Depending on which way you look at it, Australia can indeed be considered ‘the lucky country’ when it comes to internet censorship.

Unfortunately Big Brother hasn't heard about Justin Bieber. Photo: AP.

Our browsing has always remained the decision of the user, and an entire world of possibilities have been left open – happiness, whatever your definition, has never been further than a mouse click away.

While some of the options available on the internet are morally ambiguous, many of them are legal – you just don’t want to bring up the topics loudly at dinner parties.

For some, this unrestricted browsing has gone too far. While consistently coming under fire, the internet filtering scheme championed by Stephen Conroy refuses to go away.

It sees fit to protect our fragile minds from the evils of the internet, and leaving us a pristine play area where we can watch Justin Bieber videos and cats jump into sinks on YouTube in peace. The rabbit-proof firewall will shield us from everything from child pornography to websites that falls into the ‘refused classification category’ (despite the fact that much of that content is legal in Australia).

In the fourteen years since the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace, governments all over the world have taken steps in one form or another to protect their public from illegal activities on the internet. Australia is going one step further - the internet filter will take us so close to “the dark side” that international organisation Reporters Without Borders have placed us on their watch list.

Many see this as an infringement on basic rights, as well they should. But it might be worth pointing out that our cyberspace access, as it is, already has certain practices in place to keep our innocence intact. Far be it for us to call the Australian government to be singled out as the only villain in this story - respected internet entities, who would assumably appreciate the need for a restriction free internet, have seemed overly eager to filter out disreputable material on the public’s behalf.

One famous example is Apple, which via it’s App Store has taken the liberty of preventing any content that it deems overtly sexual or inappropriate. While this would be completely within their right to do (they aren’t forcing anyone to use iTunes or their iPhones) it maybe wouldn’t be such a big deal if they were uniform in their decision – instead, they allow Sports Illustrated and Playboy to make money through selling sexual related apps.

Their justification? “The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format,” says Phillip Schiller, head of worldwide product marketing at Apple. It’s with double standards that this impartiality becomes a problem.

Even stranger is the filtering of Google Instant, the autofill function that kicks in when you start typing into a Google search bar. Somewhere within Google exists a master list of banned terms, which will never appear in Google Instant, even if it’s the exact term that you’re typing.

While the company just seem to be on the lookout for the innocents amongst us, the complete Google Blacklist  does reveal some interesting insight into the Google mentality.

Not only do they have extensive knowledge on a variety of bizarre subjects, but there’s maybe such a thing as too over-protective, with terms ‘hairy’, ‘pamela anderson’ and ‘babes in toyland’ in amongst the blacklisted search terms.

Regardless of how strange it seems, the Google Instant blacklist and the powerful filters that the search engine has in place should be enough to keep the Australian families that Conroy is determined to protect free from harm.

There’s one important distinction – Google has the ability for these filters to be turned off.

While it’s one thing for a company to act restrictive in this fashion, it’s quite another for a country to flex those muscles.

Yes, in some cases it can go too far – The Great Firewall of China has been known in particular to be rather excluding and unforgiving (it banned my own website when I discussed the Guns ‘N’ Roses album ‘Chinese Democracy’), but Australia has in the past been considered relatively forgiving and free in what you can access.

If the proposed internet filter that Stephen Conroy continues to champion goes ahead, it should be about enforcing the laws of a country, not the morals of its citizens.

Fiona Patten, leader of the Australian Sex Party, possibly said it best when she pointed out that they should be directing the resources to shut down offending child pornography sites rather than just filtering it out. Otherwise who gets to make the decision as to what sites go on the blacklist? Stephen Conroy?

Matt Smith’s blog: The End of the Spectrum.

65 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:08am | 01/10/10

      It’s ironic that the government is making such a big song and dance about the NBN, when its real agenda is to cripple the Internet through compulsory filtering. While fibre optics may speed up access, filters will slow it down again.

