whether I do so or not is MY CHOICE. NOT YOURS. So if you go ahead with this, what�s next? No more online recipes for roast beef because the vegetarians or some other fashionable lobby group has bent your ear that afternoon? No more looking at motor bikes online because (cue the dramatic music) SPEED KILLS and I may be influenced to go engage in scallywag behaviour on the roads? Can�t have any more of that CARNAGE that they keep bleating about, despite the road toll halving over the last 4 decades! Don�t get me wrong Kevvy. I like you. You had us all thinking you were a bit of a lad when you admitted that you�d been so maggoted in a New York titty bar you couldn�t remember if you�d got a lap dance or not. Then you turned around and stuck a huge take on pre mix alcoholic drinks. I guess you didn�t mean to be hypocritical and you don�t strike me as the �Black Rat� kinda bloke (that�s common folk talk for a Bundy and Coke Can). Vodka Cruiser perhaps? But I can�t see you knockin� back the UDL�s as you throw the empty cans at Kerry O�Brien during the 7:30 Report on TV. Or maybe you are a super smart Kevvy. Say you�re getting some heat from those Christian Fundamentalists you made a Faustian Pact with prior to the last election and they come to get whats been promised. All of a sudden you gotta tell them that a leak got out to the media that for the guvinmint to stop probably a small amount of the evil porn it will slow everybody�s internet to a painful crawl and we�ll all be surfing like its 1992 and you�re just going to have to say �Sorry Christian types, but I gotta tell all them Heathens out there that its because of you lot that it takes 3 days to update their Facebook account�. Or maybe I�ve been watching too many old DVD�s of YES MINISTER and THE HOLLOWMEN. Either that, of Stephen Fielding has some amazing photos of what you got up to in the Crazy Horse in Adelaide* *Of course, this is mere speculation, with no basis in truth. No need to mobilise the Flying Squad from the Attorney Generals Office. See, I�m on to you� So off ya go Kevvy. Be good. We are watching. Tim Hooper Dungog

Andrew Harvey

11 Dec 2008 5:25pm

Can the RSS feed be full text please so I can read it in my RSS reader?

Drew

11 Dec 2008 5:26pm

I just like the way that these pollies think that we all have kids at home, I mean I keep mine under the stairs, how about the rest of you? This is a draconian ideology and a back door method for the religious right to try to control the masses, yet again. Senator, not all of us have kids and even if we did, it is our responsibility to educate them against all of life's ups and downs. NOT THE GOVERNMENTS. As for this linking of those of us who oppose the filter with kiddie porn, I say grow up and act like an adult, this has far more reaching consequences that kiddie porn. What is next? Political opinions? So please, with the current financial crisis and people losing their jobs at Xmas, surely the money ($45M) could be better spent helping them and not wasted on this load of rubbish.

Kevin R Beck

11 Dec 2008 5:28pm

For many years I have had the pelasurev of interacting with Kate Lundy across a range of portfolio activities including communications. I have carried out this interaction on line, via email and in person with her and also within the Senate Committees process. Unlike Minister Conroy, Kate responds to all communications personally (Conroy has responded to none personally or otherwise) and she has demonstrated a strong knwoledge of digital technologies and communications. She understands the network power of the internet to reach out across many domains and the use of scripting to generate a headline across thousands of web sites some of which may or may not be complimentary.

membrane

11 Dec 2008 5:30pm

I am extremely disappointed that the Australian Government considers wholesale censorship of the internet through filtering a 'sensible' response to the rapidly changing nature of communication and expression. At a time when Australia is rapidly falling behind ALL OTHER Post-Industrial nations with regards to standards of internet access and speed, Senaotor Conroy is suggesting further disruption to our (sorry, telstra's; i forgot we don't own it anymore *sigh*) communication network. There are significant challenges involved with global communications, but i find it ludicrous that censorship is the answer. As we have seen, there will always be extremely clever (though possibly criminal) elements in our communities that will find a way of circumventing any filtering system, leaving the rest of us with a false sense of non-existant security, exposed and with a second rate communications service. No to web filtering!

pk

11 Dec 2008 5:32pm

if this plan to filter ISP go through, i am sure i wont be voting labour in the next election your worst than the howard government for even considering this. the only winners if this goes ahead is the the adult dvd stores and the adult industry who are probably lobbying this law.

Kothos

11 Dec 2008 5:35pm

After 55 pages (and counting) of anti-net filtering comments from the general public, if the government continues with this idiotic legislation it will show this site up to be a complete farce. Did Conroy know when setting up this "community engagement forum" that public opposition to this legislation was so strong? Not only will this filter not stop a single criminal act, it will stop regular people from acessing legitimate information. Information that could be used to educate, for example, children on how to avoid sexual predators. Just a thought.

Mark G

11 Dec 2008 5:36pm

I'm curious that the Labor party took exactly the wrong lesson from the failure of the former government's free download filter. The tiny number of downloads for that product should have been seen as a pretty good warning sign that the public is not interested in being "filtered"�outside of a tiny, noisy segment that wants to impose its views on everyone else. The comments here make that dichotomy even more obvious. The only thing that might save Labor's bacon on this is that both major parties have a record for being totally out of touch on this issue so in a sense there's nowhere for the general public to go. Having said that, Labor will lose my vote if this plan reaches the senate (where it will fail anyway; the Libs & Greens are opposed).

imacca

11 Dec 2008 5:37pm

I voted for the ALP last time around in spite of their proposals for net filtering. Hopefully this proposal will fall get withdrawn. Content filtering should be done at the end user level with parents applying appropriate controls. It can be as simple as ensuring that the computer used by children is in a relatively "public" area of the house so that privacy is limited.

Wizard

11 Dec 2008 5:40pm

Are you also going to ban/block all the social networking sites (my space, facebook, etc), IM's and chat rooms. If you even bothered to read the news and listen to the police, children are targeted through their social networking, IM and chat sites, that's apparently where contact is made and stuff, NOT through some obscure illegal site on the web. So how is banning a few porn and other sites critical of government activity going to protect children? The very sites the children are exposed to are still freely accessible to anyone. So please explain how they will be protected? To all the supporters of this, how will you feel about it when you go on-line to check whats showing at the movies and find the site blocked because something in the name of the cinema, or a movie, or a movie description leads it to being blocked by the filter? and if the page does load it take 10 minutes instead of 10 seconds to load, and your kids are in their chat room talking to some pervert (because the chat room isn't blocked) will you still agree with the filter and say it's working and a good idea? What every happen to accepting responsibility for one own actions? Why don't parents accept the responsibility of monitoring and raising their kids? Put your own filters up at home and monitor what what they do. I can see the defense lawyers lined up now. "Your Honour, my client isn't guilty of downloading child pornography, every website the images came from was allowed through by the governments filter, therefore your honour, the images must all be legal, as any illegal content has been blocked.". This whole thing is a joke. Didn't we all complain when China censored the internet for the international media and block access to sites about Tibet, etc? and now we are going to be doing the same thing. I would have expected this under the former Howard government as Howard led us down the slippery slope towards communism. Also, supporting a free/unrestricted internet doesn't mean supporting illegal content or activities. The police appear to be doing a good job tracking down the perverts at the moment, in a large part I feel because of the relatively free web access, I wonder how much harder their job will become when all the perverts go deeper underground and find a way around the filter without anybody watching and monitoring them? I believe the filter will actually make it harder to track the perverts and protect our kids.

ak bris

11 Dec 2008 5:09pm

Those of us currently in the IT industry know all too well that this filter is a monumental waste of time and tax payers money. Why in a supposedly democratic society is this being forced onto us? I didn't vote labor at the last election and I can see now my skepticism as to this government�s ability to function was justified. If you really wanted to do something about child pornography, spend the $40 million+ on funding the task forces which are trying to catch the actual perpetrators. That would show Australia to be forward thinking and willing to tackle the problem instead of some useless scheme which will never work. Mr. Conroy and the rest of the Rudd government you need to take a long hard look at these blog posts. Punish the criminals not your law abiding, voting public.

Jennifer

11 Dec 2008 5:15pm

As this article http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24784122-12377,00.html by the Australian shows, people who want to share the type of content that Senator Conroy is attempting to block share it in ways that filters cannot detect. The funds would be better spent to assist the police in similar operations to that shown in the article.

Carl M

11 Dec 2008 5:25pm

This blog could be viewed as symbolic of condition of the internet in Australia

Technologically outdated

Slow

And censored by bureaucrats

hosko

11 Dec 2008 5:28pm

This logic of filtering the internet simply won't work, all one has to do is setup an encrypted tunnel to a proxy server and then the ISP has no way of being able to know exactly what is being done.

This would actually make it more difficult for law enforcement as it will drive people to use encrypted links with multiple hops.

A much better scheme would have be to for force the ISP's to send the federal police notice any time someone visited a known child porn site. Even if there was false positives the Federal Police would be able to investigate and clear it up.

The current proposal seems to punish the vast majority of people ie the millions of Australian's who do the right thing to stop the couple of hundred who are doing the wrong thing.

Ken Kadiroglu

11 Dec 2008 5:32pm

As always, it is a pleasure to be among so many passionate players from the communications sector.

I would like to give Minister Conroy and his department credit for their initiative in getting this consultation established.

I have been reading most of the comments posted since the beginning. I must admit I expected strong resilient towards ISP filtering and certainly towards censorship. But, I must divulge, I am observing some sort of detestation towards Hon Stephen Conroy.

I support Australian Federal Liberal Governments PC Internet Content Filters, and Australian Federal Labor Government�s ISP Filtering policies, however, the deficiencies and nature of the PC and ISP filtering itself cannot effectively protect our children online.

That�s why we as industry leaders and passionate users of the internet must put our creative minds together and provide solutions to the department.

Ask yourself this fundamental question:- How can I be constructive participant in order to eradicate online child abuse, child exploitation including pornography and grooming as well as preserve freedom of speech.

Online security and cyber safety for our children on the internet are key issues, Australian governments as well as our full joint efforts are crucial to preserve freedom of speech.

Ken Kadiroglu

Marty

11 Dec 2008 5:37pm

ISP filtering is a bandaid effort to fix an issue which should be delt elsewhere. I do beleive that there is an underlining issue here for Mr Tanner, and that would be religion no doubt, serious clouded judgement.

Ben

11 Dec 2008 5:42pm

Great work guys - love that you are getting up to speed in this space. I think you are missing out on an enormous resource if you are not doing policy development in the public domain, and blogs etc are an excellent way to do this.

Andrew

11 Dec 2008 5:51pm

Here is a letter I sent to my local MP- I wish there was another branch to post under. This blog is already a huge mess:

Dear Mr Bevis,

As an Australian and as an internet user, I have grave concerns about the proposed mandatory internet filtering initiative.

Given the importance our Government has attached to modernising Australia's broadband network, pursuing a policy that can only slow down and increase the costs of home internet access seems misguided at best. Australian households are diverse, and most do not have young children, so mandating a one-size-fits-all clean feed approach will not serve the public well. I don't think it is the Government's role to decide what's appropriate for me or my children, and neither do most Australians. Black and white, binary arguments made by Senator Conroy about "illegal content" are as ill-conceived as G.W. Bush's "You're either with us, or you're against us" rhetoric, and are equally misleading.

If this proposal were to pass, it would spell the end of democracy in this country, not to mention e-business. I am thoroughly shocked by Senator Conroy's appallingly obtuse and seemingly ignorant stance on the issue; to disregard and selectively twist all expert advice on the subject, mislead parliament about overseas filtering systems and avoid questions on the subject, and launch what is potentially the most dangerous attack on free speech, on the last remaining free-speech medium should see him removed from his position, as he clearly does not act in the best interests of the Australian people, and is thus unsuitable for the role. We do not wish to join the ranks of China, Cuba or North Korea, regardless of how many imaginary children may be "protected" by such a policy.

Given the amount of online content available, and its exponential growth, the Government will never be able to classify it all and filters will always result in an unacceptable level of over-blocking. I feel that the time and money could be spent in better ways both to protect children and improve Australia's digital infrastructure. Australian parents need better education about the risks their children face online. Trying to rid the internet of adult content is futile, and can only distract from that mission.

I sincerely trust you will give this matter the full attention it deserves, and prevent an expensive and easily avoidable disaster from taking place. Please read the comments from many online articles on the subject- you will find that for once, Australia unanimously agrees on something: internet filtering is a dreadful idea, and should not go ahead.

article1 article2 article3 article4 article5 I look forward to your response. Sincerely...

Ben McEvoy

11 Dec 2008 6:00pm

No doubt by now you are aware of the recent success of the AFP in smashing a large, international pornography ring.

article

The comments of the acting assistant commissioner on ABC radio seem to indicate that the trafficking by this ring was conducted over peer-to-peer protocols, which he says "makes it more difficult for the content to be monitored by the ISP filters".

You'll no doubt also be aware of the collective, unified position of the technical community - that the proposed ISP-level filter will be completely ineffectual in blocking this sort of traffic.

In the face of this - real-world evidence that real-world criminals actually trafficking child pornography would be unhindered by the proposed filter - would you consider spending that money to assist these successful units instead?

Chris

11 Dec 2008 6:02pm

I am totally opposed to this internet filter. My vote swings on this issue.

+ it's a flawed idea that won't work. How on earth can Senator Conroy be so blinkered as to not realise the futility of this proposed filter?

It won't work and it will cost money and productivity! What's the point, Conroy, you muppet?!

Mark

11 Dec 2008 6:12pm

I'm not an IT professional. I'm a security guard with three kids and a mortgage so I'm well below the average income living week to week.

Our internet connection is slow to begin with because that's all we can afford and now your talking about slowing it even further and possibly making it cost even more.

Where the hell do you get off Conroy, we have a substandard setup already and your going to make it worse. Are you going to pay for a better connection for my family to make up for added cost and loss of speed on what i already have?

Somehow I doubt that extremely, and as far as letting a bunch of nutters like Family First telling me what I can do, tell me what happened to religious freedom. I am an atheist and be damned if I let some loony Christian sect dictate to me. My wife is a Sunday school teacher and on the school council and even she thinks this idea is crazy.

Finally were all pedophiles if we disagree with you are we. I've voted labour all my life, not any more. You must be the most offensive uneducated person I have ever seen in public office, even Pauline Hanson had more brains than you are showing. Wake up to yourself!!!!!!

Chaotic

11 Dec 2008 6:15pm

If the feedback that's been provided dozen's of industry specialists hasn't been taken on board, how are we supposed to be expected to spend time trying to contribute?

There is so much wrong with the Government's internet filtering project that it should never have been allowed to get this far. The money would be better spent in upgrading Australia's pathetic internet infrastructure.

Tldr: Conroy doesn't care what the population thinks, and refuse to answer to the criticism aimed at the proposed internet filtering.

