Has Conroy just rolled on the net filter?

MatLon says:

10:19pm | 09/07/10

Yes, it is quite confusing.

Although they are not using ACMA’s RC blacklist, but another list of known kiddie porn addresses compiled by international agencies.

While I would rather no filter at all…if they are ONLY blocking kiddie porn and not RC, then I think I can live with that. There has to be independent oversight though.

But it is stupid, considering the likes of Google already self-censor this stuff.

No other country in the world has a classification similar to our RC…it is ridiculous. Just dump it completely.

I have been following this for years now, I am tired of pulling my hair out over this.

Conroy, go dig a hole and bury yourself in it. You would have to be one of the most hated politicians in recent history. Get rid of this looser and put someone in who actually understands the portfolio…

Bob says:

08:37am | 10/07/10

No, he normally just gets upset that people are comparing this to China’s system and then refuses to answer any of the concerns.

LC says:

06:22pm | 24/07/10

“and the Greens preferences generally go to Labor anyway”

Unless you vote below the line on the senate paper and put labor as last preference in the House of reps paper.

LC says:

09:12pm | 12/07/10

Hudson, the Greens oppose the filter in as it is currently planed and will block it in the senate, unless the government puts up amendments to the currently proposed legislation, so that:
1. The scope of the stuff filtered out is more customizable, say one could choose to filter out RC, while another can choose to filter out all porn, while a third person can choose to filter out all porn, RC and social networking. And more importantly:
2. The option to have an uncensored internet is protected by law.

As for the liberals, while Tony Abbott may have to political experience and common-sense to see that the plan is political suicide, if he gets in, even if it’s made a huge deal out of during the election, his hands are tied, as long as the Christian-right want it, he has no choice but to do it. After all he knows that they, not themselves, are their bosses. Besides, he has so much other party polices so backwards that I wouldn’t risk voting him in even if he promised to block the net filter, support r18 games and a bill of rights. Do you remember his ACL backed proposal for mandatory bible classes?

Yeah, the Greens is the way to go. If they hold the balance of power in the senate we will not have to put up with mandatory net filtering, or even blanket data retention will not become a reality.

Tedd says:

06:23pm | 09/07/10

SkepDad - there are reports he initially refused to sign RU486 into use when he was Health Minister, despite being required to do so under the Therapeutic Goods Act or similar legislation.

Given the vagueness of the proposed filters function, one might be concerned it would be used to reduced criticism of religion or religious entities, or used to decrease promotion of other social constructs such as humanism.  There seems to be a disproportionate number of Catholics or hard Christians on both sides of politics.

Ripa says:

05:13pm | 09/07/10

@Hudson where did you read such rubbish, Abbott will support this because he is Catholic, like all Catholics are for the filter? where do you come up with this drivel?  i would laugh but its sad you think like this.
The libs have already shown, under Howard, and have said they would not support this. So if you see the libs have not introduced this in the past and will not in the future, labor is forcing it, so now you have to wonder who is afraid of free speech and who is not.

Bunch says:

04:53pm | 09/07/10

“Now, the Liberals are most likely going to support this due to Abott’s Catholic views”

Yes, because he couldn’t possibly oppose something, given his religious views. That’s why the atheist Julia Gillard is against it, right?

Oh wait, she isn’t. You might just be an idiot.

Arash says:

04:31pm | 09/07/10

the problem isn’t getting websites taken down - the whole reason why this “protect the kiddies” argument is a joke is that most paedophiles seem to be using harder to trace methods like peer-to-peer networking, directly emailing contacts, etc - posting stuff on the web proved too easy to get caught with, so they changed tactics!

Ultimately, I loathe this intrusion because anywhere the “Christian” right has struck, they end up over-reaching. Suddenly, all material on abortion, sexuality in general or even ART gets suppressed under some obscure, hard to fight in the courts judgements.

Anyone who seeks to censor the media because it offends their personal morality is clearly insecure in their faith - they shouldnt need the world to change for them if their faith is strong enough.

SkepDad says:

04:03pm | 09/07/10

Hudson,

The Greens have specifically stated that they oppose the filter.  The Libs have stated that they are waiting until they see the actual legislation, but many Libs have come out in definitive opposition, e.g. Joe Hockey.

Much is being made of Abbott’s catholicism, but I’m yet to see any of his policies that are being driven by it.  I’ve been looking closely, as his reported overt religiosity worried me greatly, but so far it seems to be a lot of hot air, and Abbott is almost embarrassed about the focus on his faith.