      I’d rather have a naturally evolving, free Internet than a taxpayer-sponsored fibre optic prison.

    • acotrel says:

      09:48pm | 02/10/10

      The NBN is one issue, censorship is another!  A privately owned internet infrastructure is just as subject to regulation , as when a government agency owns it.  What you can expect from a government owned web is fewer attempts to manipuate, and control public opinion with overt propaganda.  For example, have a look at what constitutes a documentary on A Current Affair - talk about ‘cash for comment’, it’s obscene in it’s deceit!

    • Eric says:

      11:00am | 03/10/10

      I get it now, Acotrel - you’re a humourist. “What you can expect from a government owned web is fewer attempts to manipuate, and control public opinion with overt propaganda” i laughed out loud!

    • TrueOz says:

      06:45am | 01/10/10

      Stephen CONroy is a moralising air thief. I would love to go on, and on, and on – but enough about that particular imbecile for now. It won’t just be Stephen Conroy who gets to decide what goes on the proposed Blacklist. It will be a team of faceless bureaucrats – otherwise ordinary people obviously blessed with vastly superior intellect and moral judgement to the rest of us ordinary folk – and there lays the problem. I do not consider the likes of Stephen Conroy (or his team of moralising bureaucrats) my intellectual equal, let alone my superior.

      It is not the role of government to tell its citizens what they should allow into their minds – regardless of its merit. If Conroy was serious about blocking out inappropriate content he might do well to start with his own church, and start filtering the nonsense spewed forth by the Pope and his fellow sky fairy worshippers – but you hear nothing about this – it’s not illegal content. Conroy needs to listen to what the vast majority of Australian’s actually want – an unfiltered internet. It’s about time that this arrogant, ill-informed and stupid man was bought to account for continuing to pursue a course of action that only he and a handful of moralising imbeciles perceive as having any real value at all.

    • acotrel says:

      09:54pm | 02/10/10

      ‘Otherwise who gets to make the decision as to what sites go on the blacklist? Stephen Conroy?’

      In the past the Censor has always been an employee of the Australian Customs!  When it was the conservatives pandering to the religous and censoring what we read, you guys never had a problem with it.  What’s changed? Oh, I know - the ALP has proposed the NBN - that makes everything different?

    • TrueOz says:

      04:36pm | 03/10/10

      @acotrel

      No acotrel, I don’t give a stuff who it is doing the censoring - Labor, LNP, Customs Officers, or whoever - none of them has the right to tell any of us what should go into our minds via the internet, or any other medium.

      Maybe you should re-read my post. I think I made it more than clear that I had a problem with pandering to the religious. The NBN never even got a mention - although since you mentioned it - I do wish that CONroy would stretch his rather limited intellect to rethink that one too.

    • BJ says:

      07:33am | 01/10/10

      Before the usual uninformed (and I say that as politely as I can - you probably haven’t been following this as long as I have) pro-censor people step in, a few things should be made clear before this thread deteriorates…

      1) Conroy’s filter isn’t blocking porn, so don’t just come in and assume that “us nerds” are just up in arms because our “beloved” porn is being taken away.

      2) Most CP is traded over peer to peer, not websites. You don’t just go and start saving pictures into your My Documents folder. Peer to peer is not blocked by the filter.

      There are plenty of free filters out there that you can customise to your beliefs/your family’s needs. The money being wasted on this filter (millions of dollars) should be spent on helping the police. This filter will do almost nothing.

      And besides, who here has ever “stumbled” onto a CP site? I never have. In fact, I bet even if I tried I couldn’t find any.

    • The Badger says:

      08:39am | 01/10/10

      Wow I’m impressed.
      Your knowledge about this subject includes some very interesting terms. Like CP. And you have obviously been following this discussion for a very long time. - Perhaps this issue is as complicated as global warming and you’ve been getting your related degrees together to make a considered judgment. - Thanks for taking the time out of your intensive research to share your feelings on this subject with us. I guess I must be one of the uninformed (criteria - anyone who doesn’t agree with you?)

