Minister Tanner's welcome

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.

Posted by Cleanfeed will not be forgotten come next election! / 12 Dec 2008 3:04pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Nebuchadnedzzar / 12 Dec 2008 3:03pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Cleanfeed will not be forgotten come next election! / 12 Dec 2008 2:58pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Please fire Stephen Conroy / 12 Dec 2008 2:57pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Please fire Stephen Conroy / 12 Dec 2008 2:43pm / Permalink

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!

Posted by Daniel / 12 Dec 2008 2:28pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by cameronreilly / 12 Dec 2008 2:02pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Dave / 12 Dec 2008 2:00pm / Permalink

I do not support internet censorship.

Posted by Logaan / 12 Dec 2008 2:00pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Billy / 12 Dec 2008 1:58pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Nebuchadnedzzar / 12 Dec 2008 1:50pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Robert / 12 Dec 2008 1:43pm / Permalink

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!

Posted by Tim / 12 Dec 2008 1:08pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Danny / 12 Dec 2008 12:19pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by nanks / 12 Dec 2008 12:14pm / Permalink

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?

Posted by Tony Eastwood / 12 Dec 2008 12:01pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Steven / 12 Dec 2008 11:57am / Permalink

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.

Posted by David / 12 Dec 2008 11:35am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Anti clean-feed / 12 Dec 2008 11:21am / Permalink

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.

Posted by h / 12 Dec 2008 11:18am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Bestington / 12 Dec 2008 11:02am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Colin / 12 Dec 2008 10:57am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Nexvotum / 12 Dec 2008 10:52am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Tim / 12 Dec 2008 10:26am / Permalink

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

Posted by Barry Robinson / 12 Dec 2008 10:24am / Permalink

LOL...65 pages of "NO THANKS!"

Posted by Clapper / 12 Dec 2008 10:02am / Permalink

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 Clapper / 12 Dec 2008 9:59am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Alex Hautot / 12 Dec 2008 9:39am / Permalink

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?

Posted by Vlad / 12 Dec 2008 9:11am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Bernard / 12 Dec 2008 9:08am / Permalink

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.

Posted by AP / 12 Dec 2008 8:58am / Permalink

"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.

Posted by Don / 12 Dec 2008 8:38am / Permalink

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.

Posted by John Dodds / 12 Dec 2008 8:30am / Permalink

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.

Posted by MagiCMuses / 12 Dec 2008 8:07am / Permalink

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.

Posted by plp15 / 12 Dec 2008 7:27am / Permalink

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.

Posted by wrewlf / 12 Dec 2008 7:03am / Permalink

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

Posted by holdenmasd / 12 Dec 2008 4:45am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Adrian / 12 Dec 2008 2:15am / Permalink

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?

Posted by Tristan / 12 Dec 2008 1:36am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Dion Heuzenroeder / 12 Dec 2008 12:31am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Robert Moonen / 12 Dec 2008 12:28am / Permalink

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 :(

Posted by FatTony / 12 Dec 2008 12:17am / Permalink

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.

Posted by delx / 12 Dec 2008 12:08am / Permalink

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!

Posted by Laggingbehind AussieInternet / 12 Dec 2008 12:06am / Permalink

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.

Posted by Coen Hyde / 11 Dec 2008 11:50pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by James very anti cleanfeed / 11 Dec 2008 11:48pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Rob / 11 Dec 2008 11:31pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Fitzy / 11 Dec 2008 11:30pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by Mr. Supporter / 11 Dec 2008 11:11pm / Permalink

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.

Posted by ljraggy / 11 Dec 2008 10:57pm / Permalink