Mr Oddjob

11 Dec 2008 6:16pm

Mate, drop it ,it's a a Dog

The Howard Stench of Arrogance

11 Dec 2008 6:17pm

Yes Sen. Conroy your days are numbered. I'm afraid you have already committed political suicide by being so ignorant and uninformed. HOWEVER... the Labor government can still turn this around. Rudd... stand up and make the common sense, correct and over whelmingly popular decision of dropping this "Trial" before even more millions are wasted... and at the same time... SACK CONROY and hire experts in the fields you are trying to examine, not smug word spinners. I'm not sure either Rudd or Conroy have answered one question directly and truthfully since coming to power.... did you learn nothing from Howard?... we people aren't idiots and hence we don't like being treated like it. You are dealing with an educated community and trying to blindside with complete lack of respect will do you no good. RUDD DO THE ONLY CORRECT THING!!!

Stuart Anderson

11 Dec 2008 6:19pm

Nothing that others haven't said far better than I could, but the Government has no right nor mandate to censor the internet. This policy is so utterly misguided and unworkable that the only thing it has served to do is embarrass and erode confidence in the Government. Dump this policy and move on to other issues - like actually getting the NBN implemented.

Jenna Cullen

11 Dec 2008 6:21pm

The censorship scheme is appalling for a number of reasons. It is unworkable; and mandatory Government censorship is tantamount to tyranny. When our leader's are being compared to China, our freedom is in serious danger.

Jarrad

11 Dec 2008 6:39pm

Firstly i'd like to echo the comments of many in congratulating the government on this open forum approach to feedback. this sort of consultation should be more widely adopted and an only help to enhance our democracy.

With that said, I, like many others cannot comprehend where the government came up with this idea. much like the governor of south australia and his instance that video games are for children and thus would never need an R classification, this web filter seems to be the concept of an individual or group that is drastically out of touch with technology and global progress. internet speeds within australia are already a joke by global standards and there are still areas of the metropolian area which do not have access to ADSL2+ and here we are debating a proposal which will drastically limit speeds. The arguement that people opposed to filtering support porn is ignorant at best. the simple fact is that this money would be far better spent in facilites and capability for our law enforcement agencies and regulators. As a graduate of security sciences and criminology i can say with a level of educated knowledge that any filtering system would obsolete far before it was ever rolled out and that the effect such a filter would have on the general population would be to further remove parental oversight of children on the internet. At current our society has an attiude that someone else should be raising our kids be it teachers, child careers or police and the responsibility and accountability is further and further removed from the parent. I'd personally suggest we use the funds to educate parents to the dangers of the internet and roll out end user software, like is readily availible such as net-nanny to be installed at the discretion of parents, schools and those who feel the need. This level of censorship is impractical and ultimately unconstitutional in my opinion. lets stop trying to solve every problem our society has by using legislation and move towards education and self-accountability. increase the sentences for child porn, child molesters and associated activities and increase the police agencies ability to track and arrest these people. lets use smarter laws, not more laws.

James Beattie

11 Dec 2008 6:39pm

Senator Conroy's bloody minded push for a mandatory ISP filter shows that he is neither in touch with, nor understands, the digital economy.

Give us someone better please Labor!

clobber

11 Dec 2008 6:43pm

Mandatory - as far as I am concerned no policy that removes our rights and freedoms should be mandatory. I was brought up in a world where we have choices and freedom of information was not only accepted it was thrown in our faces by every media outlet that could. Protect our kids, don't take away our rights as Australian citizens.

George Orwell

11 Dec 2008 9:10pm

I am extremely disappointed in the proposed filtering system. Good intentions but bad implementation. Just spend the money on tracking down the bad guys and put them in jail. Don't filter my www thanks.

JS

12 Dec 2008 5:38am

Lindsay, Thanks for the opportunity etc., but gee, in relation to the Filtering policy, I thought we just voted out a Govt fueled by (Prime) Ministerial obsessions and personal ideologies? Didn't we just vote in a Government that was going to rely on "independent research and expert advice"? I'm sure we could all pull up many a campaign talking point to remind you of the promised differences between your Govt and the last. And you do realise that opposition to this policy is just getting started, i.e.. the comments on this "blog" for instance, aren't the outpouring of some outlier niche group of techno-freaks. And if you are desperately trying to convince yourselves of this, I'd suggest you watch the last episode of the Howard Years again, where Ratty & co. were still continuing to spout that Workchoices was defeated ONLY, because of a great union-organised and funded campaign rather than the reality that when AWA's hit the hospitality/retail/manufacturing sector for real and employers dudded workers across the land, that the Yr Rights at Work campaign was merely vindicated. Imagine 10 million people/businesses logging to find their internet speeds are 70% less and half their Google searches are missing etc.... And secondly, if the recent election of a relatively unknown black Presidential candidate, who using the web and internet was able to out-spend and out-campaign old 'direct marketing' hands like the RNC isn't enough to convince you of the folly of taking on a digitally connected populace, then nothing will. Come on Lindsay... and Kevin, Julia and John (Faulkner) pull Conroy into line and dump this dog of an idea. It's also a pity that your worthy IT&C initiatives are going to be swamped and overlooked with the on-going and growing fallout from this 'crazee filtering' policy. And as Finance Minister watching good money being thrown after bad can't be a good feeling in these tightened times. Looking forward to the back down - just make it soon, ok?

Sean T

12 Dec 2008 5:41am

I am absolutely shocked that a Labor government is proposing state-sanctioned filtering of the Internet in this country. I feel this is a direct attack on our freedom of choice in this country to use the Internet as we see fit. I find it disheartening that such censorship is being proposed by a Labor government especially given we have just escaped the oppressive rule of the Liberals for the past 11 years. You do realize that attempting to control the Internet in Australia represents a direct attack on our democratic rights. We will become the laughing stock of the developed world and would be no better than China where citizens are detained and jailed for exercising their right to free speech and free Internet. Do you also realize that implementing such controls will actually cause cyber criminals and molesters to go "underground" and use tools that will easily circumvent censorship systems. Believe me these tools are easily obtainable and no censorship system can stop their use. Ironically by censoring the Internet you are actually encouraging terrorism and child pornography in this country. As a citizen of this country I will do everything in my power to stop the censorship of the Internet by the Labor government. I will also not stand by and allow a Labor government to irretrievably damage the quality of Internet access in this country which is already at a very low standard compared to the rest of the developed world. I will also not stand by and allow a Labor government to turn Australia into a Communist country. My vote at the next Federal election will be based on your future actions.

Kieran

12 Dec 2008 5:42am

This is an obvious and huge infringement that this is on freedom of speech and media. Preliminary research as clearly shown that a filter: -will drastically reduce internet speeds -be significantly more expensive than projected (an expense borne by consumers) -will not filter users who access 'illegal' content using proxy servers (routinely used to mask identity) -will not filter material shared on p2p networks Ultimately this filter is about a religious agenda who believe they know better than everyone else and have a (God-given) right to decide what material that others should have access to. The other supporters are familiar nanny-state supporters to whom no problem does not merit a Government solution. For whom no problem could or should ever be addressed by parents. Who is better placed to police a child's access to the internet; the Government or the parents in the next room watching Big Brother?

Metronicity

12 Dec 2008 5:44am

So this awful-looking mess of a site is the best you can do huh? Why am I not surprised. It's inline with your totally misguided and big-brother censorship of the internet. You just don't get it do you?

Josh

12 Dec 2008 7:45am

No Internet Filter!

mach2021

12 Dec 2008 7:45am

Regarding issues like abortion, euthanasia etc... How can one make an informed decision on anything unless they have heard arguments from proponents of both extremes (left and right)? What safeguards will be in place to ensure that personal opinion and preference will not dictate what is acceptable and not acceptable for the public to view on the internet. Governments should listen to the opinions of the people not force the opinions of the government on the public. Govern through consultation not hard paternalism.

mach2021

12 Dec 2008 1:16am

Regarding issues like abortion, euthanasia etc...

How can one make an informed decision on anything unless they have heard arguments from proponents of both extremes (left and right)?

What safeguards will be in place to ensure that personal opinion and preference will not dictate what is acceptable and not acceptable for the public to view on the internet.

Governments should listen to the opinions of the people not force the opinions of the government on the public.

Govern through consultation not hard paternalism.

majikshoe

12 Dec 2008 1:28am

Outright lies, unanswered questions, misinformation, half-truths, strawman arguments, manufactured moral hysteria, and even intimidation when someone dared to speak out. Is this the Government we deserve?

Internet censorship is flawed at multiple levels. I don't need to reiterate the reasons why here, there are 62 pages and I'm sure someone has done it.

I voted Labor in 2007, I'll not make that mistake again if another cent of my money is spent on this ridiculous and offensive proposal.

Censored

12 Dec 2008 2:32am

Ladies and Gentleman,

I send you this page link below from Dubai.

It's a twelve point explanation given by the United Arab Emirates for blocking internet content.

You wouldn't be able to see this notice page in Australia, unless you were in the Emirates, and tried to access internet sites which are banned.

This blog does not permit me to attach an image grab of what you would see in the UAE if you tried to access a site which is blocked, censored and banned.

Blocked sites also include innocuous news aggregation website such as - www.rense.com - but do not include anti-Semitic sites such as:http://iamthewitness.com

I trust this message from the UAE is what Australians will have to look forward to under the proposed Internet Censorship laws of the Australian Labor Party. Australia is a harmonization leader in the field of the coming global censorship so citizens cannot fight the coming tyranny of a one world government.

In the UAE, they are open in providing internet a full and frank explanation for blocking sites. In Australia, the ACMA keeps their list of 'unwanted' sites a secret. The ACMA won't even relent to Freedom of Information requests for a list of its banned sites, nor the reason for blocking those sites.

Based on the UAE's banned sites criteria, half the internet will no longer be available to Australians in the future.

I recommend you forward the UAE link below to colleagues. They will be able to see the censorship message in store for them in future unless the Labor Party's creeping police state legislation is stopped.
http://www.etisalat.ae/assets/document/blockcontent.pdf

Moving

12 Dec 2008 2:46am

Our company has a number of online businesses. We've invested millions. We are building the world's first smartphone video on demand service which will make YouTube look like a dog chained up to a PC. If internet censorship is introduced to Australia, we will immediately move our 22 servers overseas. The jobs will follow. No threat. A fact. We have the sever packing crates at the ready. NO to New World Order one world government tyranny for Australia. Wake up sheeple. Freedom of speech will be the first to go to clear they way for the loss of our national sovereignty. These people want to block your access to freedom, the right to exchange information or to organise once the globalist tyranny starts.

Michael Baldwin

12 Dec 2008 2:50am

The fact that only 5% of families adopted the governments free filtering internet software shows that there is OBVIOUSLY HIDDEN AGENDAS behind your plans to censor the internet!!!

This alone sickens and disturbs me it's almost on the line of government conspiracy, and is very dishonest. I don't even need to elaborate on where i'm going with this.

The fact is the people control the government not the government control the people, the people behind this policy belong over in Burma where the country is run by military regime and the internet is censored because that is where these polices belong

Tim

12 Dec 2008 2:56am

No one wants an internet filter even child protection groups are against it. Stop wasting our time and money and do something right like stopping the problems of child pornography at its source or education to protect children

In trolling fashion seems like K Rudds ability to speak Mandarin makes him a true commie

Dan

12 Dec 2008 3:01am

It warms the heart to see so many people here that understand the technology better than out national minister.

How many tens of thousands of the ordinary public are there that understand Conroy's portfolio better than him!

Hey Mr Rudd, can we get someone that is at least a little better, there's no shortage of qualified people!

master huang

12 Dec 2008 3:02am

The mandatory filter has the potential to be a powerful proppaganda tool for the government in power. This leads me to the question what will be next on the agenda in manipulating and controlling the population through draconian style of governance? Army vehicles patrolling residential areas and drones monitoring our every move and propaganda being screamed over loudspeakers as the gestapo move through our private realms?

This mandatory filtering system is a very dangerous thing in my opinion. We already have our minds manipulated sufficiently on a day by day basis. Once this filter has been implemented our minds and way of thinking may be controlled and manipulated to an even greater extent than ever before. Noone will know what this blacklist contains and who will influence what goes on to this blacklist in the long run.

What will be next under a draconian style of government? Will it go as far as being told at what time to be inside and what time it is bed time but also when it is time to go to the toilet and when it is appropriate to wipe our own butts? And don't you dare even think about flushing before Mr Gestapo Robot takes a sample of your doodoos in his testube for testing and thorough filtering in one of their laboratories.

And yes the next time you order a Pizza they will have a file on you and what you have been eating over the last few years and that your overall health and that your cholestrol is too high as well. Yes sir, that will be a $5.00 surcharge on your Pizza (health and life insurance charges and taxes all in one) as this Pizza may be your very last. Oh sorry sir no pizza for you this week you already had 2 or we will have to report this to your life insurance provider (your limit). Please watch that cholesterol and come back next week! However we do have a delicious celery stick we can offer you today 'it is bunny rabbit week for you this week sir'.

I used to think germany was pretty bad when I lived there and that it was a police state but I must admit I was quite shocked when I came here at the amount of bureaucracy and how much more it felt like a police state here. The picture everyone paints of Australia and the people being a relaxed people with the motto 'ah dont worry about it mate' is not being refelected at all when you come here. This is especially ever more so in the last few years I feel.

For me personally, there is noone to vote for anymore in this country. Can't trust the Liberals or Labor. Mainstream parties are definitely out of the equation in this country for me. Who can I trust? Answer is noone by the look of it. I have lost faith in our system to be honest and will boycott. No more vote from me and my family and close friends. I thought this was supposed to be a democracy. It certainly does not feel like one anymore. The government is there to serve the people and the people should be consulted under a democracy and their wishes at large be accomodated. Instaed the government in this country is doing whatever it pleases and ignroing the people's wishes.

Oh well the labor party is damaging itself with this particular move. They have already shot themselves in the left foot. Quite suicidal if you ask me.

We dont need a draconian style of government. We need a REAL telecommunications minister that stands for something positive and progressive. No more ignorance will be tolerated!

Sam Wilson

12 Dec 2008 3:06am

Just to add to the astounding amount of traffic that this blog has generated that CLEARLY SHOWS the general reaction of both educated technical staff and the general public. This policy will guarantee that the real criminals will simply continue to do what they have done for ever and you will simply EDUCATE the public on how to use these encrypted and secure connections. Well done Mr. Conroy perhaps you should quit while your ahead if you count discrediting your intelligence in the public space "ahead"

OK

12 Dec 2008 3:10am

I guess this will be the first test of Rudd's commitment to evidence-based policy. If the trials show that the cost would be high, the performance low and the effectiveness lower, will he (as quietly as possible) abandon this crusade? Time will tell.