      Thanks also for sharing the knowledge that “you nerds” have a love affair with porn. (I never would have stereotyped nerds with porn myself). Nerds and pizza - yes.

      Even though I do not have a clue what CP is, ( it sounds ominous) and if it has anything to do with child porn, I suggest you go ahead and try to find it. Hopefully someone will then find you and they’ll be wearing blue and then you’ll be wearing orange.

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:57am | 01/10/10

      @ The Badger, not only is that a weak rebuttel, but it confirms suspicions I have had about your intellect for a while. Not that being stupid is wrong, after all you cant help it, but being ignorant of your stupidity is a much worse crime.

      Perhaps a single positive fact for the filter would be welcome, I am yet to hear one.

    • L. says:

      09:50am | 01/10/10

      @Badger…

      Instead of saying “Thanks for taking the time out of your intensive research to share your feelings on this subject with us. I guess I must be one of the uninformed”...

      Why not share with us your reasoning as to why he is incorrect..?? Or is it easier simply to abuse..?

    • Roja says:

      10:59am | 01/10/10

      Wow Badger, you’ve hit a new low.  Not sure what you were trying to achieve by that post, unless your goal was to waste everyone’s time you failed.

    • Muff says:

      12:34pm | 01/10/10

      @ Adam

      Mom here, what are you doing on that computer and why is your door locked?

    • cok-on-the-hill says:

      07:40am | 01/10/10

      I thought it was obvious by now to all but the idjits: the Con-man needs very fast broadband to allow his net-nanny to slow things down for his internet-challenged fraternity; the idjits, of course, who don’t see any need for them to take charge of their own affairs, including supervision of their kids.

    • Anonymous says:

      07:41am | 01/10/10

      The NBN is not about downloading your favoured content it IS about the coming eHealth initiative and the inevitable Australia Card. The main purpose of the NBN is for the gathering of information.

    • Steve Smith says:

      09:27am | 01/10/10

      Wait… so the NBN is about eHealth? How is downloading porn in HD going to help anyone’s health?

    • bella starkey says:

      09:45am | 01/10/10

      Stress relief.

      Stress kills, you know.

    • L. says:

      10:23am | 01/10/10

      Wait… so the NBN is about eHealth? How is downloading porn in HD going to help anyone’s health?

      So you think all NBN connections are internet connections..??

    • David says:

      10:51am | 01/10/10

      The NBN isn’t just about eHealth - atlhough Labor certainly tried to make the most of the credibility the NBN had with the electorate to boost their health credentials during the election campaign.

      The NBN is also not just about what you currently do online (social networking, reading news sites, surfing youtube, etc).

      Having a new network with the capacity of the proposed NBN is about progress in a growing industry of content creation and development. Currently Australians use most of the online time accessing content from overseas, the NBN would facilitate the development of content online, with the speed and capacity which it requires (especially with the ever increasing focus on HD and now 3D). It would also be a mistake to assume it is just about entertainment, anyone who works in data intensive fields would understand how important bandwidth is when trying to deal with someone elsewhere in the country, or even just the same city.

      Furthermore, the current developments we have seen on the current network now threaten it’s very viability. The coppoer network has gone beyond it’s lifespan and is costing an immense amount of money to maintain (a number Telstra refuses to tell anyone) and the best estimates suggest it’s continuing decline in stability and quality will soon affect the industries relying upon it.

      There is also the fact that uploads on the current system are a fraction of the download speeds. This has a major influence on what can and can’t be done over the internet and a new system with an equal upload and download capacity would open new possibilities for development.

      Basically, its about development and opportunity not about faster porn.

    • Steve Smith says:

      12:09pm | 01/10/10

      So what you’re all saying is.. it’s not all about porn? It’s about current developments, eHealth, Australia Card, content creations, copper network and porn. To be fair, only one of those is actually proven to take up a remarkable high percentage of usage worldwide.

