Minister Tanner's welcome

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?

Posted by Moriarty / 09 Dec 2008 10:50pm / 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 / 09 Dec 2008 10:49pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by stmok / 09 Dec 2008 10:46pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by David / 09 Dec 2008 10:45pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Mux / 09 Dec 2008 10:42pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by FiLT3R / 09 Dec 2008 10:40pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by WhiteLight / 09 Dec 2008 10:40pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by infowars.com / 09 Dec 2008 10:39pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by James G. / 09 Dec 2008 10:36pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Ken Fowler / 09 Dec 2008 10:35pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Daniel Hynes / 09 Dec 2008 10:34pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Mitch H / 09 Dec 2008 10:34pm / Permalink

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

Posted by ricky / 09 Dec 2008 10:30pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by ungulate / 09 Dec 2008 10:29pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Tony / 09 Dec 2008 10:28pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Nimrod Jones / 09 Dec 2008 10:27pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Lee / 09 Dec 2008 10:24pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Jason Bennett / 09 Dec 2008 10:19pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by J Nicholls / 09 Dec 2008 10:16pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by GV / 09 Dec 2008 10:15pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by A.H. / 09 Dec 2008 10:03pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Jay / 09 Dec 2008 9:55pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Brad / 09 Dec 2008 9:53pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by nanks / 09 Dec 2008 9:50pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Lee / 09 Dec 2008 9:46pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Nemesis12 / 09 Dec 2008 9:43pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Roo / 09 Dec 2008 9:41pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Mac-Afee / 09 Dec 2008 9:41pm / Permalink

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!

Posted by David / 09 Dec 2008 9:34pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Shaggy / 09 Dec 2008 9:28pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Menthu R / 09 Dec 2008 9:28pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Marg / 09 Dec 2008 9:28pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by brisbanenetuser / 09 Dec 2008 9:25pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Dean Nicholls / 09 Dec 2008 9:24pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by GHT / 09 Dec 2008 9:23pm / Permalink

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!!

Posted by clarencegirl / 09 Dec 2008 9:20pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Dan of Brisbane / 09 Dec 2008 9:16pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Dan of Brisbane / 09 Dec 2008 9:08pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Jackster / 09 Dec 2008 9:07pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Dan / 09 Dec 2008 9:06pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by a / 09 Dec 2008 9:04pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by strangr / 09 Dec 2008 9:04pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Foodie / 09 Dec 2008 9:01pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by ILLEAC / 09 Dec 2008 9:00pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Jim / 09 Dec 2008 8:59pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Paul clyne / 09 Dec 2008 8:59pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by hujjuta / 09 Dec 2008 8:58pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by John of Kedron 4031 / 09 Dec 2008 8:57pm / Permalink

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?

Posted by James 'Morsolo' Morsello / 09 Dec 2008 8:57pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Paul Naphtali / 09 Dec 2008 8:56pm / Permalink