Andrew

12 Dec 2008 3:16am

Dear Mr tanner

Good work on finally setting up a blog, I do sincerely hope that Mr Conroy actually listens to what the people are saying. This internet censorship idea is akin to "work choices for your computer" We didn't ask for it, we didn't want it and voted the government of the day out because of it. I am offended that Senator Conroy has likened censorship opponents to child porn supporters. I have a 10 year son who is supervised when using to internet and take mr Conroy's implication as a personal insult to my integrity and do not think he doing what he was elected to do, elected officials do not dictate to or insult and flatly refuse to listen to me and hundreds and thousands of other if they wish to remain in office. Once again, Bravo in setting up your blog and i hope that more blogs like this can be utilised in the future to enable people to be involved in decisions on how this great country can be governed for them.

ozimarco

12 Dec 2008 3:20am

Up to recently, we in the West have always prided ourselves on our freedom of expression and freedom to access information supplied by a free press and other media. Now governments clearly have had enough of the anarchical nature of the Net, where people can pretty well say and do whatever they like. As they can feel their power slipping away from them, politicians are looking for ways to curb that freedom and regain some of that power. What better way to start than by censoring the internet, under the guise of "we're protecting your children". Once they have a foot in the door, there will no stopping them and censorship will only increase as time goes on.

Rudd, please keep your hands off the Net. Go after the baddies by all means but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Once you start censoring the Net, you are on a slippery slope to a totalitarian state, the antithesis of a democracy.

ljraggy

12 Dec 2008 3:21am

10billion to connect 98% of the country @ 12mbs, 125million to slow it down with a filter that blocks only 30% of web traffic. Yup that sound like Politicians at their finest. Will Labor wonder why they will only spend 1 term in government.

Mr. Supporter

12 Dec 2008 3:26am

Hi,
Stephen Conroy, or any of your media alisions, don't listen to these fools. We need the internet filter to supress the flow of information to the Australian public? I mean how else would the ALP ever be reelected in the next election?

In addition to the illegal child pornography sites, it should also filter out unwanted material.

Now Senator Conroy, you did not define unwanted but these sites need to go on the blacklist to ensure that the ALP win the next election.

http://www.liberal.org.au (opposing party of current government should be censored)
http://nationals.org.au (same reason as above)
http://www.news.com.au (critisises the government)
(any other news sites in Australia)
http://www.news.bbc.co.uk
And any other news website that will post any threat with the ALP's next election hopes.

Looking forward to seeing you in office after the next election.

I wish all the best for Comrade Conroy and Chairman Rudd, you shall win the next election, by force or otherwise.

Fitzy

12 Dec 2008 3:37am

Senator Conroy is proposing a very flawed system which will have limited and short term benefits. Obvious ways of defeating the filters will be VPN`s, P2P and encriptioning - and the methods will quickly evolve and multiply. As we all know, authorities always lag behind perpetrators and play catchup with technology crimes. The price we will all pay for a poor result will be slow speed - sorry, make that even slower speed, complacency among parents who think their kids are safe, and censorship to rival China, North Korea etc. An even more insideous form of censorship will come from governments controlled by religous groups. I dont care what religion people choose to follow, but I dont want any religous group dictating what I can or cannot see or read. Think this is fancifull? Well - are you aware of who some of the polititions are who control the balance of power in the Senate now? They are religous groups passing themselves as "family parties". I wonder what will be bargained off regarding which websites are to be filtered, to get these groups onside on other issues. Dont let this filtering occur. It is definitely a backward step.

Rob

12 Dec 2008 3:38am

My biggest disappointment is that this is still a going concern.

Echoing others, i agree and appreciate that the intent is mostly good, but the facts over and over again say this will not work.

ISP's are saying it won't work.
ICT professionals are saying it won't work. Tech savvy end users are saying it won't work.
You're own studies so far have turned up poor results.
What will it take to stop the government pressing ahead with what is essentially a desperate attempt to waste a lot of money, time and effort achieving nothing?

I would love for my son to not see inappropriate content.
That is why he is supervised by a parent whilst online.

Nothing you can do will beat this. Worse still, a filter will instill a false sense of security.

Think ahead and picture the news headlines "12 year old defeats government filter, sees porn".

This project is doomed to fail, the less time, effort and money put into failing the better.

James very anti cleanfeed

12 Dec 2008 3:43am

What makes this blog so special that members of the government will actually take notice of it? When it comes to ISP level filtering Senator Conroy has chosen to ignore all advice from ISP's and network engineers. Not to mention the outcry from human rights groups, civil liberties groups and people who want to keep Australia democratic. My only hope is for this blog to be used as evidence of how unpopular filtering is with the Australian public, resulting in it being abandoned at once. That could save the labour party but I think its too late for you Mr Conroy, you lost me when you said �unwanted� material would be part of mandatory filtering.

The claimed reasons for filtering surely must be false, that or the government is completely ignorant of how the internet works. I think it is only due to lack of mass media coverage that more people can't see this. You don�t need to be a network engineer to know that the filters will do nothing to stop child abuse, creation of child porn or people accessing child porn. (VPN, Proxy, P2P etc etc)

Given this I challenge the government to explain the push for mandatory censorship.

Why does the government want to control the internet?

Does it see uncontrolled mass communication as a threat?

A threat to what?

Government Power?

The idea that people can spread information all over the world in a second is a new phenomenon. In the past those in power have only had to worry about commercial media, who�s voice can be bought.

Why would any government pass off the chance to silence its critics? Senator Conroy has certainly shown a desire to stop people from speaking out against the government. He had no qualms in pressuring a citizen�s employer to silence him about the filter. (respect to Mark Newton for that one) I hope Conroy doesn�t think we are going to forget that one.

Coen Hyde

12 Dec 2008 3:44am

As a director of an Australian IT internet company specialising in innovative online training systems, I am extremely disappointed in Labor's proposed internet filtering scheme. It makes me angry that after a decade of internet infrastructure neglect by the Howard government, we have a government who promised to do the hard work but delivered something even worse.

Shame on you Rudd and Conroy for not having even the slightest comprehension of how such a scheme could work and if it did the side effects it would bring. Your grab for votes is destroying this nation's economic future.

I would go into more details but i gather you are not going to read this anyway. Feel free to contact me if you are serious about listening.

Laggingbehind AussieInternet

12 Dec 2008 3:47am

Internet censorship diverts attentions away from our terribly slow,outdated and patchy network infrastructure. Referring to the post by Jarrad / 11 Dec 2008 4:34pm, there are in fact still places within metropolitan areas without access to ADSL let alone ADSL2+. Forcing ISPs to filter forces extra costs and responsibilty back to them, which we will all be paying for. internet criminals are too clever for any filter. The government should instead consider its future plans to encourage infrastructure rollout. I fear rural areas will never have ISPs to compete with Telstra, and thus will continue to pay double their metropolitan counterparts for a lesser service of ADSL2. Thankfully telstra is at least forced to wholesale ADSL1 to its competitors for us country people (where it is available) - for that I am grateful for the better prices it brings. But there are still many without- and they include people in suburbs of cities!

delx

12 Dec 2008 3:47am

Good on you for the attempt at better communication. I only hope you will actually listen and pay attention to what the internet community has to say.

Essentially, we don't want or need badly implemented, unaccountable, secret censorship of our internet access. Especially when we can all just VPN out to the USA or elsewhere to 'proper' internet.

FatTony

12 Dec 2008 3:50am

Hi,

I live in a country that imposes compulsory internet filtering. I really wanted to post here to let you know about my experience. Unfortunately, because this page contains so many offensive words, my ISP has decided to block access to your wonderful site.

Sorry :(

Robert Moonen

12 Dec 2008 3:52am

Thank you so much, I posted on 10/12/08 at 6:15pm and did get an acknowledgement email, stating that my response would be posted to the list shortly after it was censored. Well, it didn't appear on the list, even though other censored input was listed as such: "Warning, your comment has been completely censored as deemed "unwanted" and "inappropriate" by the government." So the only opinion I can form from all this is that the censor at least is conceited; I will not try to formulate my prose again, thank you.

Dion Heuzenroeder

12 Dec 2008 3:53am

The proposed mandatory filtering scheme will only serve to push Australia further backwards into a digital coma, and only result in disadvantaging unwilling businesses and end users. It�s a further slap in the face for rural users such as myself, who already suffer on the other side of slow and expensive connections.

There�s an embarrassingly endless amount of negative baggage that such a scheme imposes, too many to justifiably list here. At the same time, the filter serves nil to none in achieving its intended aim.

Little (if any) truly illicit content will be blocked. Legitimate sites will be incorrectly blocked, with little recourse. Another point of network failure is introduced. Network performance will decrease. Support costs for ISPs will increase, resulting in strain on broadband pricing. Any filter is easily circumvented via VPN or web proxy, even by young children. Any un-policed blacklist is wide open for government abuse, such as censoring of alternative political views. Parents are given a false veil of security. More capable free alternatives and client-side filters already exist. Funding is better spent elsewhere.

The government must realize 21 million Australians do not wear the same size shoe.

Tristan

12 Dec 2008 3:55am

62 pages (at the time of writing), and not a supportive comment for the cleanfeed to be found. Comments on this blog were obviously opened to hear the public's view on topics such as the proposed ISP level filtering. How many more pages of comments expressing their opposition with the policy to the extent that they will abandon voting for labor, will it take before Conroy takes notice?

Adrian

12 Dec 2008 3:57am

I am sure someone has mentioned it, but how does this filter help the circulation of the huge amount of child, bestial, and illegally hardcore pornography that is manufactured and distributed domestically through P2P software? (I have seen a simple P2P software engine written from scratch in a week by 2 guys, so if the minister's response is to block the software, then I wonder how he made it to office)

We are already running stone age internet speeds in Australia, why make this issue worse? I am sure the working families do not appreciate this move.

holdenmasd

12 Dec 2008 12:03pm

I personally think this filtering idea is a joke. It wont serve any other purpose then to slow down Australia's already slow (in comparision to other developed countries around the world) internet. If someone wants to get around the filter there will almost definetly be ways to.

The NBN has also turned into a circus. It has run wayyy over its originally proposed deadline. This is from what i have heard this is costing even more money.

All i have to say is this better turn out to be bloody good mr conroy

wrewlf

12 Dec 2008 12:43pm

the Australian citizens do not need this, if anything we need faster internet. besides who has the right to say that we cant look at whatever we want, as long as it doesn't put Australia is any harm.

plp15

12 Dec 2008 12:46pm

Thank you, Stephen and Lindasy, for promoting "blogs" as a means of government-citizen communication. This has the potential to be a major force in Government in the future. However, there are multiple issues that need to be addessed.

First is to get our Internet out of the stone age. In 1996 I purchased my first DSL connection in California. I had a choice of 3 service providers, all offering an entry-level service for about $(US)30 per month. After selecting a supplier, the next day a tech was at my premises to install it. It ran faster than my current Aussie "high level" DSL. There were NO download limits, and always an immediate response to any outages. 12 years later, which is an eternity in high-tech time frames, in Australia, I am paying much more and getting a lot less. We need true competition in this field. If the only way to get it is to split Telstra, then that needs to be very high on the Agenda.

Aussie usage of the Internet is still abysmal. Business doesn't know its' value, or how to use it.

Another issue in "government by blog" is how do we preserve Democracy. Most blogs have techniques to avoid mechanised blog entries - I note that none are used on this site. Then, there needs to be some means of voluntary personal identification, to manage the potential influence of pressure groups.

Many more issues will crop up as this evolves. But it is truly a worth-while effort.

Meanwhile, can the Federal group working on citizen Rights please set up a blog? That badly needs to canvas public opinion.

MagiCMuses

12 Dec 2008 1:18pm

Censorship is unacceptable! It is not ok to attack the rights of all those using the web in order to prevent some from behaving badly. Many have protested the infringement of rights in other countries, are bitterly opposed to the practice of controlling what citizens in any place can see. Apart from the basic ill of the practice itself, it also leaves us open to the potential to spread the criteria for censorship beyond the illegal and dangerous to the politically unpalatable. Like such behaviours as child porn or paedophilia in the 'real' world, these gross practices in the digital world should be the subject of specialist police investigation that does not infringe on the rights of the vast majority of the public who are not engaging in them. Our civil liberties are precious and diminishing and the politicians who go down this path will be held accountable. The web is a tool to ensure this happens - no matter how slowly we're forced to surf.

John Dodds

12 Dec 2008 1:24pm

As a 7th Generation Australian, living in the USA, I object to the idea of an internet filter.

The filter provides a mechanism for censoring internet content without the right to challenge if the content is actually illegal or not.

A better way to eliminate the "illegal" content, is to allow people to file a complaint to the police that a certain piece is illegal. Just exactly the way that people can currently complain about other illegal acts. The police can investigate if specific laws have been broken, and take appropriate action, INCLUDING being subject to challenge in the court system.

The courts can then force an illegal site to be blocked, or taken down if within the Australian Courts jurisdiction.

Arbitrarily filtering without public/court review will apparently trap up to 3% of legal sites. The Government and the ISPs will be liable for the consequences of this illegal filtering/blocking of legal sites, subjecting the Government & ISPs to the potential for massive monetary damages, and the potential for Government and ISP malfeasance.

Internet filtering and declaration of illegal content should be subject to criminal prosecution and court checks and balances just like all conduct. Pass a law that identifies what is illegal and then fine or gaol/jail the transgressors just like all other illegal acts.

Don

12 Dec 2008 1:26pm

"How do I want to engage online"? By broadband, filter-free, like yesterday.

I don't care *how* you do it - ADSL, ADSL2, wireless, cable who cares.

I want nation wide broadband, minimum 8Mbps or better, and for less than $80/month. And I want it now, not in another three years.

ISP Filtering: biggest red-herring ever, but an invitation to even worse performance. If I need a filter, I'll do it here, ta.

You've already had 12 months to sort all this out. Its another of The Big Ideas for which *progress* is glacial, frozen in endless *process*.

Telstra's bid is a another straw in the wind. A monolith whose service is not up to scratch, at the counter or at the socket, delivered late, and with bad attitude. And how do they tackle their broadband bid? The same way: late & not up to spec.

We don't really care what you *say*, Minister. What we want is for you to DO something, and quickly.

AP

12 Dec 2008 1:27pm

An internet filter is no replacement for good parents watching and guiding their child online.

The government should be encouraging parents to parent, rather than providing opportunities for them to not do so by providing rules, regulations and software which allow people to claim "no blame" if their children do or see something wrong.

Bernard

12 Dec 2008 1:32pm

Ministers and co,

Thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback towards the Australian gvts digital direction.

Although I gave my vote to your political party last election, had I known about your prosaic policy decision to censor the Internet, you would NEVER have received my vote. I say this for two main reasons.

Firstly, that your policy massively challenges and erodes the freedoms of our entire nation to discourage the few.

And secondly, that your 'blanket' policy making style is highly ineffectual considering the amount of money of mine and the country's you are wasting.

I am completely appalled and disgusted by this policy and its rationale. The policy erodes the digital freedoms of an entire nation on a grand scale in an effort to inhibit the few from watching 'child porn' and the like. This censorship is hardly going to stop those who truly want to view illicit material. A blanket censorship merely encourages specialised clandestine Internet groups. In effect, you cripple the nation's (assumed) freedoms while letting those who are breaking the law do as they please.

This type of blanket policy making is completely misguided and myopic. It is merely a tool to make finding illicit content harder for newcomers to the fetish. At the same time, this policy has no effect on those already viewing the content who I would deem to be the major threat (as shown above). I consider this to be a monumental waste of mine and the country's tax money. I would much rather putting the millions aside to (1) refine punitive measures as a deterrent, and (2) provide rehabilitation to those currently viewing the illicit content.