    • David says:

      04:06pm | 01/10/10

      To be fair Steve porn takes up less internet usage and space than people suspect - not everything should be measured in Google search terms.

    • jb says:

      08:38am | 01/10/10

      I have more than enough speed on my adsl but when I am out on the road or not sitting front of my computer I want my wireless to work faster.
      Sure roll out the high speed to business areas but why in the world do we need it down every single street to every single household in Australia.
      Smacks of more to it than this, there has to be some govt ulterior motive, new tax? Take back telecommunications? something just doesn’t smell right….

    • Phil says:

      09:55am | 01/10/10

      Its all about control.
      They want it. They dont want us to have any.

      +1 on wireless speeds and coverage!

      Idiots in government (with no IT background) who think they know what is best for us so we dont have to or have the chance to make any decisions for ourselves are the problem.

    • Gerard says:

      10:56am | 01/10/10

      If the government owns the network they will be in a position to dictate how it’s used. Any ISP allowing blacklisted material to be carried by the NBN, not keeping records of what people are looking at, or generally opposing government control of the industry will be banned from using the high speed network.

    • Danny B says:

      08:40am | 01/10/10

      Let’s be realistic.

      Conroy’s filter is dead in the water.  The ALP needs all the votes it can muster in the lower house to get the legislation through - including the Greens MP and the independants.  I don’t know where the indies stand on this issue, but the Greens support an optional-only filter, with the option of unfiltered Internet protected by law.  The opposition’s also against it, so the only way Labor can get it through is to give in to the greens - i.e. make it non-compulsory.  The same applies for the Senate.

    • Markus says:

      09:35am | 01/10/10

      The opposition are only against it in its current state as they believe it will be ineffective (does not cover p2p, easily bypassed via proxy server).
      As soon as Labor can present a filter that works Liberal will be all over it.

    • Gerard says:

      11:16am | 01/10/10

      I disagree that the ALP needs the support of the Greens. That won’t get the bill through the lower house. If the coalition support it, it will clear both houses.

      The coalition- Abbott in particular- have been conspicuously muted in their criticism of the plan. Presumably Abbott’s repeated claim that the job of the opposition is to oppose doesn’t extend to censorship. As Markus correctly points out, the coalition’s objection is not to censorship, but to an ineffective method of enforcement: http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/08/10/Real-Action-to-Protect-Families-Online.aspx

      Personally, I don’t think the Liberal party will wait for an effective system (if one is even possible). I reckon they’re just using it as a bargaining chip to try to gain concessions in other areas. If they wait until there’s no way around the filter, then there will be far more opposition from the public. It’s politically easier to introduce the system now and then get it to work later on.

    • Gerard says:

      01:58pm | 01/10/10

      LC, the coalition’s policy on this contains no objection to mandatory internet censorship. It quite clearly states that the parties’ objection to Labor’s proposal is that it is ineffective in blocking blacklisted websites.

      While the articles you cite contain references to Joe Hockey’s personal objections, this is clearly not the position of his party, while Tony Smith’s comments relate to what the coalition would do if in government, which they’re not.

      The Liberal Party has repeatedly demonstrated that it is not to be trusted and its statements on this issue appear to be carefully avoiding answering the big questions. It should surprise no one when they announce that they are supporting Labor’s proposal.

    • Mother Rose says:

      08:55am | 01/10/10

      ” it should be about enforcing the laws of a country, not the morals of its citizens.”
      So in your internet world accessing child porn is OK? We should just self regulate ourselves? I guess by the same token, we should allow child porn and current “refused classification category stuff” to be sold in adult shops so we can regulate ourselves by not going in there and buying it.

