Thanks and so long...

Apart from all the technical problems this will unleash on Australia's internet... I simply refuse to live in a country that will infringe on my human rights. I'll be leaving, and taking my technical skills with me. Thanks for making that decision for me, Rudd.

Posted by D.B / 24 Dec 2008 2:45pm / Permalink

If all this filter is supposed to do is bring the internet inline with other media classifications and restrictions etc. Will this mean there will be different sites allowed to be accessed in the ACT than in other states? After all it is my understanding (unless I'm wrong about these laws) that X rated stuff is legal in the ACT but not in other states. Isn't it convenient that the ACT is also where all of our people's representatives spend most of their time? So in reality these filters will not be imposed upon those actually seeking to initialize them. Hypocrites.

Posted by Mark / 24 Dec 2008 2:41pm / Permalink

As a parent of quite a few children I fail to see the need for the type of internet filtering proposed, simply because it is quite hard for them to 'stumble across' material and, frankly, I find it more effective to find out what they're doing and take an interest in them. Personally I find the stuff they're exposed to already in various media (advertisements, movies, TV shows &c.) already beyond their age and appropriateness anyway. As a technology professional with many years of experience in computer and networking it is a technological solution doomed to failure. It is easily circumvented and if the false-positive rates are even half the reported values then it's still far too intrusive and inconvenient. As a sometime gamer and user of software I find the proposal to include bittorrent in filtering completely perplexing. Bittorrent simply a protocol used to efficiently distribute large files and blocking this would make network congestion even worse. It is used legitimately for everything from distribution software distributions (like Linux) and software patches to game upgrades (like World of Warcraft and EVE Online). This is akin to banning photocopiers because people can use them to copy books rather than buying them. Rethink this ill-considered proposal.

Posted by James / 24 Dec 2008 2:38pm / Permalink

I surf the internet daily and have never unknowingly entered a site that I would describe as damaging to children. Safe sites do not ordinarily link to unsafe sites.. Since the government's argument for Net Filtering is based largely around safety for children, where is the evidence that children are "stumbling" onto inappropriate sites? Following from that, if, as I suspect, children are entering such sites out of curiosity, and knowing that the proposed filters are easily bypassed, how can the government prevent children knowingly using the loopholes to continue to access the unacceptable content when mandatory filtering is activated? In my opinion, if children are deliberately accessing unacceptable content now, they will be the first to learn the loopholes necessary to continue to do so, leaving the children still exposed to the content and the rest of the population with slower (than it already is) internet and a false sense of security that the children are protected from themselves. If it can't be done properly, why waste the money doing it?

Posted by StevoTheDevo / 24 Dec 2008 1:58pm / Permalink

I just wanted to add my name to those who are against the proposed net filter. This filter will barely help solve the problem it is intended for and greatly threatens our right to free speech. Please get it into your heads that Australians do not want this!

Posted by Josh / 24 Dec 2008 1:24pm / Permalink

How can this go ahead when all public polls are in opposition? I thought the very idea of a democratic governing body was to represent the views of the population by assigning a spokesperson for each sector of the country. What is basically transpiring here is a "We know what's best for you, So sit down and take your medicine" approach to leadership. This is not a plan representative of the people, and it is not a plan that will provide worthwhile gains. This will not stop child pornography and this will not stop piracy, these are both things that have been around long before the internet was a widespread medium of communication. Even in the ideal instance where the majority of content is successfully filtered, we will only see a return to underground pornography rings, and organized bootlegging of entertainment media. I live in a country where the Internet has a standard of quality many times below that of the rest of the western world experiences. You aim to lower this standard, putting us through even further shame on a technological front. Even this very blog is filled with passionate reply's, such as this one, which are being ignored by the very people employed to represent them. I believe that your heart is in the right place, but your head is not.

Posted by MooGliSH / 24 Dec 2008 1:15pm / Permalink

What an absolute waste of tax payer’s money. If users of the Internet want a filter let them buy their own! I have a right to decide on what I read, what I watch and what is right and wrong. Clearly the government knows the whereabouts of sites with inappropriate content – shut them down and leave the rest of the Internet free. The net is slow enough right now without big brother filtering our every click. Australians pride themselves on being part of a “Young and Free” nation, lets keep it that way.