If I had any suggestions to you, minsters, and associates, it would be to target Internet content that truly harms Australians on a day to day basis. Now that isn't child porn, it isn't pro-anorexia websites (you must be joking?), it isn't gambling, nor is it any porno fetish. In fact, it a kind of content that is not simply distasteful to the morally righteous, but heinous by all civilised persons on Earth. The biggest threat to Australia via the internet is racial hate-mongering and hate-speech. Let me tell you now, if you and your ministry of half-wits can reduce bigotry via the Internet you will have made a reformer out of me.

Vlad

12 Dec 2008 1:32pm

Putting in my vote against any form of internet censorship. Doomed to fail anyway you look at it. Filter or no filter, it is still possible to view any website using certain methods, eg: Virtual Private Network, or just set up a hosting account hosted in for example the US, and display any website you want with one line of code in your hosted domain's index file... Rather than introducing more and more laws to restrict the majority, how about this for a novel approach: Catch and punish the minority of the population who do the wrong thing. Why does the majority of the population always have to pay for the mistakes of the minority? If a certain minority does the wrong thing, the answer is not to punish the majority, but punish the minority. There will never be zero people who want to do the wrong thing, and no amount of laws will change this fact. Be a government for the people, not against. If Australia had a government that was truly for the people, what a country this could be, and as a side benefit, how popular would that government be?

Alex Hautot

12 Dec 2008 1:57pm

Welcome to the Internet Government.

Particularly I'd like to welcome the poor people sitting in an office deciding if what is being posted here is offensive or not. Considering the fact that we are online I can only imagine that the 600 replies that are visible here are only the tip of the iceberg, so I thank you for your hard work.

At the same time I'd like to say that this is emblematic of the the current approach used to the internet by those in power: heavy handed and completely wrong for the task at hand.

As I recall, in the days before the election I was strongly hopeful of a Labor win, as even for those in this wonderful internet-land, there was good news of an upgrade to the broadband on which we all thrive. So far this has stalled at the hands of Telstra, for which I cannot blame the Government. However, this filter, which now that I investigate was proposed by then opposition front bencher, Mr. Tanner back in 2006, was not something that I heard about. Perhaps this was a classic case of listening to what I wanted to hear.

More to the point, why has it taken two and a half years for someone to tell him that it won't work. Perhaps more importantly when it was politically and technically unfeasible in 2006, why does he think it to be such a good idea now? Certainly technology has improved, but as was demonstrated just this week, with the entirety of the UK being unable to edit Wikipedia, it is in no way of a level where normal access to the internet can continue and so far from perfect...

Again, welcome to the Internet.

Clapper

12 Dec 2008 2:02pm

I wonder where they are getting their technical advice from, it's just not possible at all. Proxies, tunnels, TOR and encryption are just a few ways that you can get around anything the government is trying to do here, all are easy to setup and not easy to block.

Clapper

12 Dec 2008 2:05pm

LOL...65 pages of "NO THANKS!"

Barry Robinson

12 Dec 2008 2:12pm

One question: If our Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy does not have the industry knowledge to know the proposed CleanFeed filtering is not achievable (even after every major ISP and respected Industry Professional tells him otherwise). How are we expected to be able to trust him to deliver such important initiatives such as the NBN? I have trust that a Finance Minister has some knowledge about Finance... Is it too much to ask the same when it comes to ICT? Please put someone into this Portfolio with a clue before any more damage is done. On another note: I have been searching everywhere for Mr Conroy's blog post... must have missed it. Cheers, Barry

Tim

12 Dec 2008 2:13pm

Please heed the strong and consistent message. Australians DO NOT WANT YOUR CLEAN FEED. The proposal is flawed, expensive, anti-competitive and just won't work. As a parent with two young kids (6 and 8) I know there are lots of options I can choose to implement, including educating my kids and taking responsibility. Don't break the 'Net to pander to minority groups.

Nexvotum

12 Dec 2008 2:21pm

Welcome to Kevin Rudd's China people. Even the thought that we are going to filter the internet like a communist country, with a ruthless ruler and a corrupt government is shocking! they did it to oppress there people, stop them from seeing what they didn't like, that where this ISP filter is aimed, just for now, its at some sort of moral level.

Colin

12 Dec 2008 2:29pm

How can so many people be in opposition to a policy designed to filter content intended for a particular demographic? If you are not in that seedy demographic you would want the filter. Ratings work successfully across our television programming and I am thankful for it. As a parent and reasonably well educated Australian I applaud where this innovative Australian government is going with respect to internet filtering. Of course I am pleased with it. At a time when the world needs to focus on the environment, a fuel crisis, financial crisis and security issues, who would want the internet to provide access to issues that potentially corrupt our lifestyles? Internet filters sustain our egalitarian lifestyles and clear the way for us to achieve our dreams. In terms of the democratic use of blogs, of course governments can use them successfully. They do this all over the globe. Three levels of Australian government currently consult communities. There are always people willing to skew the debate. Feedback provides qualitative data also however. This means that the government learns about a range of concepts that supplement findings from other randomly based, statistically relevant and highly accurate survey and consultation processes. Regarding the quality of the blog interface, well I think you need to strike a balance between formality and accessibility. Who would want a blog that does not emphasise that what you write here counts for something? This is a nationally significant forum, not a face-book backwater. This is a place where people need to say what they mean, and mean what they say - where opinions lead others. Over personalisation of the interface could also reduce one�s ability to be candid. So the right balance is necessary. Good on you AGIMO, Kevin and Minister Conroy. You are keeping pace with the best of global leadership and giving confidence to those who want a stronger more effective democracy.

Bestington

12 Dec 2008 2:31pm

Unfortunately, Minister Conroy, you personally have no power in stopping the clean feed. Your government has a vested interest in it. The right wing religious components that, chances are, have helped the PM take power, are pushing you into a wall and you, as the minister for telecommunications and broadband, you are their scape goat. If this doesn�t work, and it won�t, your resignation will be in the next day. People will try to say on Blogs and through twitter, and the like: �Senator Conroy puts in his Resignation, free speech prevails�. But by then it will be too late. The filter will be in, scouring and scraping every single transmission any Australian makes. Hunting down red flag words, like we are living in Communist China. And on the government approved news sites, we will see a report: �The clean feed is a success!�, and no one will be able to argue with it. 1984 was a book. It wasn�t supposed to be an instruction manual.

h

12 Dec 2008 2:35pm

I'm joining the droves here expressing my opposition to the clean feed. Believe me this will be a major factor when I vote next - VOTEs, mate, VOTES WILL BE LOST. Please listen to the industry: the filter will not work. It will not achieve your goals and in fact it will lull parents into a false sense of security - thereby making the situation worse. We already have terrible internet connection quality in Australia and this filter will just slow it down further. We are already an internet backwater and it gets worse every day. The filter will be an expensive failure - this is what you want to be known for? Senator Alston has gone down in internet history as the man known as "the world's biggest luddite". Please don't follow suit. You're currently heading for a legacy of "world's biggest luddite AND censorship proponent". If you MUST go ahead with the filter, you need to make it something that parents can opt in to. People who want the filter can have it, but don't force it on the rest of us. Forcing the feed on everyone and registering people who opt out... that's censorship, bullying and NOT what Australia is supposed to be about.

Anti clean-feed

12 Dec 2008 2:40pm

And why hasn't the PM said anything about this yet? Oh i forgot, quoting from whirlpool, ".....hes back to OZ for a short holiday before heading overseas for work" And i think i might be safe to say that Australians are grown ups and mature and don't need to be fed.

David

12 Dec 2008 2:56pm

What a waste of tax payer money on so many levels. You cannot claim the moral high ground when taking away civil liberties like this. Would you ban paper because someone could potentially write an illicit story about child abuse on it? Would you ban canvas because someone could paint a picture of a naked child on it? Labor has lost my vote because of this one proposal.

Steven

12 Dec 2008 2:59pm

Rather than giving parents a false sense of security by promoting an incomplete and inconsistent filter, you would achieve a much greater benefits by educating parents on the dangers, risks and traps the internet poses for young people and promoting personal responsibility by providing a simple way for non-tech-savvy households to monitor their own families internet usage.

Tony Eastwood

12 Dec 2008 3:01pm

So I assume that if we get a filter it would be impossible to access illegal stuff, therefore we would be safe from any lawsuits?

nanks

12 Dec 2008 3:03pm

I am supportive of those who have asked that we move on from the filter topic and address other issues on the blog. However it seems to me that it is very hard to take this government seriously with respect to consultation on the Internet until the filter is dropped. If anything, the continuation of the filter project demonstrates this government has no interest in consulation and will ignore the best advice available.

Danny

12 Dec 2008 3:06pm

Your plans to filter the internet are a joke. They do not work, they will cripple our already elderly and quite pathetic internet speeds as well as not even stop the content you preach about. A VPN, proxy or even widespead P2P software that a child can use will defeat it. Stop wasting our money on this ineffective, inefficient and quite useless idea of an internet filter, ditch it before the country ditches you.

Tim

12 Dec 2008 3:15pm

Nice work setting up a blog site, although it would have been far easier just to read the Whirlpool forum, which is the largest Aussie community about such issues. As for internet filtering - I cannot see how it will work effectively. You'd need a massive phone call centre to recieve the thousands of calls per day you'd get. "My net is slow". " Why is this site blocked" etc As for NBN - this will end in a purely political exercise unfortunately - either annoy Telstra shareholders, or the rest of Australia who actually cares about the internet as an essential piece of communication infrastructure. The second group is growing larger by the day... I know which I'd pick, and it's not Telstra!

Robert

12 Dec 2008 3:31pm

Aside from the civil liberties argument, the problem is that an internet filter will never be %100 or even %90 accurate. I have 12 years experience as a Computer Scientist and there is no algorithm that exists which will acurately detect a pornographic image versus a family snap with the grandparents. Perfectly legal material will be blocked 'accidentally' by these filtering methods. This is a waste of time and money and the negative effects will far outweigh the pros. Please drop this idea now.

Nebuchadnedzzar

12 Dec 2008 3:35pm

I am a mother and a long term writer of a leading Christian magazine. As a woman who holds ethics and social cohesion very highly, I would like to express my concern for the new governmental policies regarding a national mandatory internet filter. I have had many years experience with people involved in Christian missionary activities abroad, and know first hand the problems faced by people with concerns for freedom of religious practice. The internet is a very important tool for putting forward sound, ethical information to the general public. The problem is, in almost all situations, benign and benevolent proposals for media control have ended up in censoring the very freedoms we hold dear. As agencies such as Amnesty International can assert, censorship is often the thin-end-of-the-wedge. Stringent censorship, for whatever purpose, has an ugly way of limiting the very people it is meant to help. While it is admirable to think that censoring �evil� on the web will do great good, the truth is that evil always finds a way to leak through the cracks. Pornographers and perverted souls have a way of finding the loop-holes and slipping their filth through the slivers of any information system. These people will not be substantially inhibited by this work, because, as every computer scientist knows, protections such as these are not impervious, they just count on those combating it to find it too costly in time or finances to find a way through. (Filters do not impair the flow of information Peer-to-Peer.) On the other hand, this sort of severe restriction proves almost crippling for those of integrity, those who dare to do what is right. These people will not put their mind to perverting justice; rather they will suffer the restrictions imposed. In other words, bad people will continue to prosper, while good people suffer the limitations imposed upon them. The value of our social freedoms is imperative. During this horrible war on terror, again and again we have seen civil freedoms pared back. When will this stop. When will our government choose to relinquish its paternalistic hold upon our intellects, and allow us, as citizens, to demonstrate our maturity and diversity? The internet is an amazing vehicle for creativity, intellectual development and community building. There are valid concerns that a national firewall will undo much of the great good that is being made available by this media, both because the restrictions imposed and the limitations and impositions of the programs that will be used to institute these restrictions. Such limitations include a drastically reduced bandwidth (interfering with multi-media transfers) and huge error rates, which will see many innocent sites banned by accident. Who can know what these sites will be? Who can be sure that he or she will be safe from censorship, despite his/her innocence? And there is real reason to be concerned that censorship will be excessive. The NSW Government Department of Education web-filter is noted for its severity. Students are unable to access peer reviewed articles, educational material and their own personal mail servers, as these sources are seen as being dangerous for the development of our young minds. Rather, we are to expect the substandard sources offered to our students will promote the creation of a population capable of solving the extremely difficult problems of the future: not just scientific and environmental problems, but problems of social justice and equity. Thus, I point you to the thoughts of Thomas Hobbs, who wrote that the freedoms that we relinquish in order to have a civil society ought to be the minimum freedoms required in order to maintain a reasonable peace and tranquillity. Just as we would stand against Plato, and say that the benevolent philosopher tyrant is not the option we would choose as the best form of governance, we must say that vesting our intellectual freedoms in the hands of a short lived leadership, or any leadership, is a dangerous thing to do. As citizens, we need to be careful about the liberties we relinquish. These liberties were once won at great cost, and to regain them will cost even more. There is a difference between protection and constriction. I believe that the measures currently suggested are poorly conceived, and will result in the constraining of our intellectual, ethical, cultural and religious freedoms. These freedoms are necessary in building and maintaining a first world nation. Thus, I adjure you to vote against any such reforms, as there is a fine line between good policing and a police state: protection of thought and the Thought Police.

Billy

12 Dec 2008 3:38pm

I strongly oppose an internet filter and censorship of the internet. We dont need a filter through our isp's that will affect everyone, when there are software solutions available that parents can place on there own computer if they wish. We need a faster workable broadband solution, not measures that will slow it down.

Logaan

12 Dec 2008 3:39pm

I do not support internet censorship.

Dave

12 Dec 2008 3:40pm

Guess what I want to talk about? The same thing as everyone else - the reactionary, luddite scheme to restrict my net access with a slow and ineffective censorship scheme. Please don't - you'll cripple Australia's ability to compete in the knowledge economy.

cameronreilly

12 Dec 2008 3:41pm

You guys are turning out to be worse than your predecessors. Censoring the Internet will be your downfall. You have no idea what you've just started. You've woken a sleeping giant.

Daniel

12 Dec 2008 3:49pm

So symmetric 12Mbit/s has been dropped from the NBN network as a goal and it now is pretty much about trying to get ADSL2 equivalent instead of fibre to everyone? When is it that we will get 1Gbit/s Internet? Japan, France, Hong Kong and other countries have that RIGHT NOW - and we're trying to aim for ADSL2? with not even good symmetric speeds!?! Looking at the history of the Internet in this country it looks like we're over a decade behind!

Please fire Stephen Conroy

12 Dec 2008 3:55pm

Well, enough is enough. It is obvious he has no clue about the internet. Australian Department of Educations (every state) have been censoring many websites for many years, and lets just say, it doesn't work. Even kids as young as 10 (primary school kids) are finding out ways to bypass filters, and guess what Conroy, it hasn't changed. - Anonomous Proxies - Virtual Private Networks - TOR etc. Now how about you vest the money in something real like improving our pathetic broadband. Many other countries are building FTTP/FTTH and the Labor Government is still thinking about FTTN, which would be redundant and old technology by the time it's built. We need someone more competent for our Communications Minister. If this nation is to go forward, we, as the Australian public, would need to see Stephen Conroy's resignation, and fast.

