Minister Tanner's welcome

Up to recently, we in the West have always prided ourselves on our freedom of expression and freedom to access information supplied by a free press and other media. Now governments clearly have had enough of the anarchical nature of the Net, where people can pretty well say and do whatever they like. As they can feel their power slipping away from them, politicians are looking for ways to curb that freedom and regain some of that power. What better way to start than by censoring the internet, under the guise of "we're protecting your children". Once they have a foot in the door, there will no stopping them and censorship will only increase as time goes on.

Rudd, please keep your hands off the Net. Go after the baddies by all means but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Once you start censoring the Net, you are on a slippery slope to a totalitarian state, the antithesis of a democracy.

Posted by ozimarco / 11 Dec 2008 10:52pm / Permalink

Dear Mr tanner

Good work on finally setting up a blog, I do sincerely hope that Mr Conroy actually listens to what the people are saying. This internet censorship idea is akin to "work choices for your computer" We didn't ask for it, we didn't want it and voted the government of the day out because of it. I am offended that Senator Conroy has likened censorship opponents to child porn supporters. I have a 10 year son who is supervised when using to internet and take mr Conroy's implication as a personal insult to my integrity and do not think he doing what he was elected to do, elected officials do not dictate to or insult and flatly refuse to listen to me and hundreds and thousands of other if they wish to remain in office. Once again, Bravo in setting up your blog and i hope that more blogs like this can be utilised in the future to enable people to be involved in decisions on how this great country can be governed for them.

Posted by Andrew / 11 Dec 2008 10:34pm / Permalink

I guess this will be the first test of Rudd's commitment to evidence-based policy. If the trials show that the cost would be high, the performance low and the effectiveness lower, will he (as quietly as possible) abandon this crusade? Time will tell.

Posted by OK / 11 Dec 2008 9:58pm / Permalink

Just to add to the astounding amount of traffic that this blog has generated that CLEARLY SHOWS the general reaction of both educated technical staff and the general public. This policy will guarantee that the real criminals will simply continue to do what they have done for ever and you will simply EDUCATE the public on how to use these encrypted and secure connections. Well done Mr. Conroy perhaps you should quit while your ahead if you count discrediting your intelligence in the public space "ahead"

Posted by Sam Wilson / 11 Dec 2008 9:34pm / Permalink

The mandatory filter has the potential to be a powerful proppaganda tool for the government in power. This leads me to the question what will be next on the agenda in manipulating and controlling the population through draconian style of governance? Army vehicles patrolling residential areas and drones monitoring our every move and propaganda being screamed over loudspeakers as the gestapo move through our private realms?

This mandatory filtering system is a very dangerous thing in my opinion. We already have our minds manipulated sufficiently on a day by day basis. Once this filter has been implemented our minds and way of thinking may be controlled and manipulated to an even greater extent than ever before. Noone will know what this blacklist contains and who will influence what goes on to this blacklist in the long run.

What will be next under a draconian style of government? Will it go as far as being told at what time to be inside and what time it is bed time but also when it is time to go to the toilet and when it is appropriate to wipe our own butts? And don't you dare even think about flushing before Mr Gestapo Robot takes a sample of your doodoos in his testube for testing and thorough filtering in one of their laboratories.

And yes the next time you order a Pizza they will have a file on you and what you have been eating over the last few years and that your overall health and that your cholestrol is too high as well. Yes sir, that will be a $5.00 surcharge on your Pizza (health and life insurance charges and taxes all in one) as this Pizza may be your very last. Oh sorry sir no pizza for you this week you already had 2 or we will have to report this to your life insurance provider (your limit). Please watch that cholesterol and come back next week! However we do have a delicious celery stick we can offer you today 'it is bunny rabbit week for you this week sir'.

I used to think germany was pretty bad when I lived there and that it was a police state but I must admit I was quite shocked when I came here at the amount of bureaucracy and how much more it felt like a police state here. The picture everyone paints of Australia and the people being a relaxed people with the motto 'ah dont worry about it mate' is not being refelected at all when you come here. This is especially ever more so in the last few years I feel.