Posted by John / 24 Dec 2008 1:00pm / Permalink

My biggest concern is how sites are chosen for filtering, what sensitivity or 'threshold' is used in filtering these, and what testing/trialing of the 'clean feed' there is to ensure is has not broken. Presumably the government would like to act swiftly against any newly found material - who firstly classifies and determines the scope of where the material exists? Who test when it is implemented in the filter is not accidentally filtering non-targeted material for the filter? The OFLC seems overwhelmed with current workloads - many film trailers are unrated and games are constantly bouncing between banned and MA15+. Finally I am opposed to this morally. Removing the access or medium to criminal material does not address the root cause of the crimes, and only lead to other methods, perhaps worst crimes, being committed. Do we wish to simply encourage more of these criminals to simply move overseas to continue their crimes, rather than attempting to catch and prosecute them here?

Posted by Josh / 24 Dec 2008 1:00pm / Permalink

Why doesn't the government listen to all the polls and comments and realise that implementing this filter is not fair under a democratic government as it the vast majority of people do not want it and it has little merit in protecting people. Even the governments own reports (http://www.watoday.com.au/news/technology/web/fatal-flaws-in-website-censorship-plan-says-report/2008/12/22/1229794328860.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2) state that the filter is full of holes, will slow down the internet remarkably and will not stop the people who really want to access the banned material. This is all coming off as a way of censoring freedom of speech and information. I urge the government to open its eyes and admit they were wrong. Stop wasting this money and invest it into education, health or even the national broadband scheme.

Posted by Matt Gordon / 24 Dec 2008 12:50pm / Permalink

Its the same old, we had a great idea but the devil is in the detail. Im not against an "OPT IN" system where say a family may choose to have a clean feed internet connection which would be slower but safer, but the problem is australia is lagging so far behind the rest of the world in internet speeds that to slow standard operation by up to 87% is ridiculous. i can remotly fix most customers pc's in half an hour but this would double my connection time double my bill and lead to a very upset technician who has to wait for the Great firewall of Australia to accept that my remote access is not in breach of said clean feed filters. This will not work it doesnt in china, and it wont here. Those people who want to access this content will. this will in no way prevent child pornography as it is not sourced trought "traditional" internet usage anyway. All it will do is slow down use of general users who have no interest in the content that is blocked and if they did this filter would not stop them The government needs to understand that they are not backing down to the underbelly of society, they have to simply accept that under current constraints it will not work. maybe once we have a superfast national broadband thats at least 30% as effiecent as most of the rest of the world than we could afford an 87% drop in production. but i doubt it. The national broadband network is being built so we can try and catch up to places like norway that have brilliant internet speeds and no nanny government come on Labour, Admit your wrong and move on

Posted by matthewr88 / 24 Dec 2008 12:26pm / Permalink

Senator Conroy, You stand firm against Telstra, great! You want introduce Filter, BAD!!! Just do your great work against telstra, and leave the internet free!!!

Posted by Henry from Sydney / 24 Dec 2008 12:07pm / Permalink

This government has shown a typically conservative approach to technology. Just like all previous Australian governments. This is a *joke* The total and utter lack of understanding this government has demonstrated on the issue of 'filtering' is testament to their lack of motivation to make positive changes to Australia's electronic landscape. Fortunately for me, I still, as of today at least, have the right to vote. It will not be for any party or candidate aligned with these ridiculous policies. Perhaps if the government did something radical, like got an industry expert (or even a 14-15 year old student) into the drivers seat on these policies then my vote will shift. Until then I will remain disappointed by a government all to eager to push 'democracy' onto other nations via military invasion; but conversely condones the violation of free speech. Nauseated, -Lachie Challis

