Minister Tanner's welcome

We can only hope that the Greens and Liberals block this tragic un Australian and undemocratic legislation through Parliament. This is some thing Stalinist USSR would have done and I can not believe this is happening in Australia. We should be an example to the rest of the world on free speech and uncensored access to the 21st century main route information. This issue is not about child pornography its about censorship brought on by political ideals and the need to control the population and its already happening since they have mentioned online gambling and euthanasia sites and mark my words there will be many other sites on that list and it will only grow. This is the sort of thing that starts and deservedly so I might ad a civil war. If this ridiculous legislation gets passed I will make every effort along with countless 1000's of others to publish details on how to circumvent this with Tor and VPN networks and encryption. Based only on the principal of the matter and any WW2 veteran that fought to uphold our freedom and liberty would agree. This will do untold amounts of damage to our reputation at the UN and will severely limit our ability to be critical of other countries human rights democratic issues etc.

Posted by shauno / 10 Dec 2008 5:29pm / Permalink

I am glad to see so many people active and voicing their concerns over the proposed internet filter. As a Computer Security Analyst I can honestly say that the filter will do little, if at all anything, to stop child pornography on the internet. The sad fact is that individuals who collect/seek this information rarely use web based pages to access the content (which is where the filter plans to block content), rather they opt to use peer-to-peer programs and user groups(yes they still exist) to trade information. The money this government is wasting on a filter could be better used to fund online investigation, and to give the police more resources to respond to online problems sooner. The forensic labs in Australia are backed up with the amount of work hat is flowing through them, so an injection of funds could speed up the analysis of evidence and get criminals off the street sooner. To all those who feel this filter is necessary to protect children from obscene content, I would ask you why you are not supervising your children’s use of the internet. No filter is going to work 100%, and as such the best filter is a parent sitting with their child. Other than that I do not oppose a filter that you can opt out of, I do however oppose a mandatory filter which is being touted as a defence against child pornography, that quite frankly will never work.

Posted by Thomo17 / 10 Dec 2008 5:21pm / Permalink

This internet filtering business has to stop, the money would be far better spent on parks, or schools... scratch that, parks and schools are where pedophiles congregate. spend the money on PRISONS then but dont mess with my internet. i should have the freedom to break the law, and the good sense not to.

Posted by The last free Australian / 10 Dec 2008 5:10pm / Permalink

Let me put this as bluntly as possible: if this Internet censorship scheme goes forward, I will convince every friend I know and stranger I meet to vote for either the Greens or Liberals instead of Labour. On a lighter note, I encourage you to completely avoid Telstra for the NBN. They have repeatedly shown they care only about money and protecting their monopoly. The NBN is for the Australian people, not to make fatcat shareholders rich. - Steele

Posted by Steele Clifton-Berry / 10 Dec 2008 5:09pm / Permalink

If the Government truly wants to stamp out illegal activity as it suggests, then it should be pouring its efforts into law enforcement and education and encouraging people to be responsible with their children and partake in teaching kids how to decipher information not just taking information away from them. However history shows that this is a recurring practice, like witch hunts and communist scare mongering, from days gone by. It's not that the government can't see that this is a flawed idea, they know its a flawed idea, but that’s not the point, the point is that they count on everyone’s reluctance to be seen defending illegal activity, using a "you're with us or against us" mentality to accomplish what they are actually trying to do, which is further intrude on people and their choices. Once the mechanism is in place to filter information before we know we have lost the choice to examine it then we are in a blindfolded looping pattern of deception. Do not think that this can’t happen to us, that’s an easy mistake to make. This is not the desired behaviour of our Australian government, Don't insult our intelligence, do the job you are paid to do in the manner you are paid to do it, Public servants are called public servants for a reason, they are supposed to serve the public not dictate and railroad them. Show us you sincerity or show us your hypocrisy. But call it what it is. This is my opinion based on the information I have gathered and deciphered throughout my life. Anthony Voevodin