Abbott is smart enough to see that the filter in its current form is unpopular enough to lose Labor the election.  No way he’ll support it in Government.

john says:

03:56pm | 09/07/10

mere speculation Hudson, you presume to know what Abbott is going to do. I don’t hera you talking about Krudd and his pious churchstop soundbites.
Get the facts before you comment on what soemoen else “might do’
It’s just amazing how labour cronies always bring up Abbott’s religion but not rudd’s ...or Gillard’s aethiesm for that matter

Richie says:

08:28pm | 09/07/10

On Ice - probably not. Perhaps the captain took the Conroy approach:
Officer:  “Sir…We’re headed for an iceburg” 
Captain: “Well I’ll just cover up this porthole and voila…problem solved”
Officer:  “But the iceburg’s still there - we just can’t see it now”
Captain: “And your point is…?”

On Ice says:

04:08pm | 09/07/10

Did they clear the decks of the Titanic as well?

Shane From Melbourne says:

04:48pm | 09/07/10

Bit like Liberals and their policies…..

Debbie says:

03:20pm | 09/07/10

Nothing could keep politicians honest ..... honesty just isn’t in their DNA. But freedom of speech and any in depth scrutiny obviously scares them. Since much of that scrutiny comes about via the uncontrolled public transfer of information over the internet they want to control it. Trouble is I doubt whether any of them really understand how this internet thingy works

Elphaba says:

02:44pm | 09/07/10

Me neither.  The fact that they’ve announced a review now - after campaigning about the evils of an uncensored internet, shows how hastily cobbled together the legislation is, and how unpopular it is.

This, and the ETS.  Shelve them both or I’ll vote for a bloody bag of sawdust before I vote Labor.

SkepDad says:

02:40pm | 09/07/10

Of course, I mean Colgan not Coglan.  Apologies for that.

Kordez says:

01:26pm | 23/07/10

@Ryan, I compare Wikileaks to Perez Hilton Online, it has some of the most entertaining information known to man.

Although I’d say under Conroy’s plan, Wikileaks will be black listed as it wil be an offense to publicise the list. Personally I don’t think the list should be under lock and key because there should never be a list.

Even so, if Wikileaks is blocked by Austrlaian ISP’s it doesn’t mean you can’t obtain access through one of many daily released lists of proxy servers located in countries whose blue collar employees only just learnt how to turn a computer on.

A quick update on the Pirates themselves! A few days ago The Netherlands deemed The Pirate Bay an illegal website (almost 2 years after raiding their servers) and informed the owners that the site is to be taken down or an additional fine will be charged to them daily. The problem is no one really knows where the site is located anymore, so The Netherlands are passing judgements that they cannot enforce.

Whats amusing is that the Australia is about to do the same thing. They can enforce a filter, China’s tried and it’s a complete failure there too.

Ryan says:

09:36am | 11/07/10

@Kordez : under which of your categories would wikileaks fall under?

Nevan says:

05:52pm | 09/07/10

Probably one of the smartest comments I’ve read/heard on this so far. But this is australia remember… We don’t even have a bill of rights to protect us….. just a thought.

papachango says:

04:54pm | 09/07/10

The proposed blacklist is not just child porn, bestiality and terrorism. Euthanasia, drugs and abortion sites are ALREADY on the list, as well as adult women with small breasts (seriously).
Ift would be extremely naive to think the categories wouldn’t expand once it’s implemented and the scrutiny removed.

Front up says:

06:02pm | 09/07/10

MarK,
Let’s put the nasty truth that the Communications Minister and the Attorney General - the Govt - could shut down virtually anything they wanted to, with no appeal and no media coverage to the side if this went through. That’s chilling.
But consider this.
If it’s true as they say that 30 percent of web searches are related to pornography (as a general heading) what would it do to Telstra’s share price if they brought this in and it did work.
Let’s say that 30 percent goes back to ten percent.
What would that cost Telstra and Optus.
How much would that, in turn, take out of the 2013/14 Federal budgets?
How much traffic would it take out of the NBN? How does it affect the business model to lose such a huge amount of search traffic?
Has Treasury modelled this?
I don’t know the answers, but I do know this:  These bozos don’t have a bloody clue.
The PM is making it up as she goes along.

Andrew says:

04:05pm | 09/07/10

What MarK said.