Posted by Lachie Challis / 24 Dec 2008 12:06pm / Permalink

It seems quite stubborn of the government to fail to listen to the experts and the people and continue to flout their ignorance. It's time to admit that they are not the experts - they were wrong and to move on. When it comes to this trial - 44 million seems a trivial sum but spend this money on websites that could be used to by children to report child abuse, pedophiles, child pornography, etc or websites that educate users on credit card fraud, scams, identity theft and to report it and spend this money on training law enforcement to use this information and hunt down criminals and perverts and Yes, it would make a real difference to someone's life NOT just money wasted on something that is doomed to fail. Why? Because anyone can register a domain name and set up a new website on a new domain within an hour or less and with every URL added to the blacklist, the internet will slow down even more. Sites can also be hosted on ip addresses, created on free web publishing services and social networking websites - are all these websites to be blocked too? Technology too evolves and ways to bypass filters are easily published on the internet and solutions to by pass the internet filtering easily found. Illegal sites will be sent underground, where private networks will be set up and users pay to view or download content. Is this what the government wants - is this the secret agenda - to actually create a whole new industry - while at the same time crippling the very tool that is key to the future prosperity of Australia. Why does the Labor government continue to invest in white elephant projects? Have we become so rich that we can waste money and not be held to account. The $750 million dollar pipeline that is supposed to secure Melbourne's water supply, could have no water to pump through it, should the drought continue and admission made by Labor Party itself. If it wasn't our future, our water, our internet, our businesses and our lives at stake - we'd all go to the pub and have a laugh about the stupidity of politicians. BUT this is serious, Australia is becoming a third world country - third world economy, third world internet, and third world water supplies. Then when Melbourne runs out of water - the government can blame the drought, when the internet is cripplied, the government can blame hackers and when there is no more money to throw around on useless projects, we can blame the world financial crisis. It's time to take responsibility and stop acting so childishly - listen to the experts and stop fighting them in the media because unlike other projects, if this one ever gets off the ground - it will cripple the internet to the point that the Labor government will have so much egg on their face, not even the media can make them look good.

Posted by J Wartha / 24 Dec 2008 12:01pm / Permalink

I have been using the internet since it commenced and have brought up my children to use and now my grandkids are using it as well. I have no worries about what my kids or grandkids will encounter because first me, now my kids, take responsibility for their actions and what their children see. Continual Govt intervention (both parties) on the parents responsibilty is not good and not necessary. People MUST take responsibility for their own actions. What is next, ban ALL cars because someone is irresponsible in a car. Get real and get out of our lives.

Posted by wontok / 24 Dec 2008 11:50am / Permalink

I am against this whole idea of a 'clean-feed' imposed on us by our government, for the reasons outlined by many before me. This cannot, and should not happen. The people of australia dont want it, and the people who know the technical details and implications all agree that the filter will not work, and will in fact be forcing us backwards technologically about 5-10 years.

Posted by Marc / 24 Dec 2008 11:05am / Permalink

Just like the "trial", this blog is is not open long enough to allow a decent snapshot of opinion. In fact, it is as if you intend to ignore this all together and only using this as a publicity stunt to show the media that "at least we tried". Ask any systems administrator who has to do filtering for a company and the answer will always be the same. No one solution is perfect. the filtering you propose will only hurt those who don't understand and will not be a challenge to those who do. There is always new methods being developed to circumvent filtering like this. Just ask any school admin. It is a never ending battle. There is no "one size fits all" solution and anyone trying to push this does not have a clue about how it works. How about letting those people with the technical expertise to advise you run this instead of politicians looking for a quick fix and vote, eh? Just like the abysmal firearms laws that we have where only the criminals have the guns (boy did THAT work), it will be a simple matter for the people who know how to get around your blocks and will end up only hurting the average user and your voting base. Labor for the next election? I think not. You're both as bad as each other. The Fishing party has my next vote.

Posted by Michael Ortega / 24 Dec 2008 10:59am / Permalink

I see, that blog didn't quite work out the way you wanted to so you decide to end it. Why not do the same with your censorship only save yourself the embarrassment of failure and finish it now.

Posted by Dan Buzzard / 24 Dec 2008 10:55am / Permalink

I will say it again the Australian government will not be the parents of my children. Individual mothers and fathers must be responsible for what their children see and do on the internet as they are when they play in the street. There are so many flaws with the 'filter' I can only see its purpose as being a poorly veiled attempt on controlling the freedom of speech, thought processes and transfer of ideas and information of the people of Australia. If this actually gets up and happens I will be ashamed to be a 5th generation Australian. Make the 'filter' available to lazy parents who are worried about what their children see on the interwebs do not inflict this stupidity on the rest of the country.

Posted by Chris / 24 Dec 2008 10:44am / Permalink

This is one of the biggest wastes of money to date. In a time of economic uncertainty there are numerous other causes far more important than this. Wake up and smell the roses. How many times do you need to be told that people don't want this, it is technologically unfeasible and a waste of tax payer money.