Posted by Anthony Voevodin / 10 Dec 2008 5:08pm / Permalink

to have something inplace without the end user being able to opt-out is no different to being a cowardly spammer sending people unsolicited email or letters to which they can not unsubscribe from you are doing well at putting the image of criminal activity as the definition of government

Posted by matteovinci / 10 Dec 2008 5:01pm / Permalink

Why does the government continue to go ahead with these web filter trials? It's obvious to any technical person that filtering out the type of material the government is suggesting is a technical impossibility. Most of this type of garbage being traded amongst people is not done on public websites, but rather in private irc chat rooms, bulletin boards, p2p sites etc.. and none of this will (or even can) be filtered. Not to mention web proxies and VPNs which will get around the filters even for any publicly available web material. This policy will NOT AFFECT THE DISTRIBUTION OF PEDOPHILE MATERIAL, but at the same time provide an opportunity for this government or any future government to restrict freedom of speech, or anything else the government deems "morally inappropriate". No court orders or legislation required. No recourse. It WONT remove legitimately bad material. It WILL slow down the internet. It WILL cost a lot of money. It WILL ensure that pedophiles and the like use proxies or VPNs which will make it even harder for law enforcement to find them. It WILL inadvertently block legitimate sites. The government is going ahead with this trial purely to save face. There seems to be a pattern of this government "saving face" in a number of other issues as well. All at the expense of the taxpayer, and potential at the expense of our freedom and liberties.

Posted by raysydney / 10 Dec 2008 4:50pm / Permalink

Great, one more thing that the government wants to 'nanny' Australians about - web filters. You must be joking! Do you think we're a bunch of child pornographers? Or is it that you think Australians have no self-control? Better yet you want to take control of our access to sites like countries such as China and North Korea. Give us a break and a bit of credit please.

Posted by JBB / 10 Dec 2008 4:45pm / Permalink

As a 25 year old who has spent much of my life on the internet (since i was 14) I have to say this proposed filtering of the internet is a big waste of money, and all in all will get us -NOWHERE-!! If people want something bad enough they will always find ways to get it. I never had a problem with porn when i was a kid, Never stumbled accross anything because I never even bothered to look! I live on my own now so I dont even have to worry about other kids stumbling accross anything.

The ecconomy of the world is at an all time low and it is only going to get worse... Put your money into something worth wile, and DONT censor the internet.

Posted by NOTOCENSORSHIP / 10 Dec 2008 4:42pm / Permalink

The Minister is not listening to the industry, believing instead that politically, this is a good thing to do. Whether it works or not, all he cares about his himself,

Posted by why / 10 Dec 2008 4:35pm / Permalink

i am old enough to decide for myself what is appropriate and do not consent to someone else viewing websites on my behalf and deciding that I cannot. We do not live in china and will vote the government of the day out of office if they do listen to me and the hundreds and thousands of others. Lets not beat around the proverbial bush, this censorship plan is intended for certain special interest groups to deny others access to content they have a personal disagreement with. You were very smart enough to throw up the issue of child porn from the very beginning. This will only fool most people for a short period of time before they relies what you really are up to. It does make any reasoned debate about censorship difficult but not impossible, without it being made to seem that I am somehow are pro child porn. I should not have to state that I find child porn reprehensible, it is a given. And I strongly refute the implication. We are standing at the precipice from living in a free democratic country and the government does not have a mandate to turn this country into a totalitarian dictatorship, The last election was a close one. I don't think it will be close this time, good luck with your new job after the next election. I will not make the mistake of voting labour again and will urge others who value freedom to do the same.

Posted by Andrew / 10 Dec 2008 4:33pm / Permalink

Are there going to be government LOLcats?