For me personally, there is noone to vote for anymore in this country. Can't trust the Liberals or Labor. Mainstream parties are definitely out of the equation in this country for me. Who can I trust? Answer is noone by the look of it. I have lost faith in our system to be honest and will boycott. No more vote from me and my family and close friends. I thought this was supposed to be a democracy. It certainly does not feel like one anymore. The government is there to serve the people and the people should be consulted under a democracy and their wishes at large be accomodated. Instaed the government in this country is doing whatever it pleases and ignroing the people's wishes.

Oh well the labor party is damaging itself with this particular move. They have already shot themselves in the left foot. Quite suicidal if you ask me.

We dont need a draconian style of government. We need a REAL telecommunications minister that stands for something positive and progressive. No more ignorance will be tolerated!

Posted by master huang / 11 Dec 2008 9:25pm / Permalink

It warms the heart to see so many people here that understand the technology better than out national minister.

How many tens of thousands of the ordinary public are there that understand Conroy's portfolio better than him!

Hey Mr Rudd, can we get someone that is at least a little better, there's no shortage of qualified people!

Posted by Dan / 11 Dec 2008 9:19pm / Permalink

No one wants an internet filter even child protection groups are against it. Stop wasting our time and money and do something right like stopping the problems of child pornography at its source or education to protect children

In trolling fashion seems like K Rudds ability to speak Mandarin makes him a true commie

Posted by Tim / 11 Dec 2008 9:10pm / Permalink

The fact that only 5% of families adopted the governments free filtering internet software shows that there is OBVIOUSLY HIDDEN AGENDAS behind your plans to censor the internet!!!

This alone sickens and disturbs me it's almost on the line of government conspiracy, and is very dishonest. I don't even need to elaborate on where i'm going with this.

The fact is the people control the government not the government control the people, the people behind this policy belong over in Burma where the country is run by military regime and the internet is censored because that is where these polices belong

Posted by Michael Baldwin / 11 Dec 2008 8:24pm / Permalink

Our company has a number of online businesses. We've invested millions. We are building the world's first smartphone video on demand service which will make YouTube look like a dog chained up to a PC. If internet censorship is introduced to Australia, we will immediately move our 22 servers overseas. The jobs will follow. No threat. A fact. We have the sever packing crates at the ready. NO to New World Order one world government tyranny for Australia. Wake up sheeple. Freedom of speech will be the first to go to clear they way for the loss of our national sovereignty. These people want to block your access to freedom, the right to exchange information or to organise once the globalist tyranny starts.

Posted by Moving / 11 Dec 2008 7:59pm / Permalink

Ladies and Gentleman,

I send you this page link below from Dubai.

It's a twelve point explanation given by the United Arab Emirates for blocking internet content.

You wouldn't be able to see this notice page in Australia, unless you were in the Emirates, and tried to access internet sites which are banned.

This blog does not permit me to attach an image grab of what you would see in the UAE if you tried to access a site which is blocked, censored and banned.

Blocked sites also include innocuous news aggregation website such as - www.rense.com - but do not include anti-Semitic sites such as:http://iamthewitness.com

I trust this message from the UAE is what Australians will have to look forward to under the proposed Internet Censorship laws of the Australian Labor Party. Australia is a harmonization leader in the field of the coming global censorship so citizens cannot fight the coming tyranny of a one world government.

In the UAE, they are open in providing internet a full and frank explanation for blocking sites. In Australia, the ACMA keeps their list of 'unwanted' sites a secret. The ACMA won't even relent to Freedom of Information requests for a list of its banned sites, nor the reason for blocking those sites.

Based on the UAE's banned sites criteria, half the internet will no longer be available to Australians in the future.

I recommend you forward the UAE link below to colleagues. They will be able to see the censorship message in store for them in future unless the Labor Party's creeping police state legislation is stopped.
http://www.etisalat.ae/assets/document/blockcontent.pdf

Posted by Censored / 11 Dec 2008 7:46pm / Permalink

Outright lies, unanswered questions, misinformation, half-truths, strawman arguments, manufactured moral hysteria, and even intimidation when someone dared to speak out. Is this the Government we deserve?

Internet censorship is flawed at multiple levels. I don't need to reiterate the reasons why here, there are 62 pages and I'm sure someone has done it.