Posted by Concerned / 24 Dec 2008 10:43am / Permalink

Your handling of this issue has been absurd. The thing everybody wanted to talk about was the filter, and after Minister Tanner's welcome that should have been the first point of discussion. But no, you pan handled it until 2 days before this blog closes, effectively shutting off a continued, developing discussion. Well done on completely not understanding how a blog should work.

I am utterly disheartened by Labor because of this fiasco. The Australian public does *not* want this. I don't even have to exaggerate my position. Nearly all discussion about the filter has been negative, both from a censorship and technical point of view. Congratulations on not listening to the people who voted you in power.

Posted by Jess L / 24 Dec 2008 9:45am / Permalink

Life long Labor voter, but not in the foreseeable future.

I am ashamed to admit, I helped elect these people into power. They will happily sell the freedoms of an entire country for small personal and political gain.

My family even had a celebration party when Rudd won the election. However, the distain left from this type of contempt for Australian public (and undermining our intelligence) has gone too far. My family, my parents, my friends and work colleagues no longer support you Rudd. Same goes for you Senator Conroy. You may be the fallout boy for this plan, but the arrogance in which you ignore experts puts you on par with Rudd.

Posted by Dennis / 24 Dec 2008 9:18am / Permalink

As someone who voted for Rudd et al. in 2007, I'm really very diappointed in the way this policy has been developed.

Mandatory filtering that only denies access to illegal material would be one thing (if it were possible), but everything we've seen to date indicates that this is nothing of the sort. An easily bypassed system that cuts our already abysmal internet speeds in half does nothing to help Australia become a strong nation in the 21st century. An arbitrary list of sites or content to be blocked, which is not subject to wide review lacks transparency and reeks of potential for misuse.

This is a misguided policy that will only please a very small section of the community, will disadvantage the majority, and will not do anything to protect the kids.

Posted by Josh / 24 Dec 2008 8:38am / Permalink

I would like to congratulate Senator Conroy for this attempt to engage public opinion on a difficult and contentious topic. It has been interesting to observe the debate, and I think highly valuable to see yesterday’s rebuttal of some of the key arguments being used against filtering. In particular I find it intriguing that the media and ISPs have been successful in directing the argument towards speed and freedom of speech issues instead of towards the potential harm facing our kids by unfettered access to the mass of pollution to be found in the ocean of information that is the internet. Moreover, I think there are positive aspects to filtering such as protection from phishing and hacker sites – but I accept that there will always be suspicion of a mandatory system without a published block list. For my part, as a parent of two emerging teenagers, I have implemented the (free) blocklist-based filtering offered by OpenDNS at http://www.opendns.com/. Is the system going to absolutely prevent my kids getting their hands on undesirable material? No. But it *does* reduce the risk of them accidentally stumbling onto it, and it further helps protect my equipment and my privacy from hacker and phishing sites they might innocently end up visiting. I will look forward to further debate on the issue once the white paper is released, and I hope that this is not the last experiment in engaging the grass-roots opinions of the Australian public instead of allowing the media moguls direct our thinking.

Posted by David in Canberra / 24 Dec 2008 8:36am / Permalink

Thank you for your recent correspondence, Senator Conroy. In that correspondence, you took pains to point out the *already existing* measures that we have in place to enforce existing laws regarding the legality or otherwise of content and the possession thereof. Given the almost daily media reports of successful seizures, arrests, and convictions under those existing legal frameworks, why does the government feel it necessary to make Australia look, in the international and national community more akin to China or North Korea than anyone else by insisting on this short-sighted, and doubtless politically motivated policy of attempting to "filter" the internet. Without actually crippling it, it is technically to do. Any proposed "filter" can be bypassed trivially - I know, I work in the internet industry. Any "filter" that would prevent such bypassing measures would effectively build a bananna wall around the country, preventing any and all communication with the "outside world" other than that which was Government sanctioned. And that way totalitarianism lies. I, for one, find it extremely distressing that the Government that I helped elect finds it incumbent upon themselves to restrict my ability to speak, legally and without encumbrance, on issues that I feel strongly about, in an open and free community and on a free and open platform. It may, however distasteful the thought is, be time to apply for a Green Card and get out of here. Even the land of the rule of the Gun and Guantanamo Bay looks more inviting than the draconian and "big brother" attitudes that seem to be taken as standing for "good government" by our elected servants in the corridors of power in the isolated and manicured political eden which is Canberra. You truly terrify me, Senator Conroy. As, with all the good will in the world, you ignore all the community advice raised against your will, you ignore the existing legal and regulatory frameworks, and plan to put in place a secret reigime which will lay the groundwork for a Government - perhaps not this government, but a Government - to throttle both my speech and my access to information. Such a plan, coming from the Minister for (among other things) Communications would be laughable if it were not so terrifyingly real. I ask you, in all conscience, again, as I did in writing directly to your office, to reconsider and withdraw the plans on which you seem so intent.