Posted by Shaun / 10 Dec 2008 4:32pm / Permalink

Dear Minister Tanner and ALP leadership, When I voted ALP I was voting for a progressive party after the blight of Howard social conservatism. With respect, Senator Conroy is not the right man to be in charge of Communications at this time. Perhaps he might be very good in another portfolio. What we need is a social progressive who understands the Internet and is able to take a consultative approach. Senator Conroy seems to have lost the confidence of most stakeholders in the Internet. Someone like Kate Lundy would be a very popular choice with Internet users.

Posted by shirro / 10 Dec 2008 4:30pm / Permalink

You asked, you posted and now you are receiving valuable, albeit repititious and predictable, feedback. That does not concern me, its what you now do in response to this overwhelming vote of "no clean feed"

Posted by Tony Searl / 10 Dec 2008 4:28pm / Permalink

I am just waiting For Senator Conroy to announce the "boiling the ocean" plan...

Posted by no filter thank you parent of 5 / 10 Dec 2008 4:25pm / Permalink

I am going to try and be as balanced as I can on this one!
1. Internet filtering - this just won't work. Those that want to find their way around it will without any problems. This means the only people it will actually effect are genuine people who get incorrect false positives.
2. NBN - Unfortunately I think you have painted yourself into a corner with this one. Insisting on fttn does not make sense in the bush, you would have been better to set a minimum speed requirement. The other problem is that you speed you are trying to achieve will be totally inadequate within the 5 year period you have set for the project. I would consider myself an early adoptor and I know that I have a speed similar to this now, and it feels slow. This sort of makes me think I am favouring the Telstra proposal, but without structural separation this would be a disaster. We are already far behind on speed and accessibility compared with other first world countries. Telstra would price to 'maximise value' to their shareholders as they should, but this will mean high price, low adoption, and we fall even further behind.

Overall advice. Forget internet filtering and rethink the nbn I'm afraid.

Posted by funkygorilla / 10 Dec 2008 4:20pm / Permalink

Whew! up to 413 responses in 1 day, and the majority are anti-net censorship - very telling. I've been told that some legit posts haven't been published here - if anyone thinks they have been moderated unfairly, please twitter me @Jinjirrie

Posted by Jinjirrie / 10 Dec 2008 4:17pm / Permalink

Stephen Conroy, I simply want the option to opt out of this silly, ill thoughtout filtering ISP scheme.

Implement whatever you deem fit, but I wont no part of it.

Posted by uz3r / 10 Dec 2008 4:13pm / Permalink

Great way to push a policy through. Knowing that you can't get the public to agree to an internet filter intended to curb illegal downloads in a ham-fisted fashion and block access to sites deemed "undesirable" not by the public, but by a small group of cherry-picked like-minded conservatives. All knowing the public would never agree to give up their right to total freedom of speech on the web, never agree to the government banning access to sites deemed "obscene" by the prurient media ratings boards, you instead cry "CHILD MOLESTERS! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" It's cheap, it's transparent, and it's disgusting. You could be taking real measures against child sex offenders by putting this money into the appropriate sectors of the police force. You could be helping the growth of the Australian software industry by lobbying local companies to produce user-end filters for retail sale. Instead you waste millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars on a project that will drag us even further behind the rest of the world in internet speeds, which in turn will only further decrease our ability to be part of the global digital marketplace. Your policy runs completely contrary to your vocation, Minister.

Posted by Tim / 10 Dec 2008 4:13pm / Permalink

Add me to the list of people who are AGAINST the mandatory filtering. I have signed every petition I can find to try and stop this nonsense.