Please fire Stephen Conroy

12 Dec 2008 3:46pm

Well, enough is enough. It is obvious he has no clue about the internet. Australian Department of Educations (every state) have been censoring many websites for many years, and lets just say, it doesn't work.

Even kids as young as 10 (primary school kids) are finding out ways to bypass filters, and guess what Conroy, it hasn't changed.
- Anonomous Proxies
- Virtual Private Networks
- TOR

etc.
Now how about you vest the money in something real like improving our pathetic broadband. Many other countries are building FTTP/FTTH and the Labor Government is still thinking about FTTN, which would be redundant and old technology by the time it's built.

We need someone more competent for our Communications Minister. If this nation is to go forward, we, as the Australian public, would need to see Stephen Conroy's resignation, and fast.

Cleanfeed will not be forgotten come next election!

12 Dec 2008 3:47pm

I find the methods used by Conroy to convince us we need mandatory ISP censorship to be disgusting. Exploiting victims of child abuse and peoples fears of it is a very underhanded way to foist totalitarian like control of information on society. Sure the less tech savvy might lap it up. But the rest of us see straight through it. We know the filtering will not stop child abuse, we know that a secret blacklist will be an open invitation for censorship. At least we can take comfort in the fact that if the train wreck is implemented that the blacklist will leak. Then everyone will see the real motivation for censorship. Weather that be political, religious or commercial. ie governments silencing critics, Family First forcing Christianity on us, Media conglomerates trying in vain to stop piracy or a combination.

Nebuchadnedzzar

12 Dec 2008 4:06pm

I am a mother and a long term writer of a leading Christian magazine. As a woman who holds ethics and social cohesion very highly, I would like to express my concern for the new governmental policies regarding a national mandatory internet filter.

I have had many years experience with people involved in Christian missionary activities abroad, and know first hand the problems faced by people with concerns for freedom of religious practice. The internet is a very important tool for putting forward sound, ethical information to the general public. The problem is, in almost all situations, benign and benevolent proposals for media control have ended up in censoring the very freedoms we hold dear. As agencies such as Amnesty International can assert, censorship is often the thin-end-of-the-wedge. Stringent censorship, for whatever purpose, has an ugly way of limiting the very people it is meant to help.

While it is admirable to think that censoring �evil� on the web will do great good, the truth is that evil always finds a way to leak through the cracks.

Pornographers and perverted souls have a way of finding the loop-holes and slipping their filth through the slivers of any information system. These people will not be substantially inhibited by this work, because, as every computer scientist knows, protections such as these are not impervious, they just count on those combating it to find it too costly in time or finances to find a way through. (Filters do not impair the flow of information Peer-to-Peer.) On the other hand, this sort of severe restriction proves almost crippling for those of integrity, those who dare to do what is right. These people will not put their mind to perverting justice; rather they will suffer the restrictions imposed. In other words, bad people will continue to prosper, while good people suffer the limitations imposed upon them.

The value of our social freedoms is imperative. During this horrible war on terror, again and again we have seen civil freedoms pared back. When will this stop. When will our government choose to relinquish its paternalistic hold upon our intellects, and allow us, as citizens, to demonstrate our maturity and diversity? The internet is an amazing vehicle for creativity, intellectual development and community building. There are valid concerns that a national firewall will undo much of the great good that is being made available by this media, both because the restrictions imposed and the limitations and impositions of the programs that will be used to institute these restrictions. Such limitations include a drastically reduced bandwidth (interfering with multi-media transfers) and huge error rates, which will see many innocent sites banned by accident. Who can know what these sites will be? Who can be sure that he or she will be safe from censorship, despite his/her innocence?

And there is real reason to be concerned that censorship will be excessive. The NSW Government Department of Education web-filter is noted for its severity. Students are unable to access peer reviewed articles, educational material and their own personal mail servers, as these sources are seen as being dangerous for the development of our young minds. Rather, we are to expect the substandard sources offered to our students will promote the creation of a population capable of solving the extremely difficult problems of the future: not just scientific and environmental problems, but problems of social justice and equity.

Thus, I point you to the thoughts of Thomas Hobbs, who wrote that the freedoms that we relinquish in order to have a civil society ought to be the minimum freedoms required in order to maintain a reasonable peace and tranquillity. Just as we would stand against Plato, and say that the benevolent philosopher tyrant is not the option we would choose as the best form of governance, we must say that vesting our intellectual freedoms in the hands of a short lived leadership, or any leadership, is a dangerous thing to do. As citizens, we need to be careful about the liberties we relinquish. These liberties were once won at great cost, and to regain them will cost even more.

There is a difference between protection and constriction. I believe that the measures currently suggested are poorly conceived, and will result in the constraining of our intellectual, ethical, cultural and religious freedoms. These freedoms are necessary in building and maintaining a first world nation. Thus, I adjure you to vote against any such reforms, as there is a fine line between good policing and a police state: protection of thought and the Thought Police.

Cleanfeed will not be forgotten come next election!

12 Dec 2008 4:07pm

Tim

12 Dec 2008 4:11pm

First we need an internet filter. Then we need a newsagent filter to make sure no publications slip through that parents may object to. Then we need a library and book shop filter to make sure the same protection is there. Then government should be able to filter what the teachers at schools and universities can say (to protect the children). Same for movie theatres, TV, Radio, Australia post and so on. Stop this mad idea now.

informationwars

12 Dec 2008 4:14pm

Sir your censorship and New World Order Plans will fail.

We will defeat your tyranny and we will defeat the New World Order.

Free people will always triumph over tyrants.

Web Wizard

12 Dec 2008 4:15pm

I must post here as I very strongly object to ANY form of filtering of Internet content. If I want content to be filtered I will do so at a personal/home level to protect my children from unwanted content.

Slakewell

12 Dec 2008 6:26pm

This is my second post in this blog. After reading thou many pages I have not found a single instance were there is a sliver of support on this issue. The irony would be as child sex topics are mentioned many times and the way these filters work it's more than average chance that this blog would get blocked by the filters. It would be interesting that those who test these filters check that.

Clark A

12 Dec 2008 6:34pm

My wife and I applaud the Government's initiative of exploring ways to provide our homes with a clean Internet feed. While we fully understand that we have the primarily responsibility, as parents of two young boys, to educate and protect our children regarding the Internet, a clean feed is of great value to us because - to our understanding - it significantly reduces their likelihood of accidental exposure to violent, disturbing, abusive, and generally inappropriate material. The widely publicised disadvantages of such an initiative, including comparisons of a censorship regime rivalling China, is just so much misinformation and fear-mongering. First, unlike China, the list of blocked sites is regulated by a publicly-accountable government body, the ACMA, and - also unlike China - will be available for scrutiny by our politicians, all of which comes under the rule of democratic law - which China is NOT. Second, who exactly are those most likely to lose out from having a clean feed by default? I believe some of those speaking the loudest are from the multi-billion-dollar-a-year porn industry, whose source of revenue may be affected. In fact, according to Fiona Patten of the porn lobby: "If they go ahead with what they propose [ISP filtering], we�ll wipe out the adult industry in the next five years." There is not likely to be another party with a bigger vested interest, especially one so strongly financially motivated. The Government and Senator Conroy should be congratulated for pursuing an initiative that, while earning the ire of many vocal parties, is certainly benefiting the overwhelming silent majority in our community.

Richard. C.

12 Dec 2008 6:35pm

Dear Tanner, So let's get this clear, are you intending to erect a 'skynet' and build a terminator technology, running artificial intelligent robots that surpass human monitoring abilities to govern this filtering idea or are they just going to spend that hard-earned money on some software and hardware, that will work only the a surface level, that will probably do nothing but cause problems for our country in the short and long-run, so they can spend more money trying to fix it, then end up trashing this idea in the end? We currently do not have the technology to do this level of filtering that apparently our senator masterminds have so much delusional faith in. The point really is, Stephen Conroy does not have the moral right to subject forceably to all Australians any kind of Internet filtering, as there are none at this stage that are proven to be advanced enough to do what it's meant to do, without disadvantaging side-effects that far outweigh its advantages. If he is so bent on going all out with this Internet filter, he should at least consider it as 'ALPHA' technology (as its most advanced form for a few years) and subject it to only those who wish to sign up for it. I repeat, we currently do not have the technological advancement in this era for an Internet filter to be as effective as we need it to be.

AFarrugia

12 Dec 2008 6:36pm

Conroy, I cannot believe this has got this far! It is wasting money and is an attempt using a blunt instrument to solve a minor issue that is not going to be resolved by effecting the whole community. The money and time would be much better spent in fixing the infrastructure bottlenecks that still exist!

Mathew

12 Dec 2008 6:37pm

Mark me down as 'yet another' voice against the proposed net filtering (in its current form). There is no reason for me to repeat the good points previously stated in 600 odd other posts. My additional views are as follows- I feel it is unfair to turn ISP's into policemen, and worry about the outcome of a future court case between 'litigious parent A' vs 'a-typical small ISP', all because someones sensibilitys were shocked. Putting aside the freedom of speech debate aside for a moment, Id like to say I have been using the internet in its current uncensored form for many years now, and yes I will concede pron is easier than ever to find. 15 seconds with google and you could no doubt find a picture (or movie which is already out of the scope of your filtering) of just about 'anything'. I can to some extent agree with concerned parents that younger children should be sheltered from such until they are of a more mature age and mindset. I do strongly feel though this IS the responsibility of said parent to police. With that said I know joe sixpack doesnt know what an IP address is, let alone how to blacklist one. The existing downloadable net-nanny solution is perfect for this.

menus

12 Dec 2008 7:58pm

I run a small proxy network and the funny thing is that i have support from a major ISP. Isn't that funny? More support for a way to circumvent the filters than Conroy was or will ever have!

Mathew

12 Dec 2008 7:59pm

The Rock

12 Dec 2008 8:01pm

The cynical side of me says that there is no hope Senator Conroy nor his aides will ever bother reading this blog. Judging by his absolute refusal to listen to experts in the field and the abuse of the "protecting the children" defence for the filter I doubt he would bother reading what Australian Voters have to say. As a parent of two young children who both use the internet I want to protect them from the slime that lurks in the shadows of the internet. However I know that the proposed Filter will do nothing to stop these sick people, who already are already using various methods to avoid detection. For them it is a simple task to bypass any filter. Even Senator Conroy MUST know this or he HAS to be removed as the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy as his lack of understanding of the area he is responsible for will destroy one of the integral building blocks for our economy! The only other reason for his pig headed approach to introducing mandatory filtering is censorship expansion beyond the initial concept. He must be proud to know that Australia will join North Korea and China in stopping open access to knowledge for all its citizens.

CraigT

12 Dec 2008 8:44pm

I'm glad to see that the greater use of online consultation by the Australian government, mirroring the efforts of other governments around the world. I will be commenting regularly to this blog and wanted in my first comment to get several topics out of the way. I oppose the filtering regime under consideration by the Australian government. As the parent of two children, my focus is on educating them to understand and avoid the dangers online - as I educate them on the dangers in the real world. Censoring the internet is a poor and ineffective way of addressing the challenges of child exploitation or distribution of illegal content. Direct action against deveopers and consumers of illegal content and education of the community are far more cost-effective long-term solutions. Australia is at risk of becoming a globally laughing stock (specifically Minister Conroy and his department) due to the approach under consideration. I also question the capacity for the government to judge 'appropriateness' in rapid timeframes in order to list or delist material according to current community values. The Australian government needs to stop imposing an artificial distinction between 'digital economy' and the overall economy. We have a single economy which involves a set of different input and output channels. It is as inappropriate as it would be in the early 20th century to create a distinction between the 'telephone economy' and the real economy as telephony became widespread in businesses and homes. The internet is another channel and platform for the creation, distribution and promotion of products and services and for broadening and deepening human relationships. While the prevalence and extent of the internet facilitates many innovations, at its core it is a mechanism enabling interactions between humans, businesses, governments and information. Creating an artificial divide, 'siloing' the internet into a box, may make it easier for centralised silo-based organisations such as many government departments to fit the internet into their way of doing business, however it does not reflect the actual way in which the internet is transforming society. What needs to occur is a change in business practices, not attempts to fit the internet into existing practices in government. Most importantly, despite the use of a sub-standard tool for this blog, I commend the Minister and Department for taking this step to trial online consultation. The internet, as a mass medium, provides significant benefits for government in understanding community needs and interests, engaging with individuals and organisations to proactively create and modify policy, drive service delivery and create more widespread conversation. I strongly recommend that the Department review the new UK movie, US Now, on the topic of how the internet is shaping public engagement (www.usnowfilm.com). I also recommend that the government engage widely with online experts in Australia from the public and private sector. This will aid in improving the understanding of the senior public service and ministerial staff on how to best incorporate internet-based approaches into government activities and initiatives. I look forward to more posts from the Department in order to provide constructive feedback on the discussion.

Andrew

12 Dec 2008 8:48pm

70 pages with 698 people saying no and a online petition with 86,689 other saying no, . Get the message yet ? That's a lot of votes considering some labour seats only won a a margin of 900 votes. listen to the people or look for another job.

Rhett Kipps

13 Dec 2008 10:16am

I refer to my email to the Minister Conroy of 1 November 2008 and 12 December 2008 concerning the ALP's plans to Censor Australian Internet access. Why have you not responded? Are my points impossible to rebut?

Louise W.

13 Dec 2008 10:22am

the argument is made, by The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy on ABC�s Radio National 30th October 2008, that, �for example� �child pornography is illegal and families do not want their children to be able to see child pornography and so, it should be filtered out�. the problem with this argument: the storage/use/viewing of child pornography is itself a criminal act, and when you try to apply this argument to other examples then the meaning is entirely different. so, �for example�, murdering is illegal. if the government proposes to filter out any sites depicting or discussing murder then the result is not law enforcement, but the limiting of �ideas� about murder. Unlike the case of child pornography, where a crime has been committed in the abuse of a child�s rights in order to produce the pornography, no murder need have taken place in order to produce the site depicting or discussing the idea of murder. or, �for example�, the word �euthanasia� was scrutinised as a topic worthy of filtering (suggested by another parliamentarian to Conroy). Euthanasia, though related to murder, bears very little relationship to the removal of anybody's liberties, except for the removal of a person�s choice to end their own suffering. filtering out the topic of �euthanasia� from our internet actively quashes discourse about a contentious social issue. to use child pornography as the example and the reason for introducing a filtering system, is at its heart a dishonest one, pretending, as it does, that it could be the example against which others could be measured. there is currently an overriding dishonest argument for the government�s pledge to filter the net, and this argument refers to the pledge to protect families from �bad� content on the internet. the emphasis is on the word 'pledge', because it is important to do what you say you are going to do, and keep your word, and what could be dishonest about that? but to say you are keeping your word, while asserting one possible course of action as the stand in for that promise is a heinous form of duplicity. a filtering system is a blanket approach which disadvantages everybody by a diminishment in what can be thought about. it is literally a limiting of ideas.