Sincerely

Brad Wood, Runcorn, Queensland, Australia

Posted by Brad in Brisbane / 24 Dec 2008 8:21am / Permalink

My comments are directed at Senator Conroy in relation to the internet content filter or clean feed. Please Senator Conroy, do not implement this draconian system of restricting internet access. There is little need to spend so much money on technology that will be out of date within months of it's inception and will require significant ongoing maintenance to have any kind of accuracy. We already have available (at very considerable cost) an optional software based internet filter - NetAlert.

This form of censorship will only hold back progress in the digital economy and will be mired by flaws, speed issues, incorrect content blocking and the false sense of security granted to children's online safety.

I imagine those committing crimes online against children use VPNs and encrypted websites to secure their internet traffic. I'd also imagine these websites are hosted on regularly changing dynamic addresses to help prevent their identification. How is it that an internet filter will restrict this access to online child pornography?

Too much new content is created everyday. Too many domains change ownership, content and industry topics. I can give an example of gamingrights.com which used to be a website dedicated to online computer gaming news until the domain name was purchased by an online casino in the US. Very different content which changed overnight. If the reverse happened how would the new owners go about having their domain unblocked.

Geat real Prime Minister Rudd and Senator Conroy. I voted Labour because you had sensible ideas. That was until you started in government.

Posted by Tee Carter / 24 Dec 2008 7:57am / Permalink

Possibly the worst thing about this (aside from it being mandatory) is it's a 'secret' blacklist, what have you got to hide?

You might argue that it wouldn't be effective if published, well it won't work anyway, VPN, TOR network.

It should be published, with the name of the government pencil pusher who authorised each entry, at least then we'd know who to blame.

Conroy will be remembered as the man who tried to break the Internet in Australia and failed.

Posted by Mark in Sydney / 24 Dec 2008 7:53am / Permalink

If you guys really took everyones comments on board I think you'd be more aware of how insanely moronic this whole 'clean feed' idea really is. You all - especially Conroy - seem to be just sticking your heads in the sand - refusing to listen to anyone with REAL credentials, and instead just pushing onwards with taxpayer money for "the childrens benefit".

Right.

This is really all just about music and movie piracy isn't it?? Child porn may make up a little of the cause, but come on - is the RIAA/MPAA paying the government off or something? Trialling a tiered internet system in the backwards nanny state that is Australia is just absolutely ludicrous - and clearly from the amount of responses this blog has had, there is SIGNIFICANT opposition to this plan.

I just dont see why the government wont just ban the entire internet instead of wasting our dollars on this pointless scheme. As it is, Australia's broadband is quite embarassing - over here youd be lucky to get a 1mbps connection with bigpond!! I thought I recalled somewhere in krudd's last election campaign that he would improve broadband in Australia. So far, I've only seen nothing. And with the internet filter to be put in place, it can only go slower - trust me, the filter WILL SLOW THINGS DOWN.

Way to go Conroy and co. I just wish more aussies would just realize how dangerous this idea is to the ideals of democracy and freedom of speech, and how likely it is australia will become the next china if the filter is successful. You guys have said the link between China and Australia is unsubstantiated - well that just further proves how utterly ignorant and foolish all these so called ministers really are in this entire fiasco.