      “Fiona Patten… said it best when she pointed out that they should be directing the resources to shut down offending child pornography sites”
      Sounds Idyllic.
      Excellent opportunity to dramatically increase our federal police force and send them into eastern Europe with mallets to smash those servers dishing up kiddie porn wherever they pop up.  Again and again and again.

    • Matt says:

      09:08am | 01/10/10

      Mother Rose: Yes, enforcing laws of the country - child porn is against the law.

    • Roja says:

      11:23am | 01/10/10

      @Mother Rose - While I personally don’t like the internet being used to traffic child pornography, what I do like is the massive spike in the sick fiends who peddle it being busted, arrested and prosecuted.  Before the internet it was sent around the word in unmarked packages on video tape and I don’t remember that many busts of child pornography rings, however now you hear of it happening all the time. 

      Dedicating resources to the identification and arrest of these individuals is far more effective than the filter - which is slightly less effective than putting up a sign saying “don’t download child pornography”.

    • PaulB says:

      01:49pm | 01/10/10

      Oh Mother.  Are you familiar with the term “wedge issue”?  Child porn is not all over the Net like many of you newspaper readers seem to think, but it is a convenient issue to push when your real agenda is actually control of information flow.  Basically they want the Net to be a home shopping channel, and for us to get our news and information from “officialy sanctioned” sources such as that nice Mr. Murdoch.

    • Mother Rose says:

      02:36pm | 01/10/10

      PaulB
      Then why does that nice man Mr. Murdoch make his papers seem so against the NBN?
      This confuses me. He wants the filter, but he doesn’t want the NBN?

    • Steve says:

      09:03am | 01/10/10

      During the election campaign I typed “Australian Labor Party” into the Google search engine and the first page of hits was about the Liberal Party.  Apparently Google was paid to misdirect its search response to a false and misleading outcome. Now THAT is sinister and evil.

    • Amy says:

      10:00am | 01/10/10

      And what happened when you typed, “Australian Liberal Party” into Google?

    • brother says:

      10:30am | 01/10/10

      funny, I typed ALP and got CP….. error? you decide.

    • Moreton says:

      09:51am | 01/10/10

      The filter is a disgusting and pathetic attempt to censor us all, but the most amazing thing is how utterly ridiculous it is. You could have 10 000 employees working full-time ‘classifying’ web-pages and they wouldn’t get through 0.1% of the internet! And that’s if web-pages were frozen in time and not constantly updated! It’s incredible! There is absolutely no doubt the filter would be used by government to censor controversial political and sexual material. The child porn argument is just a scare campaign.

      The whole idea is a complete disgrace and an embarrassment on our ‘free’ country. Everyone should be glad it appears dead in the water, we dodged a massive bullet here.

    • Markus says:

      10:19am | 01/10/10

      Google is a private company, it can choose to filter searches performed on its search engine as it sees fit.
      Anyone with an issue with this has the freedom to use another search engine. While the options are not as abundant as they were 10-15 years ago, Altavista, Lycos, Yahoo, Bing all exist as alternatives.

      Arguments about the Classification standards they are trying to implement being already woefully inadequate aside (cannot even accurately classify games), an Australian government implementing such a filter does not provide that option to not be affected.

    • Gerard says:

      11:29am | 01/10/10

      Good to see someone has addressed what was actually said in the article. If you go into a bookshop and they don’t have the book you’re after, you’re free to leave and go somewhere else. Search engines are no different. If Google won’t find what you’re looking for, you can use a different search engine…until the government starts blacklisting search engines that don’t filter searches to Conroy’s specifications.

    • Markus says:

      11:47am | 01/10/10

      Gerard at this point that could very well include Google, who when Conroy requested (demanded) they filter Youtube in Australia based on Australia’s classification requirements, they very politely told him to get stuffed.

    • Jess says:

      10:52am | 01/10/10

      The whole internet filter things pisses me off to no end. It won’t stop people from doing what they want to do, it will just make everything run slower.