Concerned Voter

13 Dec 2008 10:40am

I can see you have some arduous reading to do of the views of many like myself on the topic of a National Mandatory Internet Filter, so i will keep this short. NO !!!

ts

13 Dec 2008 10:41am

Firstly, thank you for the opportunity to post here! No bad thing. I have a few issues with how the government is running this portfolio. I'm more than ready to acknowledge that this portfolio hasn't necessarily been run fantastically well throughout its history, but it's never been as important before as it is now. Especially with significant money about to be spent here. First off, the decision to drop OPEL still grates with me. Even if it achieved half its aims, it's still giving service to people who have no other options. Secondly, network building. New estates, for the last few years, have continued being built with copper. I live in an estate which is 8km from the exchange - this means it's impossible to provide ADSL services (ANY ADSL services) without local Nodes. So Telstra has installed Nodes. But they only provide DSL access for roughly 50% of the properties/phone lines that they service. This is a brand new estate - my house is 4 years old, and was one of the first built in my street. The last was only built in the last few months. Because of the inadequate supply of DSL, many people are forced onto 3G or alternative wireless services (which, in my case, was government-subsidised). Copper was an outdated method 4 years ago. Because of slow-moving regulation, which still allows the installation of outdated technologies, the government is paying now (in subsidies), consumers are suffering (higher prices, limited access), and the government will have to pay again. If these estates were built with FTTH - as they should have been - the NBN would not have to fund infrastructure in them. There is the argument that developers could've done more, but, at least in my estate, there is evidence that the developer wanted to, but couldn't find anyone willing to partner with them... The network builders generally don't see any good reason for building anything more than the minimum allowed, which does nothing but increase the cost (and therefore reduce the positive outcomes) of the NBN... Thirdly, Filtering the Internet. There is no evidence that this is widely wanted or workable. People who complain that unwanted sites 'appear' before them are people who need to take 5 minutes to 'tour' their computer's operating system. Internet Explorer has a very effective pop-up blocker. If they are still getting pop-ups, they need to improve their virus protection, as anti-virus programs will also protect against pop-ups. Pop-ups are a hazard to computer health, as well as generally linking to unwanted sites. So computer owners - parents, like myself - need to make sure their computers are secure. If pop-ups are blocked - as they should be - then nothing unwanted will find children. The only things that children will find are the things they search for... It's not worth destroying the internet's speed and freedom (yes, freedom) so that a few lazy parents couldn't be bothered to make sure their computer's secure. These parents believe that, if they can't get past the filter, kids won't be able to either. But they are completely wrong - kids will crack the filter (using any of the multiple options available - even if they still run at reduced speeds) before their parents know it's possible to crack the filter. And, of course, there is the point that the filter won't block peer to peer (as it shouldn't - not all P2P is illegal activity), won't read emails... Finally, the NBN. Given Filtering, the NBN does seem a little pointless. No point spending $4.7 Billion to improve internet speeds then spend $100 million to implement a filter which will destroy speeds, dropping them below ADSL1 speeds. But, further, the process seems extremely flawed. I didn't ever agree with the sell-off of Telstra Wholesale - there are some things where it's not practical to have competition. Like water supply, electricity supply (i.e. the wires into houses - power stations are another story), and fixed telecommunications (i.e. copper/optical fibre). Given the Government doesn't own the copper, why is it so fixed on using it? And encouraging other companies to use it? This will do nothing to improve our situation. Why? Because we're still connected to copper, which requires maintenance, which cannot transmit speeds as quickly as fibre, and which is owned by one of the 'bidders' - though the Telstra bid is a complete farce. Plus, for those currently able to get DSL2+ - which is a very good number of people in established areas (but not new estates) - we are looking at spending a good amount of money for an unknown (but not significant) increase in speed. This makes no sense. I'm not going to call for the head of the minister - though there are many calling for it. I'm calling for someone with expertise to be brought in to advise on the situation. Government appears to have frustrated every single player in this industry in the last few months. They know their industry better than Labor.

matty

13 Dec 2008 10:44am

Mandatory filtering no thanks Mr Conroy. We need someone knowledegable on this issue. The only thing that should be mandatory is for Mr Conroy to step down as I personally believe he is not suited.

John

13 Dec 2008 11:28am

We are such a censored country, it's a load of crap. We ban more video games than china, now we're about to restrict our internet ? I'll be investing in a private VPN to share with some mates to fully circumvent the system and surf the internet at a hopefully decent speed still (first checking how much the speed is reduced in the first place - using a remote VPN would be faster). If people want a filter, they would of downloaded one from the NetAlert website setup by the Howard government. Not many people wanted a filter, and i dought that many people who originally downloaded them would still use them. I am not planning to circumvent the filter to access illegal materials online, I plan to circumvent it and spread the word because i want the governments plan to fail.

Bob

13 Dec 2008 11:30am

First off, let me say that this is a total load of you-know-what. Who runs this country? The people. We are a democracy, and as such, we, as the voice of Australia, have more say in a matter than any few individuals do [politicians]. Listen up and shape up, or prepare to be booted from your comfy office chair into the workplace like the rest of us. We hate this idea, if you aren't smart enough to work that out already. This will fail; epically, and we won't be laughing either when it does. This will slow down internet speeds, be ridiculously ineffective, and incorrectly block content. What more do you want? We are becoming a China of the first world - thanks to the work of Labor once again. You guys never get things right, do you? Blow loads of cash on total waste, ruin the economy [as you did last time you were in power, not to mention the ruin you have done on a state level too, but that is a whole new can of worms], increase unemployment, use ineffective methods to try to boost the economy by bringing us BACK into debt, and now this. Conroy, you fail. Listen to the public and listen to everyone who has thought about this to a level beyond that of a quick 'good idea'. I will be one of the first to bypass this, if he's still thick enough to have it implemented, and I will tell everyone I know how to do the same.

not happy

13 Dec 2008 8:11pm

Not Happy Stephen Conroy

First the filter.

There is no way that the filter would effectively work under any circumstances. It is such a waste of taxpayers money. In times of recession, I believe that the money should be better spent on other initiatives such as additional funds for the NBN.

Why would it not work? Simple. There are many circumvention techniques such as Virtual Private Networks, Anonomous Proxies, TOR and the like, meaning criminals can still access the content. In the meantime, the general public is punished through slower speeds (yes filtering slows the internet down - by up to 75% read your own reports on the Ennex Trial, Conroy). Higher prices, due to ISP's having to fork out additional costs for equipment, higher latencies.

Conroy, you have stated that you'd like the filter to block illegal (not a problem) but also UNWANTED content. So what is unwanted? I propose we block your DBCDE contact page because the majority of Australians do not want to see your profile. You should choose another portfolio (god help us all) or resign.

Once a site is on the ACMA blacklist there would be no way of appeal (the blacklist is exempt from FOI). How about underblocking and overblocking? Accidently blocking a site that should not have been blocked? (see UK wikipedia case). Underblocking - not blocking a site which should be blocked.

This is a pathetic policy which ensures that the majority of people who have done nothing wrong get punished whilst the criminals will still access their 'illegal' material through circumvention techniques. Also how is the filter going to block out p2p, which is around 60-70% of all web traffic?

HTTPS? Filtering of https would be a major blow to the banking and other industries which rely on the protocol. By filtering https, it garantees that there will always be a man-in-the-middle attack going on, which defeats the purpose of HTTPS. Https is designed to be a secure form of transmission of information if the government decides to filter out https, then obviously it would not be secure anymore.

Also, noone wants the filter. If you paid more attention to the previous Government's Netalert program and actually compiled the statistics, you would have noticed that hardly anyone has downloaded the software, and even fewer people are using it now.

Finally on the issue, only the most stupid people (possibly an IQ of a 5 year old or worse) would put your so called 'child pornography' on port 80 (or even port 443). They would be put on some other random port, on a different protocol that is obviously harder to detect (my example would possibly be p2p but I assume those crime syndicates would have better technologies to circumvent filters and avoid detection).

So basically, your filter would be a huge waste of 43 million dollars of Australian taxpayer's money, whilst serving no purpose (easily circumvented) and punishing the general public with slower speeds. Great Conroy, well done indeed.

Now onto another topic, the NBN. I want to know how it would help people in new estates which are disadvantaged by Telstra Monopoly Boxes (oops sorry I meant CMuX's). These are basically FttN to begin with. However currently the incumberant has had plenty of problems (or rather problems due to their refusal to spend money on critical infrastructure) dealing with issues such as lack of backhaul and lack of ports these areas.

These areas have no competitor dslams and thus we have to suffer higher prices with substandard service. Whilst other places have adsl2+ with annex M, naked services and even vdsl trials, areas stuck on Telstra's Monopoly Boxes are paying around 50 dollars a month more than their exchange based counterparts.

Under a Telstra NBN it would be worse, with no competition and no innovation. If it wasn't for competition through third party dslam's we would most certainly be still stuck on 1.5mbit artifically capped adsl, low quotas.

Australia is a broadband backwater compared to many other nations, which are starting to roll out FTTH. Considering the government no longer owns the copper infrastructure, why is it so desperate to use it? Internet, phone and other infrastructure should be government owned, or at least regulated to promote competition. Currently there is not enough regulation when it comes with DSL. CMuX's/ISAM's and the like should be no different to exchange based services and competitors should be allowed access to deploy their own dslams.

Betty

13 Dec 2008 8:12pm

I'll keep my comments brief: NO THANKS! If this idiotic idea goes ahead it'll be a cold day in hell before I vote ALP again. Don't know who I'll vote for because I'm congenitally unable to vote for the Libs - but I'm guessing there'll be a large swing to the Greens.

Joel B1

14 Dec 2008 11:39am

Hi, how come Gaz "Excellent" and Michael "Excellent" always appear at the end of the comments? They were at the end some 22 pages ago when I last looked? ps I take copies of everything I post and you can bet your ASDL2 that you'll see this on MediaWatch if you don't publish this. pss your filter stinks!

Joel B1

13 Dec 2008 8:41pm

Two things: First the blog comments are the wrong way around, last comment should be last not first (that way you get an idea of the flow of the discussion) Second: Don't believe this people. It's just an elaborate way to back down from the filter gracefully. "We really listened to you all and we're not going to have a filter now"
This is just an elaborate backdown...

Why they just can't say they have no idea I don't know.

SJ

13 Dec 2008 9:15pm

If the government really wanted to "protect children" it wouldn't be even thinking about this ridiculous filter. Censorship only protects the interests of the powerful, including paedophiles, who will be laughing their heads off at the idea that this will have the slightest effect on anything they do. In fact, it could just make their lives easier, with all the computer-illiterate parents out there lulled into a false sense of security by the mere existence of this illusory 'safety' and paying less attention to what their kids are doing online.

A filter will only hurt this country, make our kids less safe and make us an international laughing stock.

If you really want to address net safety, address the appalling levels of computer-illiteracy out there. A well-informed population is a safe one.

James de Vries

13 Dec 2008 9:17pm

I know! Hold a referendum. I'm sure that'll work out SO well for you.

Everyman

13 Dec 2008 10:15pm

Please stop wasting money on this internet filter nonsense. You can save face by picking any of the dozens of reasons why it wont work/is a bad idea.

Humpa

14 Dec 2008 11:18am

Well got to love this filter idea. I have been a heavy user of the internet for over 10 yrs and YES I have looked at large amount of Porn. I have never seen a picture or video that even comes close to involving children, which is one of the Major reasons for this stupid filter. The government should be more worried about sites such as Facebook and Myspace and messaging software such as MSN and Yahoo as this is where these so called �pedophiles� hide out. One final note, I DO use filtering software to block unwanted sites in my web browser, which is Firefox. I bet if you asked any of these politicians what Firefox is they wouldn�t have a clue. Please don�t block the internet for political mileage Senator Conroy�

The Australian People

14 Dec 2008 11:20am

As many other have mentioned previously, the Government is elected to represent the views of the citizens that elect them. This Government has ignored the wishes of the people it serves with one minister, Kate Ellis, stating that "policy is not controlled by opinion polls". To whomever from the Labor party is reading this: you are in your position to carry out the will of the public you serve. To ignore the people's wishes in the pursuit of your own backwards agendas is to erode the 'democracy' of this country and propel it into eventual totalitarianism. To Lindsay, Stephen and any other party member who is sifting through these comments, YOU are personally responsible for the direction this country is heading in. You should think to yourself, every time you are with your family at home, or trying to sleep soundly, do YOU want to be responsible for the destruction of the democratic principles of Australia?

master huang

14 Dec 2008 11:21am

A mandatory internet filter will drive illegal and disgusting activities such as child pornography further into the underground. The sickos out there will take extra precautions as a result of such a filter and will be much harder if not impossible to monitor and track down. This is common sense. Why they want to do this I do not know. What a silly silly idea. The money needs to be directed towards law enforcement obviously. There is another agendaa behind this whole mandatory filtering idea as the arguments for this proposal are absolutely ludicrous.

LM

14 Dec 2008 11:25am

This disgusting cynical manipulation of the electorate and distortion of the issues that relies on their ignorance of the technology involved. We�re of course against child pornography but to conflate opposition to your half baked and ineffectual filter with being a proponent of such abhorrent material only serves to highlight your desperate ignorance and incompetence. And we�re to trust you with a blacklist that is neither subject to oversight or review when your own office has consistently been unavailable for comment and unforthcoming with answers to pertinent concerns and questions? The uptake of end user filters offered by the Howard government has been extremely poor, with families by and large choosing to monitor their children whilst online themselves. Would you also accuse these families of being pro-child porn? I think not. The ACMA�s own report stated that the filter inadvertently blocked safe sites and failed to screen blacklisted ones, while slowing down our speeds by up to 87%. How is this consistent with the Prime Minister�s promise of faster, cheaper broadband for Australia? Moreover how is this anything but a colossal waste of time and money, particularly in light of the fact that your own supposed �live� trial will not only take place during the off-peak holiday season without any actual customers? Think again Senator Conroy and enrol in some IT classes and at the very least pick up a copy of The Internet for Dummies while you�re at it.

Merkins87

14 Dec 2008 11:26am

lose the internet filtering idea whilst you can still save face. it's expensive, inefficient, ineffective & it's not the way we intended our money to be spent. there are ways around it, in a free country i loathe the concept of censorship & most importantly we're not going to stop child pornography this way. we need money injected into education of children (if this really was implemented "to protect the children") but more importantly, more money into the police, if we're ever to catch the monsters perpetuating this horrible industry.

Sydney

14 Dec 2008 11:28am

Our liberty depends on the freedom of the Press ( Internet) which cannot be limited without being lost. Goebbels is GONE. Labor will be too if they continue with this nonsense.

jpmanalo

14 Dec 2008 11:35am

Minister, as a professional network engineer, I am *opposed* to the Governments proposed Internet filter for Australia. At the present time, Australia already has some of the slowest Internet access speeds in the developed world. Highly respected technical people have already indicated that the introduction of such a filter will *reduce* the speed that Australians will be able to access Internet services. This is a backward step that will produce no benefit, given the fact that it is quite easy for people to circumvent the filters proposed by the Government. Minister, please reconsider the move to force an Internet filter on the Australian people - there are far better ways to protect children from the "nasties" on the Internet.