Im looking forward to viewing MTV.com and Yahoo 7 for my news and music fix. */sarcasm*

Posted by Silverphoenix / 24 Dec 2008 3:53am / Permalink

As someone who manages several large networks and 'corporate' sized internet feeds (including layer 7 filtering), apart from this being an affront to liberty and freedom, is technically impractical on so many levels and there are several solutions to effectivley and permanently circumvent it. The only people it will affect are the clueless mass population. Anyone with an interest in getting around what is being proposed will. Of course you've heard all this before, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. Blocking P2P will fix it.. yeah, keep telling yourself that. If you implement this, there wil be booming job opportunities offshore to manage all those new VPN termination devices... Sorry did i lose you. And just in case you aren't completely lost as to that reference, you can't decrypt 3DES on the fly. I suggest you gp work for the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation. Maybe you should look up this Hitchhikers reference on wikipedia before you block it

Posted by Arthur Dent / 24 Dec 2008 1:20am / Permalink

Very annoyed at the approach that Labor has taken to "filtering" the internet. As a young adult, the internet is very important to myself and most of my friends. I respect the idea of being able to provide a "filtered" internet service, however a blanket filter that covers every network link within australia is just too much. Not only will this be a relatively inefficient way to block such illegal content, it is bound to have false positives while it will slow down LEGITIMATE traffic. A much MUCH better solution is to provide the filtering software at the client(s) end. I run a transparent proxy on my network which can filter out illegal content, but I wouldn't want this for the whole of Australia. It's a very inefficient use of processing power to filter such a large amount of internet traffic against a huge blacklist. As far as I am aware, the previous government provided free filtering software to any home that requested it, surprisingly there was surprisingly LOW uptake (I know of noone who used it). In fact, I haven't spoken to anyone who has been impressed with the idea of filtering the internet, much less the attempt by Conroy, to implement. I also fail to see how FTTN can truly be successful if it's plagued by such inefficient and worthless traffic filtering. The irony is that such filtering most likely won't affect the ability of criminals to gain access to illegal content anyway. Also, how can the Minister expect P2P content to be effectively blocked? especially since many P2P software's use encryption to hide their type of traffic to routers. Stateful Packet Inspection can be very ineffective at filtering such encrypted traffic, while the overhead of such process is significant. I forecast a sharp rise in the number of Virtual Private Network's which will be setup simply for filesharing purposes; to dodge this filter. Does the Minister propose that all encryption and VPN's be outlawed within Australia? (remember that many businesses and home offices rely on VPN's to operate) A better solution that would have a much smaller footprint would be to simply filter illegal websites by providing ISP's with lists of domain names to redirect. This way the government can do their part in filtering out illegal content while not impairing the performance of our infrastructure. I know of many young people who voted labor because they believed in Kevin07 and "new leadership", in retrospect many probably won't be voting Kevin11 if such filtering schemes are mandated. I hope the Minister can see this filter in its current state; is doomed to failure. Such a scheme will only worsen the current state of Internet Services within Australia.

Posted by Sam / 24 Dec 2008 12:41am / Permalink

I guess the idea of a politician for the people is well and truely dead. Self interest and self righteousness are the only thing being served by this filter.

Posted by NDM / 24 Dec 2008 12:37am / Permalink

Are you kidding? That's it? You barely lasted two weeks! Really, that's hardly a trial of having a blog. It's been more like the censorship filter feedback form - careful what conclusions you draw from this experience! Still, I'm glad you've tried even if it was for a really short time and I hope it leads to more government blogs.

Posted by h / 24 Dec 2008 12:35am / Permalink

"Thanks and so long..." ... for all the fish? The quote is from Douglas Adams' uniquely humorous novel, in this case referring to the dolphins leaving Earth, since they turn out to be hyper-intelligent being that know the Earth is about to be destroyed. The dullard humans are left behind to be wiped out. I would think most of the staff in Conroy's office would also be heading the for the door by now, lest they link their careers with his sinking ship. Time for a Bill of Rights for Australia methinks. Please consider voting for the Greens next time, since they are the only party really putting up a decent fight against this censorship.

Posted by Sams / 24 Dec 2008 12:17am / Permalink

If only we could have a refferendum on mandatory internet filtering. Then we could forget the idea of it once and for all. If the thousands of negative articles, blogs, forum comments, letters, emails and phone calls have failed to convince you, how can we expect this blog to? I think it is beyond any doubt that the majority of the population is against internet filtering. I only hope you will listen... Oh and lastly, if you think filtering P2P is going to stop its use, forget it! The only way you will stop piracy is to shut down every port and stop all network access. Torrent clients already exist that can encrypt data, or, make it appear to be VOIP data, i'd like to see a filter that can stop those.