Jane says:

09:00pm | 09/07/10

PS- “the libs an unknown quantity’????  WTF? Are you for real?...they’ve just come off almost 12 years of running the country 2 and a half short years ago and you say ‘unknown quantity’?...give us a break. :o

PS says:

04:19pm | 09/07/10

What a poor choice we have before us. Under Labor it seems a dead cert (they’re not changing their tune, even in the face of such vocal oppsition) and the libs are still a relatively unknown quantity… but we know tony’s a Godboy so I can see there’d be more problems ahead.

so what about the Greens? If I vote for them, will my vote end up putting Labor back in anyway?

Debbie says:

02:49pm | 09/07/10

“Only if you can get a better bunch of fools to replace them.”  Well that counts our every political pary in Australia.  And most Australians must be fools as well to vote for any of them.

Trevor says:

02:04pm | 09/07/10

Sorry papchango, but you only get to choose between the people actually standing for election. The guy under the bridge PROBABLY doesn’t fit that requirement.

papachango says:

01:47pm | 09/07/10

I don’t think that would be difficult Trevor. There’s a guy who sleeps under a bridge near me that would probably do a better job.

Though it would be nice if Abbott acted like a real liberal for a change and opposed this ridculous, totalitarian policy. He’s been suspiciously quiet on something that would otherwise help his election chances.

Trevor says:

01:26pm | 09/07/10

Only if you can get a better bunch of fools to replace them.

LC says:

07:56pm | 12/07/10

The reason he’s opposed is more on the specifics of the Conroy’s plan rather general idea of mandatory net filtering.

Ben Gray says:

02:27pm | 09/07/10

BJ, if you’re correct, I stand corrected.

BJ says:

01:26pm | 09/07/10

Actually, Xenophon is opposed to it if I recall correctly.

Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

06:46pm | 10/07/10

Even 6 hours would be a good start! !

TrueOz says:

06:08pm | 09/07/10

The knuckle-draggers also need to get their heads around the pact that we already have laws against possessing or viewing child pornography. People who view this material are ALREADY committed to breaking the law. An internet filter is not going to miraculously turn them into law-abiding citizens - nor is it going to stand in the way of them using the internet as a way to indulge in their perversions.

Matt says:

03:01pm | 09/07/10

I’d go so far as to say the only way to interpret this is Daisy’s way, not the one proposed in the article. The words ‘there will be no gst in this country’ from Johnny Howard still ring in my ears..

Markus says:

02:00pm | 09/07/10

This.
Considering how despicably he has rallied for it previously (from claiming the ISP most publicly opposed to it supports him, to accusing everyone opposed of being a pedophile), combined with Gillard’s recent statements that she still supports the filter, I am not sure how the Punch could read his actions as anything other than keeping it out of the public forum long enough for Labor to get re-elected.

Jason R says:

01:40pm | 09/07/10

As one of Australia’s greatest ever politicians (Peter Garrett) said prior to the last election “Once we get in we’ll just change it all”.  At least he got one thing right in the last 3 years….

Louisa says:

12:56pm | 09/07/10

Exactly, Daisyduke.  Just put aside for another day.

Lee from WA says:

02:48pm | 09/07/10

Actually, the Howard government made a filtering program available through a subsidy and people in my church, including me, ordered a stack load but it never eventuated. Which is a real shame.

papachango says:

02:07pm | 09/07/10

Ben81 - to his credit, Joe Hockey has also stated his opposition to censorship, purely on principle.

You’re right, however - Abbott has only expressed concern about the practical details, which to me suggests he’s not necessarily opposed to censorship in principle. I don’t think it’s because he doesn’t want to be seen as condoning kiddie porn; rather that he doesn’t mind the idea of censorship, especially if Labor take the heat for it. He is a religious conservative after all.

As you said, opposing it unconditionally would be an election winner, so it’s pretty clear than people haven’t fallen for Conroy’s idiotic argument that you must be pro kiddie porn if you’re anti-censorship.

Therefore the fact that the Liberals are not grabbing an easy vote winner is a big concern. I’m opposed to 90% of the Greens’ policies, but at least they oppose this.

Ben81 says:

01:35pm | 09/07/10

While the Liberal party has been nowhere near as strong in opposing this crap as they should be, their stance since 2007 has been that they support voluntary filtering at home rather than ISP filtering.  Nick Minchin has said it a few times. 

I think they’ll come out with a stronger position about it during the election campaign, on the basis that it’s an unworkable waste so they don’t appear to be condoning things that Labor may want to filter.  Even if you’re shallow about it, they’d be crazy not to grab an easy instant vote winner.  We’ll see what happens once the election is called.

