Minister Tanner's welcome

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

Posted by Mick / 11 Dec 2008 9:21am / Permalink

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

Posted by Theo Plugov / 11 Dec 2008 9:17am / Permalink

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

Posted by Mauthil / 11 Dec 2008 9:08am / Permalink

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

Posted by DB / 11 Dec 2008 9:03am / Permalink

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

Posted by tric / 11 Dec 2008 9:01am / Permalink

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

Posted by Aaron / 11 Dec 2008 8:58am / Permalink

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

Posted by Roy1983 / 11 Dec 2008 8:49am / Permalink

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

Posted by Nick / 11 Dec 2008 8:43am / Permalink

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

Posted by Onno Benschop / 11 Dec 2008 8:41am / Permalink

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

Posted by Slakewell / 11 Dec 2008 8:21am / Permalink

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

Posted by Clint / 11 Dec 2008 8:14am / Permalink

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

Posted by Rob Willett / 11 Dec 2008 7:33am / Permalink

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

Posted by mike from Townsville / 11 Dec 2008 7:31am / Permalink

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

Posted by gilbert / 11 Dec 2008 6:48am / Permalink

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

Posted by Phil, Melbourne / 11 Dec 2008 6:07am / Permalink

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

Posted by Censorship is a slippery slope / 11 Dec 2008 5:25am / Permalink

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

Posted by Stevo / 11 Dec 2008 5:15am / Permalink

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

Posted by Ivan M / 11 Dec 2008 4:26am / Permalink

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

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

Posted by Rod Rye / 11 Dec 2008 2:24am / Permalink

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

Posted by Jane / 11 Dec 2008 2:20am / Permalink

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

Posted by lukesh / 11 Dec 2008 2:02am / Permalink

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

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

Posted by debs / 11 Dec 2008 1:55am / Permalink

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

Posted by Jay / 11 Dec 2008 1:12am / Permalink

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

Posted by David M / 11 Dec 2008 1:08am / Permalink

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

Posted by Adam Mc / 11 Dec 2008 1:02am / Permalink

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

Posted by ewe2 / 11 Dec 2008 12:36am / Permalink

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

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

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

Posted by Fishy / 11 Dec 2008 12:14am / Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Otherwise, let the sheeple have their filter

Posted by Ross M / 11 Dec 2008 12:07am / Permalink

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

Posted by Kit / 10 Dec 2008 11:59pm / Permalink

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

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

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

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

--Sharif Oerton

Posted by Sharif Oerton / 10 Dec 2008 11:59pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Niels / 10 Dec 2008 11:36pm / Permalink

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

Posted by UnAustralianAction / 10 Dec 2008 11:35pm / Permalink

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

Posted by upset / 10 Dec 2008 11:08pm / Permalink

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

Posted by frustrated tasmanian / 10 Dec 2008 10:57pm / Permalink

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

Posted by dissapointed Australian / 10 Dec 2008 10:47pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Ash / 10 Dec 2008 10:34pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Maximilian Wittmann / 10 Dec 2008 10:32pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Ash / 10 Dec 2008 10:30pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Ron One / 10 Dec 2008 10:27pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Panther / 10 Dec 2008 10:13pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Sarah D. / 10 Dec 2008 10:02pm / Permalink

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

Posted by OK / 10 Dec 2008 9:58pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Ross / 10 Dec 2008 9:49pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Sarah D. / 10 Dec 2008 9:49pm / Permalink

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

Posted by moofactory / 10 Dec 2008 9:43pm / Permalink

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

Posted by David Cake / 10 Dec 2008 9:42pm / Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

-X

Posted by Cameron Christie / 10 Dec 2008 9:41pm / Permalink

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

Posted by Rastko Petrovic / 10 Dec 2008 9:37pm / Permalink

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

Posted by James / 10 Dec 2008 9:33pm / Permalink