I voted Labor in 2007, I'll not make that mistake again if another cent of my money is spent on this ridiculous and offensive proposal.

Posted by majikshoe / 11 Dec 2008 7:31pm / Permalink

Regarding issues like abortion, euthanasia etc...

How can one make an informed decision on anything unless they have heard arguments from proponents of both extremes (left and right)?

What safeguards will be in place to ensure that personal opinion and preference will not dictate what is acceptable and not acceptable for the public to view on the internet.

Governments should listen to the opinions of the people not force the opinions of the government on the public.

Govern through consultation not hard paternalism.

Posted by mach2021 / 11 Dec 2008 6:52pm / Permalink

Regarding issues like abortion, euthanasia etc... How can one make an informed decision on anything unless they have heard arguments from proponents of both extremes (left and right)? What safeguards will be in place to ensure that personal opinion and preference will not dictate what is acceptable and not acceptable for the public to view on the internet. Governments should listen to the opinions of the people not force the opinions of the government on the public. Govern through consultation not hard paternalism.

Posted by mach2021 / 11 Dec 2008 6:49pm / Permalink

No Internet Filter!

Posted by Josh / 11 Dec 2008 6:48pm / Permalink

So this awful-looking mess of a site is the best you can do huh? Why am I not surprised. It's inline with your totally misguided and big-brother censorship of the internet. You just don't get it do you?

Posted by Metronicity / 11 Dec 2008 6:16pm / Permalink

This is an obvious and huge infringement that this is on freedom of speech and media. Preliminary research as clearly shown that a filter: -will drastically reduce internet speeds -be significantly more expensive than projected (an expense borne by consumers) -will not filter users who access 'illegal' content using proxy servers (routinely used to mask identity) -will not filter material shared on p2p networks Ultimately this filter is about a religious agenda who believe they know better than everyone else and have a (God-given) right to decide what material that others should have access to. The other supporters are familiar nanny-state supporters to whom no problem does not merit a Government solution. For whom no problem could or should ever be addressed by parents. Who is better placed to police a child's access to the internet; the Government or the parents in the next room watching Big Brother?

Posted by Kieran / 11 Dec 2008 6:05pm / Permalink

I am absolutely shocked that a Labor government is proposing state-sanctioned filtering of the Internet in this country. I feel this is a direct attack on our freedom of choice in this country to use the Internet as we see fit. I find it disheartening that such censorship is being proposed by a Labor government especially given we have just escaped the oppressive rule of the Liberals for the past 11 years. You do realize that attempting to control the Internet in Australia represents a direct attack on our democratic rights. We will become the laughing stock of the developed world and would be no better than China where citizens are detained and jailed for exercising their right to free speech and free Internet. Do you also realize that implementing such controls will actually cause cyber criminals and molesters to go "underground" and use tools that will easily circumvent censorship systems. Believe me these tools are easily obtainable and no censorship system can stop their use. Ironically by censoring the Internet you are actually encouraging terrorism and child pornography in this country. As a citizen of this country I will do everything in my power to stop the censorship of the Internet by the Labor government. I will also not stand by and allow a Labor government to irretrievably damage the quality of Internet access in this country which is already at a very low standard compared to the rest of the developed world. I will also not stand by and allow a Labor government to turn Australia into a Communist country. My vote at the next Federal election will be based on your future actions.