Phil says:

01:07pm | 09/07/10

Agree

No one should be able to view Kiddy Porn of any type whatsoever. This only 20-200 would disagree with.  Unfortunetely and it is with limited knowledge of computers etc, this will not stop this type of activity is what you read is true.

However to be able to block sites such as this for no reason other than they dont pander to Government of the Day’s wishes is a joke.

Another election ploy by Labor. Drop the bad policies now, get elected and push them through!!!

They should just hand over more money to the Cyber Police to monitor bullying ,kiddy porn etc.

coldsnacks says:

01:05pm | 09/07/10

Howard introduced an “opt-in” filter way back. Noone took it up. Apparently the ACL and the ALP didn’t heed that…

Vivian says:

01:51pm | 11/07/10

Yes, Eric, sooner or later a system of secretly administered censorship will be used to control much more than what we are being told. Some future politician will not be able to resist using the ability to do that.

It’s been said elsewhere, but despite Senator Conroy claiming it will stop child porn (and branding as pedophiles everybody who opposes his filter), the fact is that CP is illegal and therefore not sent over the internet where it could be detected - or blocked by his filter.

So, Senator, once the election is out of the way, your real motives are?

Matt says:

02:58pm | 09/07/10

@Craigles

Did you attack Rudd’s faith just as much? Didn’t think so.

The hypocrisy is disgusting.

Rudd instituted the filter and not a word about his beliefs but if Abbott were to institute the filter all the atheistic, new age, lefty hipsters would cry a river.

I’m neither religious or conservative but that’s how it looks from my ivory tower

Craigles says:

02:00pm | 09/07/10

Abbott’s religious convictions no doubt preclude dropping it.  Bet RC includes criticism of religion, too.

PeteK says:

01:46pm | 09/07/10

We need Abbott to step up to the plate and say that he will drop internet censorship.  Abbott needs to stop cutting and running from the issue and show some leadership and good old fashioned progressive liberalism

LC says:

05:59pm | 23/11/11

@ Peter,

No it’s not in our constitution. And that is a problem. We are the only western democracy without legislated freedom of speech.

But for the short term, these should adequately fill the gap.
- The High Court still recognizes it.
- It in the UDoHR, which Australia is signatory to.

The ACL, the primary lobby group supporting the filter, also goes out of their way to oppose any Australian Bill of Rights.

Shane says:

05:26pm | 12/09/10

This goverment has only switched tactics, instead of censoring the Net they now intend to record all online history including emails, they can then use this information as required, Privacy is a right not a priviledge, when you give that right up you dont get it back, the potential for abuse is rife with this plan, this is typical of the police state we now find ourselves in under a labour goverment.

Peter says:

01:32pm | 13/07/10

I support the filter, although i don’t support secret lists. The online world should reflect the laws we have in the real world. For those concerned about freedom of speach, i would suggest you seek a change to our constitution first which makes no provision for free speach. As far as I can tell, this filter is about things that should not be readily available to anyone and its not about limiting the things you say…

LC says:

12:14pm | 12/07/10

3 facts, Enkl

1. There is still no plan to make the filter opt-in. If it was, there would not be a problem. People who want to censor the net can do so without restricting others.
2. Sever side blacklist based net filters are quite easy to get around. Chances are your kids could show you how, as they would do so at schools in order to access games or facebook. The methods they use can be used to make a mockery of this filter too! You best chances stand with a client-side whitelist based filter.
3. As long as the planned ISP filter is NOT opt-in, then I’m voting Greens and preferencing independents or other minor parties. If the Liberals come out against the filter I’ll also toss them preferences. Labor’s gonna be last on my ballot paper for a long time, if not FOREVER.

Jessica says:

08:53am | 11/07/10

@Enkl: buy your own protection that would actually work! There is plenty of software out there to actually protect your children. What is stopping you from spending a couple of bucks and getting an effective method? The back up plan if this doesn’t work for the government would be to install a protection software on every computer, or have one easily available. Take the initiative to protect your kids and don’t expect some “magic blanket” to do it for you just because you are uneducated and refuse to teach your children and monitor what they do. My mother knew what I was doing on the internet simply because we would chat so much about everything. A healthy relationship between you and your kids is the best protection you can give them.

me my mo says:

08:04pm | 09/07/10

I am heartened to see you disappointed, Enkl.

Tim says:

06:31pm | 09/07/10

Enkl,

You need to go away and read up on the technology side of this. Stop being lazy, the information is at your fingertips.

