Minister Tanner's welcome

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!

Posted by OzGal / 10 Dec 2008 9:44am / Permalink

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

Posted by swk / 10 Dec 2008 9:39am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Annabey / 10 Dec 2008 9:37am / Permalink

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!

Posted by Michael D / 10 Dec 2008 9:36am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Dave / 10 Dec 2008 9:36am / Permalink

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.

Posted by clappers / 10 Dec 2008 9:35am / Permalink

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.

Posted by civil libertarian / 10 Dec 2008 9:31am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Unhappy Voter / 10 Dec 2008 9:31am / Permalink

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.

Posted by John Coombes / 10 Dec 2008 9:30am / Permalink

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.

Posted by brettk / 10 Dec 2008 9:29am / Permalink

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.

Posted by clappers / 10 Dec 2008 9:26am / Permalink

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.

Posted by david3172 / 10 Dec 2008 9:15am / Permalink

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.)

Posted by Seen-it-before / 10 Dec 2008 9:15am / Permalink

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??

Posted by Andrew Burley / 10 Dec 2008 9:13am / Permalink

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'.

Posted by Lina / 10 Dec 2008 9:11am / Permalink

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

Posted by Mark Elliott / 10 Dec 2008 9:05am / Permalink

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'.

Posted by Lina / 10 Dec 2008 9:05am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Rob Kennedy / 10 Dec 2008 9:00am / Permalink

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

Posted by Mattius / 10 Dec 2008 9:00am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Chris Sager / 10 Dec 2008 8:59am / Permalink

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.

Posted by zog / 10 Dec 2008 8:51am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Dominic Hare / 10 Dec 2008 8:50am / Permalink

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!!!

Posted by Peppie / 10 Dec 2008 8:49am / Permalink

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.

Posted by ThoughtCrime / 10 Dec 2008 8:37am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Andre Caldera / 10 Dec 2008 8:37am / Permalink

Education is the answer, not censorship.

Posted by River Basil / 10 Dec 2008 8:31am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Mark / 10 Dec 2008 8:30am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Scott C / 10 Dec 2008 8:29am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Michael / 10 Dec 2008 8:28am / Permalink

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???

Posted by tric / 10 Dec 2008 8:24am / Permalink

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

Posted by Its Just My Opinion / 10 Dec 2008 8:16am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Web Freedom / 10 Dec 2008 7:45am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Shane of Brisbane / 10 Dec 2008 7:43am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Graham Porter / 10 Dec 2008 7:42am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Robert Merkel / 10 Dec 2008 7:39am / Permalink

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..

Posted by Allan Simpson / 10 Dec 2008 7:39am / Permalink

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.

Posted by russ / 10 Dec 2008 7:38am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Towle / 10 Dec 2008 7:23am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Richard Ames / 10 Dec 2008 7:13am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Will / 10 Dec 2008 6:54am / Permalink

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.

Posted by The Ghost Who Works / 10 Dec 2008 6:42am / Permalink

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.

Posted by TerjeP (say tay-a) / 10 Dec 2008 3:53am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Cooks View / 10 Dec 2008 3:46am / Permalink

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.

Posted by RichardB / 10 Dec 2008 3:10am / Permalink

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?

Posted by Gaz-1 / 10 Dec 2008 3:03am / Permalink

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!

Posted by NonSequitur / 10 Dec 2008 2:59am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Tristan / 10 Dec 2008 2:39am / Permalink

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

Posted by Henz / 10 Dec 2008 2:16am / Permalink

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.

Posted by New Liberal Voter / 10 Dec 2008 2:12am / Permalink

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!

Posted by Mike S / 10 Dec 2008 2:09am / Permalink