texinick

@SeekTheTruth "if UK ISPs are voluntarily implementing filtering, then that says something. It must be working and of value."

The problem that I have as an opponent of the proposed Australian filter is the manner in which it is happening.

Don't get me wrong, Child Pornography deserves to be eradicated, but this is not the method to do it. Technically it is flawed. As MattR pointed out, it WILL have a massive impact on our internet speed. And it will NOT stop the people getting that material via the methods it is currently distributed.

In the UK, it is not mandatory. The ISP's are voluntarily taking the IWF's URL list and block these URL's at the ISP level. This means that a) there is no slow down on the internet because material is not being filtered and b) there are no error's in blocking sites as all reported sites are assessed manually.

The IWF are not using their system to potentially censor the internet from ANY material someone sees unfit, there have already been mumblings of other topics being added to our blacklist, and we have no way of reviewing this. This can't happen with the system in UK.

The IWF is an independent group, it is not run by the government who are trying to control censorship and score political points. As I said... because I oppose the filter here in Australia, it does not mean that I support child pornography, totally the opposite. It is the proposed system that I disagree with, and the amount of money being invested in something that is technically flawed.