Posted by Jake / 10 Dec 2008 4:11pm / Permalink

well might as well move to China, Same internet and a huge saving on postage, glad i payed the extra for my router with 8 vpn pipes !! Bring on the Unfiltered Internet Blackmarket !! ROFL

Posted by china / 10 Dec 2008 4:07pm / Permalink

Like the majority of others who've posted on this blog, I also oppose the concept of mandatory ISP filtering. I'm not going to go through all the reasons why it's a bad idea because many others on this blog have already gone through the details. But considering the recent debacle in the UK with regards to censoring Wikipedia, mandatory ISP filtering will create more problems in terms of what content filtered, overall download speeds and the cost to the consumer (not to mention the Government come election time). The general reception to this idea (which is cold) should give this Government department a clue that this filtering regime won't work and it should be scrapped. I do agree more needs to be done to protect children online, but a giant blanket that affects adults like myself is NOT the solution. It's time to listen to the majority and scrap the idea of mandatory filtering, an OPT-IN system in collaboration with ISPs would be better. (P.S. I applaud the decision of setting up these blogs so everyday folk can add their comments and opinions, time to take notice Minister).

Posted by Stephen / 10 Dec 2008 3:54pm / Permalink

Aah, www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/industry_development/digital_economy/future_directions_blog - it has such a ring to it. The blog URL is unwieldly, the layout is completely abysmal and as you already seem to have your hearts set on both the ineffectual filter system and the monopoly-creating version of the broadband plan I doubt you will take anything said in the comments of these entries to heart one iota.

Posted by est / 10 Dec 2008 3:52pm / Permalink

"hear your thoughts on how we should interact with you online."

Please, talk to the folks with at www.openaustralia.org. Make the actual raw output of government (Hansard, Bills before the house, video/audio of sessions, members' voting records in parliament, committees' reports, Register of Members' Interests, etc etc) are readily and freely accessible online in open formats.

In short: use the internet as way to make goverment as accessible and transparent as possible.

Allow the community to innovate with the raw data, rather than trying to anticipate all the ways we want to consume the data.

Posted by Andrew / 10 Dec 2008 3:52pm / Permalink

Look this silly talk of blocking the internet has to stop,How can any australian government say they are going to control what we read and what we cant are you going to block jeff rense/alex jones like england, are you going to block youtube as well are you going to bring out a nazi/soviet style state run media thats the only media. I am very stressed at the power you are assuming.Control of the internet is control of the sheeple control of the sheeple is limitless power that is what you seek, i know my history very very well,howard offered every one a free filter and guess what the people didnt byte so now your going force people who enjoy there freedom to accept your censor on lies and misleading infomation you in the labour party should all be ashamed of yourself FOR WE ARE YOUNG AND FREE dont forget it

Posted by gollstar / 10 Dec 2008 3:49pm / Permalink

Just another anti-internet filter comment to add to the masses, hoping that sheer volume will prevent the filter from being implemented.

Nothing to ad that hasn't been said, spend the money instead on catching the criminals and the onus for filtering the net should be on parents.

Posted by Anaesthetic / 10 Dec 2008 3:47pm / Permalink

Parents need to be responsible for their children when online through supervision or private filtering programs such as net nanny.

Please dont wast millions of our tax payers money making the rest of us suffer.

Honestly Next election ill be voting for which ever political party promises to never filter our internet.

I work in IT, I know that this will not work. The people who want to get around it will, and everyone else will just get annoyed.

Please see reason and drop this rediculous waste of money.

The only people who think this is a good idea are the ones who do not understand the technology.

Posted by jason / 10 Dec 2008 3:45pm / Permalink

Internet filtering - a waste of resources for all the reasons others in this blog have mentioned. Stephen Covey and his Principled Centred Leadership needs to come to the fore. You do not, nor can you solve social problems with technology. Technology is always an enabling tool, but implemented from flawed principles it becomes an unproductive and crippling mechanism that will harm more than it protects.

Digital Economy - no such thing in my book. We have the economy, and you have people that form communities that influence the economy with a range of mechanisms and tools, and one such tool happens to be electronic communications pipes and systems that data and knowledge get transferred by at increasing speeds.

If Australia is to become the nation built on knowledge then it needs a digital network that in order of importance is: - reliable
- accessible
- fast
- publically owned

This network then needs to be available to enterprises who pay the same price to access it who then build value adding services such as online business applications, entertainment offerings, education etc. It is pointless having a national network that is also owned by a service provider who does not equitably wholesale price access to that network.