Posted by Sean T / 11 Dec 2008 5:57pm / Permalink

Lindsay, Thanks for the opportunity etc., but gee, in relation to the Filtering policy, I thought we just voted out a Govt fueled by (Prime) Ministerial obsessions and personal ideologies? Didn't we just vote in a Government that was going to rely on "independent research and expert advice"? I'm sure we could all pull up many a campaign talking point to remind you of the promised differences between your Govt and the last. And you do realise that opposition to this policy is just getting started, i.e.. the comments on this "blog" for instance, aren't the outpouring of some outlier niche group of techno-freaks. And if you are desperately trying to convince yourselves of this, I'd suggest you watch the last episode of the Howard Years again, where Ratty & co. were still continuing to spout that Workchoices was defeated ONLY, because of a great union-organised and funded campaign rather than the reality that when AWA's hit the hospitality/retail/manufacturing sector for real and employers dudded workers across the land, that the Yr Rights at Work campaign was merely vindicated. Imagine 10 million people/businesses logging to find their internet speeds are 70% less and half their Google searches are missing etc.... And secondly, if the recent election of a relatively unknown black Presidential candidate, who using the web and internet was able to out-spend and out-campaign old 'direct marketing' hands like the RNC isn't enough to convince you of the folly of taking on a digitally connected populace, then nothing will. Come on Lindsay... and Kevin, Julia and John (Faulkner) pull Conroy into line and dump this dog of an idea. It's also a pity that your worthy IT&C initiatives are going to be swamped and overlooked with the on-going and growing fallout from this 'crazee filtering' policy. And as Finance Minister watching good money being thrown after bad can't be a good feeling in these tightened times. Looking forward to the back down - just make it soon, ok?

Posted by JS / 11 Dec 2008 5:43pm / Permalink

I am extremely disappointed in the proposed filtering system. Good intentions but bad implementation. Just spend the money on tracking down the bad guys and put them in jail. Don't filter my www thanks.

Posted by George Orwell / 11 Dec 2008 4:59pm / Permalink

Mandatory - as far as I am concerned no policy that removes our rights and freedoms should be mandatory. I was brought up in a world where we have choices and freedom of information was not only accepted it was thrown in our faces by every media outlet that could. Protect our kids, don't take away our rights as Australian citizens.

Posted by clobber / 11 Dec 2008 4:43pm / Permalink

Senator Conroy's bloody minded push for a mandatory ISP filter shows that he is neither in touch with, nor understands, the digital economy.

Give us someone better please Labor!

Posted by James Beattie / 11 Dec 2008 4:37pm / Permalink

Firstly i'd like to echo the comments of many in congratulating the government on this open forum approach to feedback. this sort of consultation should be more widely adopted and an only help to enhance our democracy.

With that said, I, like many others cannot comprehend where the government came up with this idea. much like the governor of south australia and his instance that video games are for children and thus would never need an R classification, this web filter seems to be the concept of an individual or group that is drastically out of touch with technology and global progress. internet speeds within australia are already a joke by global standards and there are still areas of the metropolian area which do not have access to ADSL2+ and here we are debating a proposal which will drastically limit speeds. The arguement that people opposed to filtering support porn is ignorant at best. the simple fact is that this money would be far better spent in facilites and capability for our law enforcement agencies and regulators. As a graduate of security sciences and criminology i can say with a level of educated knowledge that any filtering system would obsolete far before it was ever rolled out and that the effect such a filter would have on the general population would be to further remove parental oversight of children on the internet. At current our society has an attiude that someone else should be raising our kids be it teachers, child careers or police and the responsibility and accountability is further and further removed from the parent. I'd personally suggest we use the funds to educate parents to the dangers of the internet and roll out end user software, like is readily availible such as net-nanny to be installed at the discretion of parents, schools and those who feel the need. This level of censorship is impractical and ultimately unconstitutional in my opinion. lets stop trying to solve every problem our society has by using legislation and move towards education and self-accountability. increase the sentences for child porn, child molesters and associated activities and increase the police agencies ability to track and arrest these people. lets use smarter laws, not more laws.

Posted by Jarrad / 11 Dec 2008 4:34pm / Permalink

The censorship scheme is appalling for a number of reasons. It is unworkable; and mandatory Government censorship is tantamount to tyranny. When our leader's are being compared to China, our freedom is in serious danger.

Posted by Jenna Cullen / 11 Dec 2008 4:00pm / Permalink

Nothing that others haven't said far better than I could, but the Government has no right nor mandate to censor the internet. This policy is so utterly misguided and unworkable that the only thing it has served to do is embarrass and erode confidence in the Government. Dump this policy and move on to other issues - like actually getting the NBN implemented.