Posted by Jimmy - no censorship here please / 24 Dec 2008 12:15am / Permalink

I think that it is unfortunate that the Government is killing the blog off - especially as it clearly was performing to it's stated aims - to get feedback from the Australian public. It's obvious that this exercise was intended to be one in PR that backfired badly. You can hardly ask people for input about your unpopular policy and then be shocked when you aren't being showered with roses. If you can't handle criticism, then don't *specifically* ask for it. All in all, a progressive idea, implemented in a clumsy fashion, and killed by people who didn't expect it to become anything other than a vehicle to push their own agenda. It's just another example of politicians who refuse to act honestly and in good faith. Not surprising, but still depressingly disappointing. killing off a public forum for people to speak out, mere days after claiming that the ISP censorship plan wasn't about curtailing free speech - that speaks volumes about how the Government would use the filter to suppress politically dissenting views. We simply cannot trust this Government - this isn't a hypothetical scenario, they've just censored free speech on their own blog. It's not scaremongering, it's a fact, it's happened. The Government clearly holds the people of Australia in contempt, I believe it's only fair we return that sentiment.

Posted by Stuart Anderson / 24 Dec 2008 12:03am / Permalink

Alas, despite mass public outcry and a pretty clear showing from the public that this type of filtering is not what they need, the government will "protect us from ourselves." This is the same attitude the Howard government took with the Iraq war, telling us they knew better. They were wrong as well. As Senator Conroy says, there are already laws in place to deal with child pornography. People are arrested for possessing it all the time. It would be simpler to stop each car in a line as they travel down the street and check each boot for porn. Have a closer look Stephen, the next car might have some. Keep looking!

Posted by david / 23 Dec 2008 11:57pm / Permalink

I rarely care about government actions in this country of ours; but this filtering idea has really fired me up. Apart from the fact that it won't work as planned and will be bypassed with ease; apart from the fact that it is going to cost a ridiculous amount of tax payers money; apart from the fact that it will result in slower connections; people just don't want it. Give it up.

Posted by David in Sydney / 23 Dec 2008 11:53pm / Permalink

What a joke, like I didn't see this coming, you're nothing but a typical government who doesn't care less what the people have to say but you do what you have to do to make it look like you do, bah to you and bah to your government.

Posted by Mitchell / 23 Dec 2008 11:51pm / Permalink

When will Labour learn we don't desire a Nanny state,that is the reason your compatriots are no longer in power in New Zealand and we will make sure the same happens here,arrogance has a price Politically.

Posted by Steve in Sydney / 23 Dec 2008 11:19pm / Permalink

Where do you glorified dictators get off telling us how to live? I'm sick of being controlled, this is an absolute joke. This country used to be great, now it is nothing but a refugee-filled cesspool where Kevin Mugabe and his Nazi party have the final say on whether or not we're allowed to do ANYTHING. Go to hell Rudd, Conroy, and every other Labor PIG dictating our lives. I'm out, have your immigrant filled Autocracy, another real Aussie is leaving.

Posted by Moving Abroad / 23 Dec 2008 11:17pm / Permalink

I agree with poisonfruitloops, this censorship is enough to make me move to another country, it is the iceing on the cake. We spend half our day on public transport and come home to already crippled and limited internet systems which will be further slowed and CENSORED like China. If this happens I've had enough of this country, I'll finish my Uni training and take my skills elsewhere, leaving my HECS debt unpaid also

Posted by MeerKat / 23 Dec 2008 10:29pm / Permalink

The success of this blog can only be measured by the governments response to comments made. Up until this point it seems that they have shown little to no concern about the uproar of Australians on the topic and have instead approached the situation with arrogance and ignorance. I believe that this blog was an attempt of the government to appear as though it was engaging with the people of Australia but feel that all it has achieved is informing the of what they already knew and have been ignoring. That is that the people of Australia do not support this movement and that a mandatory internet filter has no place in a free democratic country.

Posted by Richard / 23 Dec 2008 10:17pm / Permalink

It's odd to see filtering everyone's net access proposed as an achievable objective when deep packet inspection is such a contentious privacy issue. Leads me to believe that peer to peer file sharing is the real target. Back door enforcement of digital copyright management for the benefit of big content providers would seem to be the covert and far more achievable objective.

Posted by Tarfalaken / 23 Dec 2008 10:06pm / Permalink

Leave the internet alone, we don't need this gestapo garbage.