The free market economy and the greed of corporations makes such a model unworkable. The priority will always be to the shareholders and the share price. With public ownership of the network this problem disappears.

Of course, the government must not get in its mind that a national broadband network once implemented is "mission accomplished". The network will require continual upgrading and maintenance, and no doubt yet to be invented technologies will supplant current ideas of what a national network should be capable of achieving.

Posted by Colin / 10 Dec 2008 3:45pm / Permalink

I notice that the politely written post I submitted last night at 7:00pm has not appeared on this blog at all.

I suggested that Senator Conroy be moved to a more appropriate portfolio that he can demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of.

To put it succinctly - a post that was critical of the current federal government and one its ministers has been censored.

You've lost my vote.
You've lost my wife's vote.

There is no room for censorship or those who support it in this country.

Posted by Dean C / 10 Dec 2008 3:44pm / Permalink

Just add my vote against internet filtering [and any govt. who imposes it] for all the reasons well documented recently. The most despicable action of Conroy and friends is hiding behind the chosen smokescreen of 'It's all about child pornography!' when it's all about censorship and social control.

These are the tactics of the Howard and Bush govts., to make the public swallow the destruction of civil and human rights in the name of 'security'. Just withdraw quietly Conroy - you must have got the message by now that the plan won't work, is undesirable and won't have any effect on what you pretend it is attacking.

The police know what they are doing [by using the internet actually!] in tracking and tracing the users and perpetrators of child porn - let them get on with it and leave everyone else to go about their internet use without a nanny govenments hindrance.

Posted by Jason B / 10 Dec 2008 3:43pm / Permalink

Look this silly talk of blocking the internet has to stop,How can any australian government say they are going to control what we read and what we cant are you going to block jeff rense/alex jones like england, are you going to block youtube as well are you going to bring out a nazi/soviet style state run media thats the only media.

I am very stressed at the power you are assuming.Control of the internet is control of the sheeple control of the sheeple is limitless power that is what you seek, i know my history very very well,howard offered every one a free filter and guess what the people didnt byte so now your going force people who enjoy there freedom to accept your censor on lies and misleading infomation you in the labour party should all be ashamed of yourself FOR WE ARE YOUNG AND FREE dont forget it

Posted by gollstar / 10 Dec 2008 3:39pm / Permalink

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 3:38pm / Permalink

Great so instead of looking at my email I sent you about my outrage you have been adding a blog to the internet. GREAT this shows Mr Conroy that you rae actually able to use a computer not just talk about legislation that affects every single computer in Australia.

You know this relieves me greatly as my concerns began when you presented ideas for a flawed internet filtering system. Then my fears were furthered when you... even your staff are unable to reply to an email.

I am so glad you are Blogging now as now I can see that you know what a computer is and how to use one and the internet filter is just a way for the government to further control what information is appropriate (what ever the motivation) for us to see to have further control over the people.

The quest for power and control over people is so much easier to understand than someone with no clue about technology having you cabniet position.

Posted by puredistortion / 10 Dec 2008 3:35pm / Permalink

I will advise my clients not to use Australia as an internet feed as it is filtered. This will result in job losses and Australia no longer being a choice for Asia Pacific HQs.

All Australian offices will eventually VPN to say Singapore for thier internet feed. This is how we currently avoid the Chinese filter. Have your Shanghai office VPN to Sydney to get the internet feed. This simply turns companies away from Australia and will cost jobs.

Posted by Mr Angry / 10 Dec 2008 3:31pm / Permalink

The filter will only block one type of Internet protocol, HTTP. It is common knowledge in the IT industry that 99% of illegal media is obtained via file sharing networks such as P2P (peer to peer), Bittorrent and FTP. Guaranteed within 5 minutes of searching Google, Internet users will be armed with instructions on how to get around the filter.