    • Mother Rose says:

      12:05pm | 01/10/10

      It looks like Gen Y has finally gotten a cause.

      The boomers had Vietnam and “the establishment”

      Gen X had
      I forget what was it they had?

      Gen Y can now take the moral low ground and complain that the government is trying to censor their petty little lives. What could these self indulgent wankers possibly be afraid of? What are they up to that they don’t want anyone to see them doing?
      Oh yes, how shallow their lives are.

    • Roja says:

      12:26pm | 01/10/10

      I would point out that Gen Y didn’t write 1984, they were born around then.

    • Markus says:

      12:57pm | 01/10/10

      The government can feel free to see me doing these things as much as they want, they wouldn’t be the only ones who want a piece.
      However if they try to prevent me from viewing legal content in the privacy of my own home then that is when I will get upset.

      Keep in mind it is not illegal to possess and view RC content in this country, only to distribute it and/or display publicly.
      In other words, your entire analogy above about selling in an adult store is irrelevant, as is your rant about child porn - child porn is not RC, it is illegal and a criminal offense, big big difference.

    • Eric says:

      03:17pm | 01/10/10

      Mother Rose, what is it that you are afraid of? Why does freedom of speech and thought scare you so?

    • Mother Rose says:

      05:46pm | 01/10/10

      Oh dear Eric
      Are they going to censor free speech and thought?

      I am definitely against the filter now.
      I thought it was just about stopping child pornography and the like from being available.

      I didn’t realize that freedom of speech would be taken away.  Do you think they will ban sites such as this Eric?

    • Michael says:

      07:22pm | 02/10/10

      Oh dear, Mother Rose! Those young people and their loud music! Isn’t it interesting how some people get older and wiser, and people like you just get old? Could it possibly be that it’s not just young people opposing this thing. Could it be that they are not opposing it necause they want to do something wrong, but because the filter itself is just a plain out and stupid idea? Nobody has said they like kiddy porn here, just that (hard as it is for you to beleive) some of us, despite not having your years of living, have more experience and knowledge abount these things than you do. The filter stops kiddy porn etc. in the same way speed limit signs stop speeding drivers. It’s expensive, useless and a waste of our money. A lot like the aforementioned people who just get old - and bitch about everyone else!

    • townsville tom says:

      08:43pm | 03/10/10

      Rubbish!  I am approaching 70 and beleve I have the right to research any subject I wish, without the approval of any politician of any persuasion.  Conroy is a bitter, delusional person with a control problem.
      His system will not stop child pornographic transmission - it will create oppression by people unknown on sites and subjects known only to the “masters” - and, what other net information will they file!!

    • Danny B says:

      12:40pm | 01/10/10

      One other thing worth mentioning:

      Basic rights - freedom of speech, religion, etc. aren’t guaranteed in the constitution, just implied.  Which means they’re that much easier to lose if we’re not careful (i.e. keeping the gov’t in check) and that much harder to regain once lost.

    • L. says:

      01:12pm | 01/10/10

      “Basic rights - freedom of speech, religion, etc. aren’t guaranteed in the constitution, just implied.”

      Correct, however…

      Australia is a signatory to several treaties which guarantee these things. So unless we are willing to pull out of these treaties (unlikely), they are safe.

    • The Badger says:

      01:13pm | 01/10/10

      Well put Danny

      The internet filter is the thin edge of the wedge.

      We should also be wary of this law and order push eroding our “civil liberties” and moving us closer and closer to a police state.
      Mandatory sentencing, rights of association, stop and search, use of tasers as compliance tools, cctv surveillance.

    • Who says:

      01:56pm | 01/10/10

      It’s funny how it took something as irrelevant as the government’s proposed internet filtering for people to care about “civil liberties”.  All items stated by the badger are already far worse than what is proposed and yet barely a squeak was heard when these came in.

    • The Badger says:

      02:39pm | 01/10/10

      Who
      I squeaked, but I’m just a furry little animal that everybody always seems to disagree with.
      What chance o I have against the man?