Posted by Juman / 23 Dec 2008 9:55pm / Permalink

I certainly applaud the minister for the blogging initiative and believe that it is a valuable tool in communicating with the public. As for the filtering - I believed that the minister's intentions were essentially good despite the flaws in the proposed implementation, however I have been severely disillusioned by this blog post and the previous one. It is very very difficult to retain any faith in the ministers intentions when he announces the expansion of the filter to include peer-to-peer traffic and then closes the blog for commenting within such a short time. This is the third major expansion of these filtering plans: the first was changing from optional to mandatory. Next was expanding the list from the 1300 internationally blacklisted sites to 10,000 government-decided URL's. And now it has been expanded yet again to peer to peer traffic (which I will not bother to point out the futility of). I can only assume that the next step is mandatory spyware on every Australian's computer. After all, this is the only effective way to ensure we are not looking at things on the internet that the government doesn't want us to see isn't it. Very poor show minister.

Posted by AndrewH / 23 Dec 2008 9:43pm / Permalink

This internet filter will: Slow the internet down making us more of a joke amongst the worlds internet users. Make internet access more expensive, making us even more of a joke amongst the worlds internet users. Take away our freedom to learn what we choose and to express our views. Be an insult to all Australian adults who are going to be treated like children. Punish the whole of Australia for the actions of a few individuals. Take us not just one step but one giant leap further towards dictatorship. This internet filter will NOT: Prevent child pornography, acts of terrorism or illegal activity. Make the internet safer for children. Help in any way. This internet filter is an insult to every Australian soldier who has ever fought for our rights and freedom and even more of an insult to those soldiers who died to protect our rights and freedom. The government should be ashamed for taking Australia towards being a country like Iran and China where freedoms are few and far between. I voted Labor and if this filter goes ahead I will NOT be voting Labor again! If parents want their internet filtered to protect their children then they can get software that will do it for them ON THEIR OWN PC for FREE, the rest of us should not have to suffer just because they are too lazy to monitor their own children's use of the internet and teach their children some responsibility for their own actions. The internet is not a baby sitter or nanny and neither should the government be either. The money wasted on this filter should have been put towards educating parents on how to use the software already available to them to filter the internet on their computer as well as how to teach their children responsible use of the internet.

Posted by ANZAC / 23 Dec 2008 9:02pm / Permalink

What a complete farce. You didn't understand what a blog was when you first started and you still don't seem to understand what a blog is now. You completely ignored the overwhelming opposition to the filter. You waffled on the technical aspects. You failed to recognize your broken methodology. My grandfather died fighting fascism in Europe and here we are today with a jumped up technophobe trying to lay the foundations for it here. WILL NOT BE VOTING LABOR AGAIN.

Posted by Alex12 / 23 Dec 2008 8:15pm / Permalink

The last election was the first time i had voted for labor. It was also the last. This point of view is shared among many of my friends and colleagues in the 20-30 age bracket.

Posted by Jonathan Bahr / 23 Dec 2008 7:11pm / Permalink

I don't know what's worse, the fact that there are people out there writing "Labour", or the fact that despite all the evidence to counter the internet block, the government plans to move ahead. I'm all for a blog, but the fact that all comments (would be amazing if this one makes it through) are monitored before being posted isn't exactly the best way to be seeing all critisism and opinions. But only the ones you see to be "appropriate". Much like the blacklist being proposed, no?

Posted by Exphate / 23 Dec 2008 7:06pm / Permalink

Considering this is the last post, I would like to draw your attention (again) Stephen to this: “Despite an $84.8 million government program and $15.5 million in advertising, only about two per cent of households with dependent children are using a [PC] filter,” If only 2% are using it then that suggests to me that families/people do not want filtering and/or use other products and/or simply monitor their children's internet activity. “Unfortunately, many parents do not have the technical skills or knowledge to install and manage PC-level filters. ISP-level filtering could provide important protection for those families with limited technical expertise.” This is an INSULT to many working families that voted you into government. Of course not everybody is an IT Consultant, but many more people than I think you realise know their way around a computer these days. Education is the key here, not enforcing unworkable technology on the total population of Australia because it works well with the sound bite "We have to think of the children"

Posted by Mark / 23 Dec 2008 7:04pm / Permalink

If I wanted to live with a "Great Firewall" I would move to China. Does this government department know that companies are using peer to peer to push updates out eg WoW Are they going to be refunding there subscription because they can no longer login? Even my 50+ mother thinks this is a bad idea.

Posted by Daft / 23 Dec 2008 6:59pm / Permalink