I am a network engineer, so deal with firewalls/blocklists etc every day. Its a nightmare due to the false positives.

Besides, taxpayers already funded a FREE filter available for EVERYONE to download.

People need to learn how to parent effectively. You wouldn't let your child play on a busy road without supervision, so why let them on the internet?

Posted by cupcake / 10 Dec 2008 3:28pm / Permalink

I am just waiting For Senator Conroy to announce the "boiling the ocean" plan...

Posted by no filter thank you parent of 5 / 10 Dec 2008 3:24pm / Permalink

So if a child circumvents the filter and views unsavory material, the parents of said child can hold the government accountable and sue them for child endangerment? I really like this idea :)

Posted by Simon / 10 Dec 2008 3:17pm / Permalink

I'm glad to see the government embracing Web 2.0, what's next, RSS Syndication? I am concerned that my favourite government blog may be blocked as "unwanted" by Conroy's Firewall comes thus forcing me to visit this site through a firewall. That'll add literally seconds to the time it takes to load.

Posted by Moses @ BeerandSport.net / 10 Dec 2008 3:12pm / Permalink

The totalitarian regime in mainland China have an internet filter to block from it citizens anything not to the liking of the regime. It by a large measure is successful only because of the thousands employed to maintain it (good for employment). However I have occasion to communicate with some of those citizens via online means that the net provides and it does not stop me from passing on to them anything I like. Perhaps the only way to get an effective filter is to get the G20 together and develop a world wide one. That would surely spur economic activity to an extent that would bring the world out of the currently slump.

Posted by Rich / 10 Dec 2008 3:11pm / Permalink

Welcome to 1984. Australias internet infrastructure is a joke compared to most other developed nations and instead of fix it this is the solution we get. No matter how bad the Howard government was at least they didn't try and pull this communist rubbish. Needless to say I will never vote labor again if this thing goes ahead.

Posted by Evan Weston / 10 Dec 2008 3:04pm / Permalink

Hi Minister Tanner, nice blog! In my opinion, our government should not play the role of parents. Government should not censor whatever it deems inappropriate because its simply not their job, instead it should comment on the appropriateness of certain materials and public related information to educate the general public. It is up to the general public to decide what material is right or wrong for themselves and for their children. Education is the key here because parents are expected to make informed decision on choosing materials suitable for their children. However, education is also the harder way to fix the problem because it involves committing more time and resources. I can understand that many politicians who only care about votes do not like undertaking such projects. These politicians prefer quick doses of pain killers to pretend that they are fixing the problem. Policing information on the internet is remarkably similar to banning firearms, "if you outlaw the guns, only the outlaws would have guns." Blocking access to inappropriate web sites do not stop the determined persons (the "outlaws") to gain access to and distribute inappropriate contents. Blocking web sites may make the problem less visible, but it does not make the problem go away.

Posted by concerned / 10 Dec 2008 2:55pm / Permalink

This is a bit confusing, given that Minister Tanner is consulting through the Blog, and yet that this is hosted on DBCDE's website? Perhaps explain that Minister Tanner is minister of Finance and Deregulation?