    • The Badger says:

      05:47pm | 01/10/10

      @ L
      treaties?
      You mean like the one we signed regarding refugees?

    • dancan says:

      01:23pm | 01/10/10

      The moment the NBN is laid, the filter will be introduced.  The government will over the fibre so they’ll just set the rule “filter or no access”.  The other way is the government can introduce filters before the ISP’s can even hook up to the fibre

    • Markus says:

      01:37pm | 01/10/10

      I’ve thought about this, and wondered whether a company such as iinet might buy out Telstra’s old copper network (on the cheap as it is nearly defunct) and make a killing providing slower but much, much cheaper internet access on an unfiltered medium.
      Hopefully it is worth looking into.

    • Gerard says:

      02:09pm | 01/10/10

      Unfortunately, it’s not likely to be cheaper. As the government’s supply of funds is effectively limitless, it can provide the use of the network at negligible cost to ‘mainstream’ ISPs, and as it owns the infrastructure it can keep a tight leash on the companies using it and force them to keep their prices down. So iinet would be providing a slower, more expensive (but better quality) service. Given the priorities of most Australians (ie money and convenience), would iinet really be running a profitable business?

    • Man of the World says:

      02:17pm | 01/10/10

      I wonder when the government will stop covering up their fact that they have dug themselves into a massive hole of political correctness gone ballistic, shooting down any scrap of common sense in it’s path to total control. I don’t believe in putting everything in a plastic bubble. I believe in education, understanding, and good unbiased ethics. It is these tools which will ultimately protect us, not an Internet filter. Put a person in a straight-jacket and naturally they will fight to get out of it. Put a nation in one…
      The government needs an IQ test because clearly there are some (many) within the ranks who shouldn’t be there.

    • bob says:

      03:51pm | 01/10/10

      As Fiona Patten from the Sex Party pointed out on Q and A, the Liberals introduced internet filtering in 1999 through the global village idiot, Richard Alston. And as she says, Tony Abbott has only commented once on censorship in the election campaign and that was to say he likes to protect people from ‘filth’. In the end nothing that anyone in the Liberal Party says will form their policy on internet filtering except Abbott. and he’ll be more proscriptive than Conroy. I cant’ believe the naivety of those who are saying that internet filtering is dead. Wait and see.

    • Lawrie says:

      04:53pm | 01/10/10

      I don’t see what the fuss is about. As long as the filter is directed at illegal activities such as child porn then we should be embracing it. After all, we all happily allow our firewalls and virus scanners to filter out unwanted i.e. illegal activities. 

      If you saw this weeks Q&A you would seen that Fiona Patten, leader of the Australian Sex Party, wasn’t against the filter being targeted against child porn. The trick is to ensure that it doesn’t get out of hand but that is the same as any restrictive practice by the government e.g. the police implement the law at times in a subjective manner but the courts provide protection for abuse by the police. A good example is the recent Paul Keating court case.

      Rather than oppose the filter we should be looking at ensuring the appropriate safeguards are in place. The separate argument that the filter will slow things down and is a nonsense. The biggest thing to slow down the internet is the ISP’s putting on download restrictions.   

      I also think the argument that the filter resources should be applied to shut down offending child pornography sites rather than just filtering it out is simplistic at best and at worst shows a lack of understanding of how the internet actually works. Australia does not have the juristriction to prosecute people in other countries who do peddle kiddy porn etc. That is even if we could find them which is nigh on impossible as these are very clever people in countries like Russia, Bulgaria etc.

      I challenge anyone to remove their virus checker on the basis that law enforcement any where in the world will be able to stop the offenders from operating. They can’t and people quite rightly keep their virus checkers on.

      Just look at it as another safeguard like a firewall and make sure we have the proper oversight to keep the government honest. 