Ailie says:

06:01pm | 09/07/10

Enkl, it’s people like you that have made my partner and I strongly consider leaving Australia. Why should your backwards view be forced upon everyone in the country just because you think some material on the internet is inappropriate?

All credit to you for wanting to protect your children, but rather wouldn’t they be better educated if taught how to distinguish between indecency and right if they actually knew what it is? I’m not suggesting we should all be exposing kids to this stuff, but trying to throw a blanket over it doesn’t make it go away. It’s still there, and if they ever peak under the blanket they’ll be harmed more than if they knew what was there.

Also, RC does not equal filth as you presume, it’s just anything that doesn’t fit into the defined categories of classification already in place. Nothing should be banned, we should all be able to decide for ourselves instead of being told what is appropriate by other people. But then I guess that’s what religion is all about really, just a bunch of people telling other people what to do and how to live…

TrueOz says:

05:24pm | 09/07/10

@Enkl

So you’re one of the moralising imbeciles that lobbied for this disgusting filter - shame on you!

You need to understand that your views, those of CONroy, Gillard and other filter proponents are waaaaaaay out of step with what the majority of Australian’s want.

You should be doubly ashamed of yourself - knowingly voting for a government that you believed would be “fiscally irresponsible and administratively incompetent” - it just makes a mockery of your so-called morality.

More amazing than any of this is the fact that you actually BELIEVED something that a Politician said.

w. says:

04:23pm | 09/07/10

OK.

Now that the Labor party has swept this disgraceful policy under the rug until after the election Mr Abbott can no longer “sit on the fence” about the issue.

Can we get a reporter somewhere to ask the Opposition Leader what the Coalitions policy is regarding the filtering of the internet?

Richie says:

04:08pm | 09/07/10

Enkl, giving parents a false sense of secuity and wasting other people’s money, are not morals that I could ever subscribe to. Sorry.

Ben Gray says:

03:13pm | 09/07/10

Enkl, you’ll be sad to know that your beloved filter is completely ineffective as child porn is never trafficked via the web.
How is it moral to foist something on all citizens that slows the connections and creates latency in the network, and does not do the job it’s supposed to do at all?

BJ says:

02:59pm | 09/07/10

Enkl - RC is a very broad brush. I could list pages of points dissecting your argument (as I’m sure many others are probably going to do if they can be bothered - we’ve fought this a long time) however you are clearly one of those people who won’t be swayed by fact regardless of whether it comes from the IT community (we know more than you - FACT) or the many child protection groups who are against this.

By the way, “opt in” for families? If worthless parents are too lazy to install PC-based filters (which are ridiculously easy to install and set up), what makes you think they’ll go to the trouble of contacting their ISP and opting in?

A PC-based filter can be customised to meet YOUR family’s needs. You can block whatever content you wish and there are plenty of free ones out there. But no, not good enough for you and the other ACL loonies.

Craigles says:

02:54pm | 09/07/10

Enkl - the Labour plan is not ISP-based opt-in.  Howard’s NetAlert (or whatever)  was opt-in ...

Jane says:

02:45pm | 09/07/10

‘Shelved until after review ’ reads…‘shelved until after the election because this is vote kill’.
“Whatever it takes’ - more deceit and manipulation from Labor. Burying all the ‘nasties’ because the election is close.
Pathetic….and an insult to all voting Australians.

Enkl says:

02:45pm | 09/07/10

No Brad, not sarcasm. I’m really disappointed. I lobbied Helen Coonan about this for years. I mainly wanted an ISP-based opt-in clean-feed for families, but also the complete exclusion of known RC content, particularly child porn.

After years of hitting my head against the wall, Labor promised me what the Coalition refused to. They knew it was politically toxic, but had the courage of their convictions to act anyway.

For me, that was a vote changer. I’d never voted ALP before. I expected Labor to be fiscally irresponsible and administratively incompetent, but we were in good shape and I reckoned that we could afford some government waste in exchange for some moral action.

As this election has approached, I’ve been concerned that my pet issue would get killed for politically expediency. I was really heartened to hear Julia endorse it again recently. She seemed to be to be sticking to her principles on at least one issue, and from my point of view, the most important one. Now this! I feel betrayed.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

01:24pm | 09/07/10

Sarcasm? I presume so… really, who would trust this “government”, or any government with this kind of control over what you see and do?
Don’t forget that they’re also wanting to force ISPs to record all browsing history as well.
Link: http://www.cnet.com.au/govt-wants-isps-to-record-browsing-history-339303785.htm