Posted by fifers / 10 Dec 2008 2:40pm / Permalink

Hey everyone, Just wanted to thank the government for launching this blog. I think it's a great step in the right direction and I'd like to express my opinions on why I think a mandatory filter is absolutely wrong. I do agree children need protection but instead of implementing a mandatory filter, costing tax payers millions of dollars. We should be looking at educating parents about the current issues facing young children browsing the internet and possible solutions to those problems. Parents should be educated about things such as: - Software Filters (Browsers, Addons). - ISP Level Filters. - Social Networks. - Instant Messengers. - Common internet terms and technologies. - And potential problems that children could run into online. A parent should have at least some idea on how the internet works. If their children are young enough. They should know what websites and internet services their children use. If their children won't tell them, they should know at least how to check a browsers history. A mandatory filter threatens all that the Internet is about. Free access to information for all. It allows small lobby groups to decide what the majority should have access too. (Christian lobby groups, Anti Abortion Right Groups, Etc) All while at the same time having little to no effect on actual predators that will do anything to trade in illicit material. Through such methods as encrypted networks, VPNs and whatever other technologies and means that may be out there. With all the technologies and methods out there, how much would a mandatory filter have to block to be actually effective? Onto a bit of a different point.. With the National Broadband Network coming online in the next few years. I can't believe the Opposition hasn't picked the government up on a pretty important point. We're told most Internet filters slow access by a certain margin. Some even slow the internet by a whopping 87%. By combining the National Broadband Network with a mandatory filter. Wouldn't we be getting a lemon? What would the real speeds be of our National Broadband Network with a mandatory filter? With everything taken under consideration. Is a mandatory internet filter a good idea? Several million dollars for something that has the potential to slow down our future NBN, limit access to some of the best rich content material and block legitimate content? (Ala, Britains watch group preventing anonymous access to Wikipedia) Stephen, spend the money in a better way. Educate the parents, pay a reward to people who help bring down online predators and invest in the NBN. ..Oh I hope to see a lot of you people at the anti mandatory filter rallies over the weekend. :) - Marcin

Posted by Marcin / 10 Dec 2008 2:31pm / Permalink

I think most people have already said this, but then again, you don't seem to be listening, so here's another voice. This Internet filtering initiative will be a useless piece of junk that doesn't solve the issue of child pornography in any way whatsoever, or any other real issue. It'll only serve to slow down our Internet connections, put lots of money into equipment we don't need, and allow unrestricted blacklisting and censorship of whatever website -you- think is inappropriate. The real sad bit about this though is everyone is telling you how unrealistic and useless this filtering will be, but you are still trying to push ahead with it. Why!?

Posted by Robin Chow / 10 Dec 2008 2:28pm / Permalink

Dear Sir,, Thank you for your assistance in bringing my voice to the public arena. I go one step further and ask you to please call a poll on the Internet to see how much this is really being supported out there. Please do whatever it takes to filter this smut business away from our children for a better future. We live in a free country but many seem to forget that our freedom is built around responsibilities and since many parents and individuals don’t understand this word, the Government of the day rightly has the option to intervene. Those sick individuals or group of individuals who watch this filth and those who support the right to watch it are the one and the same, they have sick minds it has nothing to do with freedom of choice. Psychologically you can become accustom to certain visual, auditory or verbal garbage if you involve yourself in it enough, internet sexual addiction is becoming a reality, it is researched and often documented in recent mainstream psychological studies, those who are involved in it has a persona that seems to think it is right to use and abuse sexually explicit materials, unlike the real world on the internet there is no objection to giving or receiving this form of material so why not abuse it. For those who object to censorship I really believe there is an ulterior motive for their objection. Censorship is needed for the Internet on a global scale not just in Australia it is very very refreshing to see Australia lead the world once again in such a way. Censorship applied in television in advertising in sales in promotion and in many public domains the only open media that has no form of global censorship is the Internet. Not so long ago and for whatever reasons an Internet consortium involving the previous government also rejected the creation of a new domain name for sexually immoral and perverted individuals, that was a good option to leave all sexually explicit materials in certain types of domain ie (sex.au) for example, it made perfect sense then. Leaving it to individuals is just a joke it is very clear when you read some of the posts here that some individuals don’t understand the concept of child protection, you don’t have to have a child to protect a child. Democracy for some means I can behave in whatever immoral way and no one can to tell me I am wrong. We must go to whatever length and do whatever it takes to protect our future (The Children), Censorship is needed right now in whatever shape if it needs tweaking in future that is fine but you cant watch a cancerous tumour growing in your body and take a local shot of anastatic to ease the pain, this is what is happing with (individual filtering) it does not work we need a radical method such as this or similar. Thank you very much once again for your actions and for reading my opinion, which many share but don’t voice.