Posted by Stuart Anderson / 11 Dec 2008 3:33pm / Permalink

Yes Sen. Conroy your days are numbered. I'm afraid you have already committed political suicide by being so ignorant and uninformed. HOWEVER... the Labor government can still turn this around. Rudd... stand up and make the common sense, correct and over whelmingly popular decision of dropping this "Trial" before even more millions are wasted... and at the same time... SACK CONROY and hire experts in the fields you are trying to examine, not smug word spinners. I'm not sure either Rudd or Conroy have answered one question directly and truthfully since coming to power.... did you learn nothing from Howard?... we people aren't idiots and hence we don't like being treated like it. You are dealing with an educated community and trying to blindside with complete lack of respect will do you no good. RUDD DO THE ONLY CORRECT THING!!!

Posted by The Howard Stench of Arrogance / 11 Dec 2008 3:22pm / Permalink

Mate, drop it ,it's a a Dog

Posted by Mr Oddjob / 11 Dec 2008 3:05pm / Permalink

If the feedback that's been provided dozen's of industry specialists hasn't been taken on board, how are we supposed to be expected to spend time trying to contribute?

There is so much wrong with the Government's internet filtering project that it should never have been allowed to get this far. The money would be better spent in upgrading Australia's pathetic internet infrastructure.

Tldr: Conroy doesn't care what the population thinks, and refuse to answer to the criticism aimed at the proposed internet filtering.

Posted by Chaotic / 11 Dec 2008 2:45pm / Permalink

I'm not an IT professional. I'm a security guard with three kids and a mortgage so I'm well below the average income living week to week.

Our internet connection is slow to begin with because that's all we can afford and now your talking about slowing it even further and possibly making it cost even more.

Where the hell do you get off Conroy, we have a substandard setup already and your going to make it worse. Are you going to pay for a better connection for my family to make up for added cost and loss of speed on what i already have?

Somehow I doubt that extremely, and as far as letting a bunch of nutters like Family First telling me what I can do, tell me what happened to religious freedom. I am an atheist and be damned if I let some loony Christian sect dictate to me. My wife is a Sunday school teacher and on the school council and even she thinks this idea is crazy.

Finally were all pedophiles if we disagree with you are we. I've voted labour all my life, not any more. You must be the most offensive uneducated person I have ever seen in public office, even Pauline Hanson had more brains than you are showing. Wake up to yourself!!!!!!

Posted by Mark / 11 Dec 2008 2:37pm / Permalink

I am totally opposed to this internet filter. My vote swings on this issue.

+ it's a flawed idea that won't work. How on earth can Senator Conroy be so blinkered as to not realise the futility of this proposed filter?

It won't work and it will cost money and productivity! What's the point, Conroy, you muppet?!

Posted by Chris / 11 Dec 2008 2:14pm / Permalink

No doubt by now you are aware of the recent success of the AFP in smashing a large, international pornography ring.

article

The comments of the acting assistant commissioner on ABC radio seem to indicate that the trafficking by this ring was conducted over peer-to-peer protocols, which he says "makes it more difficult for the content to be monitored by the ISP filters".

You'll no doubt also be aware of the collective, unified position of the technical community - that the proposed ISP-level filter will be completely ineffectual in blocking this sort of traffic.

In the face of this - real-world evidence that real-world criminals actually trafficking child pornography would be unhindered by the proposed filter - would you consider spending that money to assist these successful units instead?

Posted by Ben McEvoy / 11 Dec 2008 2:08pm / Permalink

Here is a letter I sent to my local MP- I wish there was another branch to post under. This blog is already a huge mess:

Dear Mr Bevis,

As an Australian and as an internet user, I have grave concerns about the proposed mandatory internet filtering initiative.

Given the importance our Government has attached to modernising Australia's broadband network, pursuing a policy that can only slow down and increase the costs of home internet access seems misguided at best. Australian households are diverse, and most do not have young children, so mandating a one-size-fits-all clean feed approach will not serve the public well. I don't think it is the Government's role to decide what's appropriate for me or my children, and neither do most Australians. Black and white, binary arguments made by Senator Conroy about "illegal content" are as ill-conceived as G.W. Bush's "You're either with us, or you're against us" rhetoric, and are equally misleading.