Ned Kelly

14 Dec 2008 11:37am

In my mind, all the arguments about whether it will work or not run second to the big question, who decides what gets censored? On the one hand John Faulkner is reforming Freedom of Information legislation and on the other, Stephen Conroy is moving to censor information on the internet. Sexual exploitation of children is illegal an as such is best addressed by inter jurisdictional cooperation by our law enfoecement communities. I don't know how much Child Pornography exists on the World Wide Web, to look for it would probably constitute a crime. However, I have no recollection of stumbling onto it at all, accident or not. My experience would suggest that it is not the problem on the World Wide Web that It is being made out to be. Adult Pornography however is all pervasive. This brings us back to my original point. Who decides what to censor?

Systems Engineer

14 Dec 2008 11:42am

This is a disgusting waste of taxpayer money. It can't work. For the luddites who want this, let them pay for it. When it fails they will stop the cash flow and this stinker will die forever.

Michael

14 Dec 2008 6:02pm

Firstly, I can understand and to some extent tolerate the implementation of an opt-in, voluntary ISP level filter. But a mandatory ISP filter which dictates the viewing choices/tastes of every single person in this country is absolutely unacceptable in an "alleged" democratic and free society such as Australia. Right now Australia is the laughing stock of the Western world and Senator Conroy is to blame.

Sir, to equate anyone who opposes the filter with a child pornographer is absolutely disgusting and I am of the opinion that you should step-down from your position as communications minister. Not only do you have no respect for freedom but you have even refused thus far to answer legitimate questions regarding the federal governments initiative and then accused various people/groups of making baseless assumptions. Well sir, do tell us about the true extent of this plan and then maybe we can all form an opinion based on facts. Child pornographers and other criminals will remain fully immune to these filters as they already use methods capable of covering their tracks and bypassing potential future restrictions. We all know that this is merely a smokescreen to cover up the fact that this plan is merely about controlling the population. You aren't fooling anybody, Senator Conroy. If you want to protect the children of this country then start stop pouring millions of dollars into an unfeasible plan to implement a great firewall of Australia and start pouring millions of dollars into law enforcement instead. People are more than capable of installing a software level filter to protect their children, such does not require advanced I.T knowledge. Which brings me to another point, it's not the responsibility of the government to raise the children of this great nation.

As an Australian citizen, I urge you to drop this plan immediately or you'll be lucky to even last until the next election. Right now I am telling you that in the event that this pathetic plan goes ahead, I already have methods in place to immediately bypass the filters. You will NOT dictate what I do with my own internet connection.

The Persistant Gamer

14 Dec 2008 6:06pm

It is vital that when it comes to the new-age �digital economy�, that the principals of democracy are enforced � that is, choice for the community.
- CHOICE is using an internet content filtering facility. Freedom to access information is a vital aspect of any democracy, however with this enforcement in preventing harmful illegal activities should be increased.
- CHOICE in accessing affordable broadband services. The last thing we need is increases in broadband packages and the proliferation of 3rd party DSLAMS have certainly provided the public with broadband services at a much lower price than the incumbent (Telstra). Innovations these 3rd party ISP�s bring such as Annex-M and naked DSL should also be protected from the incumbent, for which such services does not fit it�s marketing strategy yet certainly in demand.

Heath M

14 Dec 2008 6:29pm

I can still remember quite clearly the night of Saturday November 24, 2007 � the night when Howard�s 11 year reign was brought to an end and millions of Australians celebrated the arrival of what they believed would be the beginning of a new era.

I remember the excitement, the euphoria and the hope that so many Australians felt. I was never an ALP fanboy, but I could not help but surrender myself to the new sense of optimism which was sweeping the country... for the Howard years were over, and things could only get better from here.

What a fool I was! If only I had been aware of Labour�s newly announced and little publicised internet censorship policy, then I dare say my emotions on election night may have taken a distinctly different path! I trust I am not alone here in feeling this great sense of disappointment - even of betrayal � on behalf of the Labour Party. The fact of the matter is that many people who voted for the Labour Party did so largely or wholly on the basis that you have historically been far less draconian than your �Liberal� counterparts with regard to your censorship policies. These people, along with anyone who preferenced the ALP ahead of the Liberals, have every right to feel forgotten and betrayed, and these feelings will no doubt play a leading role in the outcome of the next federal election if this abhorrent policy is not forsaken before then.

My primary concern with the proposal is the serious threat it poses to freedom of speech and expression and right of adult Australians to view non-illegal content in the privacy of their own homes. Whilst it has been alleged that the ACMA blacklist is comprised mostly of child pornography, it also contains perfectly legal X-rated adult material. This material cannot be hosted on Australian internet servers, it is perfectly legal for adults to view and possess it, and therefore blocking Australian adults from accessing such material would be a gross violation of regulatory power.

Even worse is the fact that R-rated content without a restricted access system can also be banned under the current proposal. How many R-rated sites currently have such a system in place, and how many sites worldwide would be willing to change the way they operate to appease the censors of a relatively small nation comprising only 21 million people? Are the proponents of this policy aware that harsh, frequent and aggressive use of strong course language such as the word �c�t� is sufficient to warrant an R-rating? And are the proponents of the system aware of how many sites on the internet contain use of such course language?

Of course, all of these sites could never be blocked, and the proponents of this proposal would acknowledge that. What will happen instead is we will end up with a hodge-podge of such content, as random Australians here and there report individual sites to ACMA. The same thing will happen with X-rated pornography. 99 percent of it will still be there. Even if the entire black list of 10,000 sites was made up of X-rated adult material, in reality it would have little impact on its availability due to the vast quantities of such content the internet is home to. The only difference will be that internet users will now have to put up with the inconvenience of finding that one porn site linked to from another is now disabled.

What is of even greater concern is that special interests groups would now have the means of tracking down whatever content they do not agree with, submitting it to ACMA and hoping against hope that the whole of Australia will be banned from viewing it. Such content may include sites on contentious issues such as abortion, euthanasia, suicide, crime, terrorism and drugs, many of which DO contain material which is illegal under Australian law. So once again, ACMA would have no choice but to add these sites to their ever growing blacklist.

But perhaps the worst thing about this proposed filtering scheme is the fact that list of banned content will not be publicly available. This to me is an absolute disgrace. At the very least, one would expect in a democracy that the public have the right to know exactly what is being censored.

In the event that this filter ever ends up going ahead, then two key aspects of the proposal must be changed:

1. The list must not include any content other than explicit child pornography which both ACMA and OFLC have determined to be illegal. This pornography must involve real children in real sexual abuse, and must not include questionable images of children (ie not overtly pornographic) other than where the courts of this country have deemed them to be illegal. No other material, no matter how abhorrent, can be censored.

2. The full list of what is censored must be available online and updated frequently.

However, even with these changes, the technical problems remain the same, and these concerns have also generated a great deal of the controversy surrounding this proposal. Australia

Calum

14 Dec 2008 8:11pm

Wake up and read the comments here. We the people of Australia stand united against this illegal theft of our freedom to read and speak out. This smacks of New World Order control, bankrolled by the banks. Australians - we have a moment in time to stand up against this muzzle, speak now or you won't be able to.

Bruce

15 Dec 2008 11:26am

Dear Government,

I believe this selected technological solution is flawed and does not address the concerns the government has with the internet. If you believe that such illegal material is a simple google search away and that people accidentally fall across it then that's the tip of the iceberg of your problems.

I believe instead of dropping horrendous amounts of cash into a nuisance system, invest that money plus some to organisations such as AFP and AusCERT and attack the problem from more affective angles.

Do not alienate the good honest working people of Australia and force them to subvert a flawed technological white elephant. I am confident that if you consulted Australia's "technically savvy" they would provide much effective solutions.

Regards

Bruce Network Engineer

Sully

15 Dec 2008 11:26am

Everyone under the age of 30 knows how to bypass this filter. Every child in school is already using proxies to get by the DET filter. Please google proxy and you will find 67 MILLION sites dedicated to bypassing filters.

Scott

15 Dec 2008 11:28am

I think the cyber safety plan is a good initiative, with the exception of the mandatory internet filter. Re-route the money planned for this into more money for the AFP or on education for parents and you would have a plan that no one would oppose.

There are already optional ISP filters for parents who want to provide protection for their children (Webshield is one that comes to mind). There are also many client side filters available that will always be more flexible than ISP level filters. Why then do we need mandatory ISP filters?

I have many issues with the mandatory internet filters such as cost, ineffectiveness, cost to freedom of speech and information, effect on internet speeds, effect of ligitimate sites getting blocked (including online businesses) and the potential for this system to be abused by the people deciding what will be blocked.

All of these have already been discussed in detail so I will leave it at that. If you remove this filtering proposal, then the cyber safety plan would have my support.

Schrodinger's Cat

15 Dec 2008 11:29am

I am disgusted by the proposed internet filter. I voted for Rudd because I thought he would change the draconian laws the Liberals brought in regarding the internet. Instead it seems that the government is caving to the demands of a religious minority for political reasons to bring in a flawed system at taxpayer's expense. I have lost faith in the so called democracy of this country. If this filter goes ahead, I will actively campaign for whatever party offers to remove it. I would rather have the fishing party in power than this garbage.

Maltease14

15 Dec 2008 11:31am

"Happy Synergy"

With respect, have you been reading these comments? They seem to lack every notion of "Happy"

Rachel

15 Dec 2008 11:34am

I, like many before me, am using this opportunity to air my concerns about the proposed Great Firewall of Australia.

And like the others, I also agree that the filter seems like a terrific waste of time and money. Australia's Internet speeds are, frankly, pretty dreadful, and from all accounts we pay some of the highest costs in the developed world, for some of the worst Internet. Why on earth would any sane government want to make it WORSE, when broadband speeds was one topic I recall hearing frequently about during pre-election campaigning?

Disregarding the sheer inconvenience of our Internet though, it is truly alarming that a nation like Australia, a country I've always been proud to say I belong to, is (potentially) stooping to the level of censorship we see in nations like Burma or China. While I agree that child pornography should be illegal, the potential for the filter to be extended to other controversial areas is too great. Indeed, there's already been talk that R-rated contended that is NOT illegal to be viewed is also on the black-list. Where does the censorship stop? I whole heartedly believe that once censorship on that sort of scale begins, it will only get worse. At what point will we look back and say '2008 was the point we began to lose our freedoms'?

I'm currently an overseas exchange student, and when I've talked to students from other countries (America, Japan, England, Taiwan, Germany and Czech, just to name a few!) on this issue, they've been amazed, because - in their own words - they never thought Australia was the sort of nation to do such a thing. If even the citizens of other nations are baffled and vaguely appalled by this 'net filter talk, try and imagine how the average Australian on the street who'll have it inflicted on them feels!

SHL

15 Dec 2008 11:50am

People seem to have forgotten that you need to be 18 years old to open an internet account in the first place.

Would you just hand over your car and driver's licence to your 14-year old child to use to go for a drive up the street?

The responsibility for sensible internet use lies in the household. Spend the money on educating parent's about safe internet use for children. Software can be installed on home computers, and many ADSL modems/routers have in-build child safe settings that can be switched on.

The biggest risk to children using the internet is stalkers (in chat rooms etc.), and a content filter does little to protect people in that regard.

I am against the Government's plan to filter the Internet at a national level. This is a step in the wrong direction. Censorship is wrong.

Time and time again through history we have seen how books and films etc. banned by governments have only served to show how backward and ignorant that government has been as the time.

Find another way to achieve a good outcome. Don't filter the net.

Ralph

15 Dec 2008 4:21pm

Thank you Minister Tanner for the opportunity to provide views on government policy. I look forward to see what effect if any these have on minister's views. Providing a blog for the public to interact with government is a step in the right direction and indicates the government may be indeed more progressive and aware than its predecessors. However Minister Conroy's Internet censorship proposal belies that. He is obviously unaware of what the Internet is, the nature of the problem of child pornography and of the deeper implications of censorship. All he is succeeding in doing is generating support for an Australian Bill of Rights. Perhaps Minister Conroy could legislate to solve another problem for us all. As no one can exactly decide what the value of pi should be, why not just mandate it to be 3? Yes, sadly, it is that ridiculous. Lets see if this government and these ministers can learn anything for the feedback. There may be hope yet.

Agamidae

16 Dec 2008 11:15am

Morality cannot exist without choice, and the ends never justify the means. Regardless of your intentions if you take away our freedom to browse the internet then you might as well go that little bit further and burn our books as well. You will be restricting our freedom and silencing our voices, and you will NOT be fixing the problems you claim to be trying to address.

buddyj

16 Dec 2008 11:17am

hi, as to note about our economy.. well you state that mandetory filtering is designed to stop child porn.. odd tho cause in my 20 years of net use i have never came accross child porn... the statement that it is getting worse, is again incorrrect. have you taken note that even the police are against the idea.. why? very simply, it will drive them underground and make it practically impossible to catch the creators of child porn content. the current system works great as the criminals will be caught. the current proposal, will make it a safe haven for the criminals and nearly impossible to catch the criminals. the filters will overblock 1~8% of legal normal sites..doesnt sound bad right, well that equates to between 20mill~160mill legitamte sites. my company does the most business over the net adn oops sorry your sights been hit. this will hit our hip pocket and destroy many livelyhoods. the idea that problems will fixed along the way is incorrect, this will take 10~20years before this even becoms viable, but again everytime u try to ban "unwanted sites" people will allways find away around. this will not help our digital future, it will harm and kill it, blocking 160mill legal sites...ooops.. instead form a netforce, and tackle the problem.. higher the experts and train the police to catch the criminals..

Daniel C

16 Dec 2008 11:19am

The following simple question has not been answered by this Government: What does the proposed ISP filter do to protect children that either a) A client-side software filter, or b) proper parenting (for instance, placing the family computer in the living room) can't do? The answer is just as simple: Nothing.

Ivan

16 Dec 2008 11:31am

The way Senator Conroy has handled himself in regards to this mandatory net filter has been disgraceful. Instead of acting smug in parliament, how about answering some of Senator Ludlam's questions and being honest to the rest of the public? Bloody disgrace mate, to us and even worse, to the rest of the world. You should hand in your resignation for this farce, since you seem to lack the technical and political knowledge required to be a decent communications minister.

Rahux

16 Dec 2008 11:28am

The blogging is a great move, finally something to help me regain some faith in Labour. The obvious technical illiteracy of our minister for broadband has forced this life-long labour supporter to change his vote. Anyone with an ounce of technical literacy knows that internet filters are ineffective and dangerous to democracy and human freedom. In an age where the internet will make and break economies it seems ridiculous that this is even being considered. As for the access to pornography and other illegal content, simply asking any high school student will show that this filter will do nothing to achieve its aim as it is impotent against P2P technologies. There are numerous ways around filters that can be found with less than a minute on google, and children are more than capable of doing that if they wish. The only thing achieved, therefore, is reduced performance for all with none of the protection aimed at. Oh, and a vast waste of resources. Research shows that the chance of children stumbling on porn unwanted is extremely low and is not likely to be helped by a filter because such exposure is generally in the form of adult advertising, something simple URL blocking will not rectify. I have written to numerous people and all I have received is stock replies that did nothing to address any of the issues. I am hopeful this blog will be the start of a change to informed policy making.