Posted by Tony khairy / 10 Dec 2008 2:28pm / Permalink

Congratulations! I was sad to see a blog without any comments (which isn't a blog), but today I find a thriving conversation! Brilliant. I expect the flow will slow somewhat as you show that you are listening. I look forward to seeing how this technology can be used in the Australian culture to allow the government access to the many great minds in corporate, academic, religious and secular society. A great first step.

Posted by Stuart French / 10 Dec 2008 2:22pm / Permalink

Yet another example of the government not trusting its people. Do you think everyone with an internet connection secretly lusts for child pornograhpy? The web is such a small percentage of traffic that even a completely effective filter will not hinder those who wish to break the law. And how long until the RIAA and MPAA cousins here come knocking at your door with bags of cash?

Posted by R / 10 Dec 2008 2:06pm / Permalink

One of the reasons I voted Labor in the recent election was because of labors promise to do something about Australia's pathetically slow and expensive Internet. One year later not only is the Internet unchanged but its freedom of information is under threat by Sen Conroys proposed draconian Filter/Censorship plan. As you may be aware, prior to the election, an OPT OUT filter plan was mentioned. Now this has suddenly changed to a NO OPT OUT scheme! I am personally disgusted with Sen Conroys antics in the senate when asked questions about this Censorship plan by other senators. He simply refuses to answer the questions asked.

I cannot believe you are even considering this plan to bring in censorship of Australian Internet that will bring us inline with Iran, Saudi Arabia and China.

The main facts are as follows!

• It will waste well over 100 Miliion of our taxes!
• It will NOT work and will be easily circumvented by any 13 year old.
• It will slow our already slow internet.
• It will force ISPs to increase fees.
• It is the beginning of a very slippery slope towards a Police state.
• It of course had Nothing to do with protecting children! Concerned parents have FREE programs available NOW to do this on their home computers.

The Labor party were NOT given a mandate to introduce such censorship. I hope you will take the time to investigate this for yourself? Sadly most Labor senators are sending a form letter in reply to questions sent to them, containing the same rubbish and blatant lies spoken by Sen Conroy in the Senate. I attach some URLs for you.

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442

http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/cash-floods-in-for-anticensorship-protests/2008/12/05/1228257282965.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/childrens-welfare-groups-slam-net-filters/2008/11/28/1227491813497.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/biztech/net-censorship-plan-backlash/2008/11/11/1226318639085.html

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1099785

I thank you for this opportunity to voice my concerns and look forward to your reply. I can assure you that IF this censorship comes to pass, I and my family will never vote Labor again.

Posted by Dags / 10 Dec 2008 2:04pm / Permalink

If you honestly think a filter is going to block out pedophile you have rocks in your head.educating children on the dangers of the Internet is the only sane way to go.Internet filters don't work properly look at the school portals. In case you have forgotten this not a dictator ship i think. My son goes on game site through his xbox he has random friends that could be any age .Am i worried?No. Because he knows that you never give personal details or agree to meet any one.He has been taught the basic safety rules of the Internet .That is a parents job

Posted by bj / 10 Dec 2008 2:02pm / Permalink

Further to my last comment (and of obvious relevance!) >INSIST on relevance in comments. This post, for example, clearly does not invite comments on ISP filtering. You've got to resist the blog becoming just another forum for criticising the Government. It should be that, but on an issue-by-issue basis; otherwise what chance is there of anything genuinely new and interesting being heard above the din? Commenters who persist in failing on this score should be banned after appropriate warning. >Anonymous posts (as opposed to comments) are anathema to blogging - e.g. your other post at the moment by "The Digital Economy Team". Nobody expects Lindsay or Steven to create all the content - by all means employ staffers to write posts, but give the poor dears an identity we can engage with, that is stable over time.

Posted by FDB / 10 Dec 2008 2:00pm / Permalink