If this proposal were to pass, it would spell the end of democracy in this country, not to mention e-business. I am thoroughly shocked by Senator Conroy's appallingly obtuse and seemingly ignorant stance on the issue; to disregard and selectively twist all expert advice on the subject, mislead parliament about overseas filtering systems and avoid questions on the subject, and launch what is potentially the most dangerous attack on free speech, on the last remaining free-speech medium should see him removed from his position, as he clearly does not act in the best interests of the Australian people, and is thus unsuitable for the role. We do not wish to join the ranks of China, Cuba or North Korea, regardless of how many imaginary children may be "protected" by such a policy.

Given the amount of online content available, and its exponential growth, the Government will never be able to classify it all and filters will always result in an unacceptable level of over-blocking. I feel that the time and money could be spent in better ways both to protect children and improve Australia's digital infrastructure. Australian parents need better education about the risks their children face online. Trying to rid the internet of adult content is futile, and can only distract from that mission.

I sincerely trust you will give this matter the full attention it deserves, and prevent an expensive and easily avoidable disaster from taking place. Please read the comments from many online articles on the subject- you will find that for once, Australia unanimously agrees on something: internet filtering is a dreadful idea, and should not go ahead.

article1 article2 article3 article4 article5 I look forward to your response. Sincerely...

Posted by Andrew / 11 Dec 2008 1:45pm / Permalink

Great work guys - love that you are getting up to speed in this space. I think you are missing out on an enormous resource if you are not doing policy development in the public domain, and blogs etc are an excellent way to do this.

Posted by Ben / 11 Dec 2008 1:44pm / Permalink

ISP filtering is a bandaid effort to fix an issue which should be delt elsewhere. I do beleive that there is an underlining issue here for Mr Tanner, and that would be religion no doubt, serious clouded judgement.

Posted by Marty / 11 Dec 2008 1:34pm / Permalink

As always, it is a pleasure to be among so many passionate players from the communications sector.

I would like to give Minister Conroy and his department credit for their initiative in getting this consultation established.

I have been reading most of the comments posted since the beginning. I must admit I expected strong resilient towards ISP filtering and certainly towards censorship. But, I must divulge, I am observing some sort of detestation towards Hon Stephen Conroy.

I support Australian Federal Liberal Governments PC Internet Content Filters, and Australian Federal Labor Government’s ISP Filtering policies, however, the deficiencies and nature of the PC and ISP filtering itself cannot effectively protect our children online.

That’s why we as industry leaders and passionate users of the internet must put our creative minds together and provide solutions to the department.

Ask yourself this fundamental question:- How can I be constructive participant in order to eradicate online child abuse, child exploitation including pornography and grooming as well as preserve freedom of speech.

Online security and cyber safety for our children on the internet are key issues, Australian governments as well as our full joint efforts are crucial to preserve freedom of speech.

Ken Kadiroglu

Posted by Ken Kadiroglu / 11 Dec 2008 1:32pm / Permalink

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

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

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

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

Posted by hosko / 11 Dec 2008 1:16pm / Permalink

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

Technologically outdated

Slow

And censored by bureaucrats

Posted by Carl M / 11 Dec 2008 1:03pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Jennifer / 11 Dec 2008 12:40pm / Permalink

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

Posted by ak bris / 11 Dec 2008 12:26pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Wizard / 11 Dec 2008 11:31am / Permalink

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

Posted by imacca / 11 Dec 2008 11:07am / Permalink

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

Posted by Mark G / 11 Dec 2008 10:37am / Permalink

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

Posted by Kothos / 11 Dec 2008 10:36am / Permalink

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

Posted by pk / 11 Dec 2008 10:25am / Permalink

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

Posted by membrane / 11 Dec 2008 10:22am / Permalink

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

Posted by Kevin R Beck / 11 Dec 2008 10:18am / Permalink

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

Posted by Drew / 11 Dec 2008 10:10am / Permalink

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

Posted by Andrew Harvey / 11 Dec 2008 10:09am / Permalink

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

Posted by Tim Hooper / 11 Dec 2008 9:58am / Permalink

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

Posted by Oh My God / 11 Dec 2008 9:58am / Permalink

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

Posted by ITDad / 11 Dec 2008 9:35am / Permalink