Stephen

16 Dec 2008 11:30am

I'm not nearly up to speed on the state of the issue of implementing the Internet Censorship in Australia, but wanted to add my voice against it. As it stands the system would accidentally block 1 in 12 sites, and miss the majority of inappropriate content. If you were to carry this analogy into the health system, proposing a nation-wide screening program for individuals that gave 1 in 12 a false positive, and missed half the disease, the health department wouldn't dream of instigating it. Especially if it increased the cost of healthcare while decreasing its efficiency. At the end of the day, it's not a role of the government to deem what information is or isn't appropriate.

Alex C

16 Dec 2008 11:33am

I think it's great that federal politicians have finally discovered the internet, but am very concerned about the dark side to this revelation - Conroy's moronic plan to censor Australia's internet access. Let me be very clear. I have been a Labor voter all my life - but I will not vote for Labor again until Conroy's internet censorship plan is dropped. This is the only major issue that would change my vote from Labor. I want to see the Prime Minister announce that the plan has been permanently dropped, sack Conroy, and apologise to the Australian people for allowing his government to follow in the footsteps of Iran and China.

Sam D

16 Dec 2008 1:20pm

I agree with Alex C totally. For most of my adult life I have passionately held the belief that an ALP government was better than the alternative. But with the advent of a plan of ISP level censorship, I find this belief challenged to the point of breaking. Senator Conroy's ongoing refusal to participate in the discussion of this plan in any meaningful way leaves us with no alternative but to think the worst.

gp

16 Dec 2008 1:20pm

Just so you have some feedback. The internet filter will not block chat rooms and secure networks used by cp but if want to look up sperm whales it will be blocked. I have voted labor all my life but if this bill gets thru I will NEVER vote for labor again. Next election could be a lot closer.

Josh Saunders

16 Dec 2008 4:11pm

i support the filter, i think 99% of those whinging are doomsayers who just love to whinge... I know how filters work, I do it for a job everyday they are a lot smarter then people make out.. I dont need 99% of the crap on the internet as it is and i think the information junkies out there don't either simplify and ditch the crap.. the internet is not as important as our modern society makes out, imo its bringing on radical changes that will result in some very sour days ahead, people need to be controlled to a certain degree. Josh

Draven

16 Dec 2008 4:00pm

While I don't have anything new to add, I need to add another voice in opposition to a poorly thought out idea. The list of problems with this "plan" is long (and I use the word loosely, because the plan to invade iraq had more thought put into it), but here's a short synopsis: 1) The usage of a blacklist that is updated whenever the "regulator" feels like it, without the public even knowing what is being blocked (such as online gambling sites, like one of the independants is pushing. How about political sites. maybe Al Jazeera news) 2) most child porn sharing happens outside websites anyway, so this filter isn't going to catch anything. 3) If this is really about child porn, then why not *just* block child porn? I can guarantee there won't be any opposition to just blocking child porn. 4) it *REALLY* concerns me that Conroy has not given a straight answer to any question about the internet filtering... either he doesn't know or, worse, he knows that if he gives us the details of his plan that there would be an even bigger public outcry. I work in an industry where looking up topics such as "rape counselling for children" is a legitimate websearch... but will the filter know that, or just blindly block me from being able to access the services that are so desperately needed? The list goes on, but maybe.. just maybe... there are enough ministers out there to sink this abortion of a plan before it goes into effect.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

16 Dec 2008 9:27pm

Dear Prime Minister, I feel obliged to advise you that your plan to censor the internet (against the wishes of 80% of the electorate) is an extremely �courageous� policy and one upon which you will have ample free time to reflect after the next election, when you are returned to opposition. I don't understand why your government cannot see the huge danger in allowing an ignorant and incompetent minister (who is so clearly out of his depth) to pander to a few crackpots in the Senate and attack the basic rights of all Australians in a supposedly democratic society. This policy, apart from being stupid, wrong and impossible to implement effectively, will anger and alienate almost all young Australian voters (and future voters) - and many older ones too, I am 63. I can assure you that the vast majority of Australians find the concept of allowing a public servant (acting on the beliefs of extremists) to dictate what information is suitable for them to access, to be highly offensive and insulting. If you proceed with this terrible plan, I and hundreds of thousands of others will never vote Labor again. Wake up and see the reality before it is too late to back down - and implement a cabinet reshuffle to weed out the deadwood. Geoff Sole

Ben

16 Dec 2008 9:38pm

I find it rather pathetic that you only have done this because Obama is doing it overseas. Thanks for the heads up on your ignorance and lack of insight/initiative, Lindsay Tanner & Co.

prey

16 Dec 2008 9:40pm

Congratulations to senator Conroy for having the balls to stand up to Telstra. Consumers will benefit from some competition to the Gorilla.

itsjustme

16 Dec 2008 9:42pm

I have long thought about the government�s internet filter plans and on hearing about this blog, I decided to write of my concerns. I must be a dill. I couldn't find the blog by going to dbcde.gov.au. I had to revert to Google. But I digress, If a body like AISA (Australian Information Security Association) doesn�t think a filter is a good idea, then I think their opinion should be afforded significant weight, by the government. Firstly, I am against the filter because of its mandatory nature for all ISPs. I know it is illegal to view child pornography over the Internet and I believe it is my responsibility to abide by the law or suffer the consequences. I don�t need the government to be my conscience. I do not have any children but if I did it is my responsibility as a parent to see they have a strong moral code and will become law abiding citizens. I don�t need the government to �say� what sites may be accessed and what may not be. Secondly, what happens if all customers of an ISP do not want their Internet access filtered? Would that ISP be exempted from applying the filter? A condition of using such an ISP is being wiling to accept unfiltered Internet access? To maintain my current Internet speeds, I am willing to accept unfiltered Internet content. Surely, it is a person�s choice as to whether they want certain sites blocked or not. Thirdly, I ask what sites are to be blocked and how? Also, what will determine how sites are to be added to the filtered list? What will stop future governments from doing what China has done in the past, blocking access to all overseas sites. For transparency reasons, surely the government should publish the list of sites that are being filtered / blocked. Finally, I am against the introduction of a filter because of the negative impact it will have on the speed I can access the Internet. Every time I access the Internet the filter would need to be applied. Who says that a site cannot contain both legitimate and illegitimate content? Surely the list of sites to be filtered will grow rapidly, as sites that are filtered are set up under new URLs. Old sites would need to be left on the list, just in case the owners go back to using them.

Los Kurri

17 Dec 2008 9:06am

I support the arguments against the Clean Feed filter, if this filter becomes implemented there will be a *LOT* of unhappy people in Australia and tourism will also suffer because who wants to visit a country where the internet is censored? Thats just the beginning. The internet is the only hope for humanity filtering it will only hinder progress and cause problems. Please oppose internet censorship, Thank you.

Concerned

17 Dec 2008 5:04pm

Filtering our internet is draconian. I'd rather my kids see what is out there on the internet than watch the news.

PeteY

17 Dec 2008 5:07pm

There's only one reason I can think of as to why the government wants to filter the internet; To pander to TV execs and PR firms who are afraid that fast broadband internet will eventually erode their advertising revenue. Well of course it will, nobody likes having to sit through that many commercials just to watch a crappy TV show, we're better off downloading our entertainment. So they lobby the government to somehow make the internet slower and use the propaganda like excuse that we need internet filtering to save our souls. If the government eventually do make internet filtering mandatory, then we should lobby the government to make TV execs and PR people illegal. Or just punish them with death by stoning... ...Well not really but that's how I feel. Why aren't we in the streets burning cars and damaging property like the French do?

Michael

18 Dec 2008 9:58am

History appears to repeat itself over and over again. It appears there are two things people in the western world are afraid of, terrorism and child porn. As long as the governments of the world justify they are fighting either of the two, people just nod their heads while their freedom and rights are pulled away from beneath them. We need to voice our concerns to our governments that there are ways to fight evils in this world without compromising our freedom, rights and of course our much loved internet speeds.

ML

18 Dec 2008 9:59am

If the government has a list of illegal sites which include child porn why don't they do something about it ? Find out what countries the URLs are from, contact the authorities in the various countries and have these sites shut down and these perverts arrested. OR is the reason why this can't happen is because these sites come up faster than we can shut down. If this is the case how can a "black list" which needs to reviewed before anything is entered ever keep up ? Everything in the list would no longer exist by the time it is entered into the list so what is the point.

AL

18 Dec 2008 10:01am

If 9/10 posts have not been posted due to inappropriate language and 99/100 internet users are concerned but are just too lazy to do anything, the amount of people posting because they are concerned would then be approximately 1000 fold what we are actually seeing.

ANGE99

18 Dec 2008 1:46pm

I have a business and we employ 6 people and are expanding quite nicely.We are totally dependent on a fast internet to stay competitive. I love the freedom hate child porn but find the filter an unacceptable burden. I am about to employ another five people but am considering moving the whole lot overseas. NZ or the like.No internet filter.

Lloyd

18 Dec 2008 3:43pm

I don't want my taxes funding something that dimishes my freedoms and slows my access to unfiltered information.

Snowflake

18 Dec 2008 3:44pm

I was not sure if I had noticed correctly or but I thought I had seen that the government is going ahead with clean feed (internet filtering) I would be greatly interested in how this expected to work. Whilst some sites can be objectionable or offensive in some way or anther, not all are. And it�s going to be a problem for anyone who is not targeted as people who need protection. Further more not everyone who uses the internet needs protection or is likely cause a problem for others i.e. mainly phishing, malware, attacks. So certainly I would like if could my freedom to do be able to use the internet just like have done for some time. I know perfectly I don�t protection. So really the internet should not be censored otherwise people may have their internet access reduced when there is little or need to. On a separate note still internet related, it would be for broadband to be reachable by all Australians dialup is really and I hate slow internet connections. Broadband should made available to Australians and affordable.

sjmilne

18 Dec 2008 3:45pm

Australia is a signatory to the UN Delaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of that document states; 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. Read to last part again "seek, receive and impart information through any media..."

Russell Blackford

19 Dec 2008 9:49am

If you are seeking feedback, then I will simply convey that I am totally opposed to the government's plans to censor the Internet. For me, as for many people, this is a deal-breaker: I cannot support any government that wishes to arrogate such power, and I am not prepared to trust future administrations with it. Please reconsider this troubling and misguided policy.

Bruiser

19 Dec 2008 3:19pm

I make no comment about the moral issues involved in filtering content. I just wonder how the practicality of filtering coexists with the "minimum 12 meg" speeds mandated under NBN. Download speeds are only as fast as the slowest link in the chain, and a filter is inherently a choke point. It seems an idea that might make sense in theory but has unintended consequences that make it impractical.

Dominic

19 Dec 2008 8:10pm

A few points about the blog which, overall, I believe is a step in the right direction. 1. usability - *familiarity* being the fundamental principle here. It is not consistent with other blog engines that we're all used to (such as WordPress). The navigation looks to be the main culprit here. It's a total mess. Probably because you're trying too hard to put it into some grand hierarchy scheme. 2. predominance - this blog is buried beneath government web layers. I believe it should be something seperate that stands out. If you really want to gather a community to discuss these issues, they need to think you're serious about it. Not just another government blog that no one (after the filter issue) is going to read/use. 3. boring - design wise certainly, but beyond that you need to keep things interesting content-wise. Words on a page send people to sleep unless they're passionate about the subject matter. At the moment the passion is here in the form of anger (filter! ;). When that fades, what's going to be left behind to keep people coming back here? Perhaps add some polls, some images, some social elements like Digg. Sorry, but it's called Web 2.0. Blogging and RSS feeds are just the start. 4. one-way - This is the pattern: you post, you get 100s of comments, none of which are follow-ups from you. Then you move onto the next topic, post again and then it all repeats. This is not a two-way conversation. We're getting nothing back. That's worse than getting "we don't agree" (with a reason) back. I suspect policies and procedures are going to hamper any individual in your department from swiftly posting a response. No doubt any such reply and new posts have to be carefully vetted first. So I suppose the best you can expect to manage is an incredbily efficient people-workflow to give something back as fast as possible. The bureaucracy is always going to keep you from the sort of efficiency other blogs enjoy though.

bushchime

22 Dec 2008 8:54am

When will Australia stop pretending that it is not part of the global community? Censorship is a declaration of ignorance. grow up Conroy.

Edward Savage

22 Dec 2008 8:59am

I think this is a Blog is a very good move, in the right direction. All Government Departments at this level should have Blog's so that people with ideas, but lacking in the skills to bring them to the forfront, have a way of raising them. Good Luck with this Ed

drillvoice

22 Dec 2008 9:18am

Internet censorship (online content regulation): slows down the internet, undermines freedom of speech, doesn't prevent access to child pornography, will prevent access to legitimate sites, costs, say, $44m, is a terrible idea.

Amazed

22 Dec 2008 9:39am

I am amazed that this government would attempt implimentation of this "Great Barrier". As a life long Labor voter and active supporter on election day, I am disillusioned and dissapointed in this decision. I can only hope the Greens keep the bas---s honest. I also believe this move will lose the government a large portion of the under 30s vote, something they will be dependant on in the next election. It is not the content you are trying to restrict that is the problem but the very concept. Think again or you may find this great BAND you are attempting to place around the internet ends up around your 'political' neck.

Mikey

22 Dec 2008 9:42am

How can a progressive country like Australia even be considering having our liberties severely diminished by such a draconian policy? If you want to stop child porn, track down the people downloading it and punish them, but leave the rest of us free to read and view what we like. I don't trust any government with a blacklist of banned sites; a secret blacklist no less. This has got to be stopped!

Joshua

23 Dec 2008 11:10am

I have to ask the Senator, why would you introduce a policy that so many people are against? What is the real agenda here? The policy is so unpopular and unfairly targets those trying to do the right thing (if it is implemented) by slowing down internet speed.

teapot765

23 Dec 2008 5:39pm

We live in a democracy, this takes away the rights of all australians. Australia has dial up speed compared to other countries and this will slow our speed even more. The government cant ecpect this to work and everyone be happy.

David

23 Dec 2008 12:31pm

I do not support the plan to impose mandatory internet filtering.

I am stunned a plan such as this is even being proposed in Australia. How will the Australian people be able to call ourselves a democracy if we are not given to right to choose what we view on the internet? If I wanted the government to choose what is appropriate for me and my family, then I would move to China, Iran or North Korea.

Spending time and money to try stop people from seeing illegal content can only take away from the efforts to prevent that illegal content being made in the first place. If you really are interested in protecting the Australian people, we would be better served giving the proposed $40 million dollars to the Australian Federal Police to catch whoever it is that is making the illegal content.