      If we want to truly discuss censorship of the internet perhaps we should look at the likes of Google who rank (i.e. filter) the responses to a search by ad revenue. I am not saying there is anything wrong with it but it is a form of censorship that people just don’t realise is happening.  What Steven Luke would call the 3rd dimesion of power.

    • Sigh says:

      05:11pm | 01/10/10

      Thanks for demonstrating your incredible ability to miss the point.

    • Michael says:

      06:01pm | 01/10/10

      The “big deal” is that our wonderful government are about to “filter” the internet for us in a manner which will not even slow down child porn or any of the other nasties they intend to stop. The filter will simply mean that anyone wanting to continue doing naughty things on the ‘net will just have to use a proxy server - which most of them probably already are using. The filter will only effect HTTP requests, will not stop usenet or peer to peer networking and the like - which is where most of this illegal activity goes on anyway… In short, the filter will only make the net response times slower for the rest of us and give people like you a false sense of security about ‘net nasties. A complacency that if anything, will make internet nasties more nasty!

    • LC says:

      07:45pm | 01/10/10

      HTTP, what your using now, makes up only one part of the internet. Other parts include E-mail, FTP, Torrents and P2P. I have never heard of any child porn website, nor have I accidentally stumbled upon one in my 16 years of using the internet. It is shared in private, invitation only groups whose means of distribution cannot be filtered, under Conroy’s plan or in some cases AT ALL. This part of the internet (HTTP) is way too public, and if a criminal makes his activities too public, he gets caught. In the days before the internet, did you see pedophiles exchanging their child porn in newsagents? I doubt it. Same applies here. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3996/is_200201/ai_n9061972/
      “The movement of crime into the digital era may complicate the investigations of complex financial crimes, but it may actually facilitate the investigation of child pornography IF THERE IS TECHNICAL CAPACITY TO INVESTIGATE THE PROBLEM”
      Child porn IS illegal virtually worldwide, even in Russia or Bulgaria. The problem with them is that the law enforcement authorities there do not have sufficient funds and/or technology to track them. If it was legal there they could face some very strict UN sanctions; Japan was threatened with such action before they criminalize child porn there too. Still, child porn on the net is a matter which has resulted in the most international co-operation between various law enforcement agencies in human history. It is usually the actions of 1st world law enforcement authorities that results in arrest in those countries, like you will see in the article I linked. Unencrypted traffic going to net servers hosting child porn (or the fake child porn websites maintained by authorities) is monitored by Interpol, who will contact the appropriate authorities in the country the request is being sent to. Sometimes it will result in immediate arrest, other times it is put off in hopes that the person will lead them to child porn rings, and this one thing that leads to big global child porn busts you read in the paper every now and then.

      Back to the filter, it is easily bypassed by people with a low-moderate technical ability using readily available technology, who will render the filter useless, thus taking the $44 million for setting it up and the further $11,000/year per site blocked and burning it. I would put money on that even your kids could show you how to do this; they do it at school to access games or social networking sites. The two big ones are Proxy sites and Virtual Private Networks. Use of either of them (but moreso the latter) will essentially render the browsing anonymous; no filter or even your ISP will know what you are doing unless the operator of the proxy server or VPN server farm notifies them, and they can only do that if they keep logs of the user’s activities. Not all do so, and one of these services that does not keep logs by it’s default settings is TOR. What can happen when a pedophile uses such a system?
      http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2006/09/7709.ars (a brief summary on how it works is included)
      So just like whenever else you drive something underground, you make the bad guys harder to catch. Congratulations.

      Not sure if the Mandatory net filter’s opponents are the ones with a “lack of understanding of how the internet actually works”

    • TrueOz says:

      09:04pm | 01/10/10

      @Sigh

      I think you forgot to mention Lawrie’s near moron-level ignorance.

    • Kailan says:

      09:17am | 17/10/11

      Free info like this is an apple from the tree of kownldege. Sinful?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter