The truth about net filtering

Brady says:

06:14am | 17/12/09

Blah blah blah conroy, you, and the labor party are pushing ahead with your nanny state agenda, typical left policy!

Dan says:

06:43am | 17/12/09

Nonsence. If it’s about protecting children, why make it mandatory? Why not simply have it as an option to parents who want to protect their children this way?

Furthermore, some of the stuff you want to ban may be immoral in your eyes, but are no more than that. Bestiality is a prime example. You may not like it, you may regard it as immoral and devient, but it does not mean that it should therefore be banned. Are you going to ban S&M next? I note that among RC material, are fetishes like spanking and candle wax. Who are you to tell the Australian people that because you don’t like their sexual fetishes, they are therefore banned? Oh, and before anyone mentions child porn, that is an antirely different kettle of fish.

Craig says:

06:50am | 17/12/09

Conroy, your comparisons are a combination of falsehoods and spin. Please state clearly how many of those other jurisdictions have a MANDATORY web filter.

Also please state clearly the checks and balances those jurisdictions have that prevent the filter from being extended for political purpose (to hide an inconvenient truth).

There’s a difference between supporting opt-in (or even opt-out) ISP filters and Conroy’s plan to mandate an ISP filter on every internet user in Australia.

There’s a difference between filtering illegal material and Conroy’s plan to filter Restricted Classification material (much of which is legal for adult consumption in Australia).

There’s a difference between implementing the a system with clear checks and balances to prevent a government in power blocking material which could embarass them and Conroy’s plan to implement a system with secret criteria and a secret list managed by bureaucrats, under political direction, determining what will be blocked. Under Conroy’s plan there is no way to determine whether someone’s site has been mistakenly (or for political reasons) added to the filtered list and no process to unblock it or seek redress. In fact it will be illegal (a gaoling offense) to even publicly state the name of the mistakenly blocked website.

Only 38% of the ACMA list (as leaked to wikileaks) is related to child pornography, the rest of it were sites added by mistake, material that is otherwise legal in Australia or information which the government doesn’t want Australians to see.

There is a difference between protecting children from child pornographers, who groom kids in chat rooms and exchange material via peer to peer networks and Conroy’s ineffective filter which will not be able to screen or block these mediums - it’s a web filter, not an internet filter (mind you no filter created can block these mediums, the best recourses are education and enforcement.

There is a difference between Conroy’s plan to spend millions of dollars on ongoing management of a mandatory web filter that will be easy to circumvent and won’t protect kids and a plan to invest the same resources into ongoing enforcement and education activity that will protect children.

Conroy, your spin misses the key points. Your plan will limit freedom of speech in Australia, lead to more Australians leaving the country and fewer foreigners choosing to invest or become Australians.

And it won’t work - because it misses the main avenues used by the very people you are attempting to block.

Save the filter money, legislate that ISPs have to offer an optional filter and spend Australia’s money on education and enforcement in co-operation with other jurisdictions.

You might even save your reputation.

Frankly last week’s Broadband Futures forum provided some evidence that you may have put behind the ill-thought out web filter plans.

However this week’s announcement has destroyed the goodwill you generated last week. Over 19,500 tweets in 36 hours against your ‘clean feed’ and 95% disagreement at the SMH’s poll (which has more votes than any of their other polls in the last 18 months) indicate that your support on this matter is limited to a few small lobby groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby.

The internet industry has been caught in a vice, with fears of being excluded from the National Broadband Network if they voice disapproval of your plans.

The movement to prevent your ‘clean feed’ continues to grow and will get louder, much louder.

It will not stop until the government abandons Conroy’s unworkable plan and introduces a rational approach to protecting children without restricting Australia’s future democracy.

Socrates says:

06:53am | 17/12/09

It seems we now have our own Ministry of Truth, just as in the book 1984, where some barefaced lies may be peddled as The Truth About Net Filtering.

The claim of “100% accuracy” is a particular concern.  When the existing and much smaller blacklist was leaked (at some risk to the whistleblowers) it was found to have a significant number of errors.  There is no reason why much larger and more intrusive censorship would not be prone to even more mistakes.

Does this matter?  Yes, very much.  The same well-meaning but technically ignorant people who have been calling for secret government censorship will see the Minister’s statement asserting 100% accuracy, and will stop monitoring their kids online.  Any filter will only catch part of the stated coverage, so some kids will be exposed to more, not less, danger as a result of wilful political misrepresentation.

paul says:

07:11am | 17/12/09

The truth about net censorship, is it’s actually hard to see that many people support it Stephen. It seems to be your pet pigheaded agenda and despite being the Minister for Communication you have been uncommunicative on the issue. How can you guarantee us that you won’t use this for censorship Stephen? Or that special interest groups won’t hijack the black list? Especially after they have give you ‘political donations’? The whole thing smells of Howard authoritarianism and fear campaigns, sneakiness, lack of consultation and transparency. Good recipe for losing tons of votes Stephen.

Tony Cooper says:

07:22am | 17/12/09

Steve, thanks for your clarification: now I have some questions for you -

1/The Government believes that parents want assistance to reduce the risk of children: why does this so called assistance suddenly become imposed on everyone?

2/ 5-8 year olds being inadvertently exposed: parenting issue here, why aren’t they using ‘parenting filters’? I have a 12YO & use Norton, works like a treat!

3/ RC Content list will be maintained through a public complaints mechanism: can I (and my friends) complain and get Rudd banned from the Internet?

4/ Where is the RC list published so we can look at it?

Steve, no probs with banning the illegal stuff but we do need to know what is being banned.

Anthony and Justine says:

07:39am | 17/12/09

Minister, if you just want to ‘assist parents’, why is there a mandatory filtering level and why does it apply to people who aren’t parents?

If the optional filter offered by the previous government was taken up by hardly any families, does that not suggest that not many parents actually want the Government to assist them? Does it not suggest that they’re perfectly happy with parental responsibility in the hands of the parents?

Headhigh says:

07:48am | 17/12/09

This is the first step down a long and murky road to Government Dictatorship and Censorship. While I understand fully the desire to block or remove access to highly illegal and offensive sites, it raises the possiblity of someone deciding for us future RC sites.

Do we then move to blocking Conspiracy sites, which generate wide ranging debates on Christian vs Muslim, Communism vs Democracy, Aliens vs Humans, Science vs Environment?

You have also failed to show that for highspeed users, that there will be no loss of service.  We pay for that service and if your “filter” impacts our service performance, are you going to compensate us.  Some of us use it for recreation such as on line gaming, a subject which is easily affected by speed.  (And before you say go outside and play, I’m 47 years old with a heart condition, physical doesn’t work for me).

The people you are trying to target will just go further underground, and be harder to identify and prosecute.

For the sake of a few you punish the many.

Kiss goodbye to your government, with this matched up with the ETS be prepared for a big shock next election!

Orwell says:

08:10am | 17/12/09

“......And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment…. It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions—by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence—on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice…...And so it is to the printing press—to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news—that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.”

JFK
“The President and the Press”  April 27,1961. Waldorf Astoria Hotel, New York City, New York.

Tony Gibbs says:

08:11am | 17/12/09

RC includes fetish material and things like the Peacful Pill. (If we’re going to keep pointing out the sort of stuff it includes).

The ACMA blacklist as it stands has a bit over 1000 URLs on the list. Until it gets a make over much of that is X18 and R18 so a smaller number of RC. So I guess it’s going to need some explosive expansion in size. (and an explosive size in workers for content checking and list management).

When is the evidence based trial with a blacklist of many millions of URLs against a couple of million customers who aren’t permitted to opt out of the trial?

Stop with the silver bullet nonsense. This isn’t protecting children. You’ve got nothing.

Abused Taxpayer says:

08:15am | 17/12/09

How many new public servant mouths are we going to feed to ‘protect’ us from ‘detailed descriptions of crimes and drug use’?

This is pathetic. Stop treating us like fools. All of your silly censorship is easily avoided. Stop wasting our money.

PJ says:

08:24am | 17/12/09

You can sell it however you like Stephen. Our children, their children, our children’s children’s children’s children’s children, reliability, national security, cybercrime, koala safety.
It wont matter. We wont buy it. It’s censorship and it’s about taking away what makes us free without limitation.
It’s wrong. For all of us. Including the children. Especially the children.
(The silence from Abbott is guilt by implication)
We wont forget in 2011. Conroy epic fail.

Goatse says:

08:29am | 17/12/09

Just because the majority of middle-class conservative christians find something ‘offensive; doesn’t mean you need to censor it. Your notion that only pedophiles and criminals are the only people that would be against a internet filter is laughable. This is not about child safety, this is about protecting the fundamental right to free speach, how long before political or other “contraversial” websites are blocked along with hardcore porn? Also what Conroy doesn’t seem to grasp is that most of the “questionable” contest is distributed via P2P or bittorrent sites -its not as simple as blocking an URL. Also if the Australian Government has a list of websites showing child pornogprhy, would their time be better spent notifying interpol

nick says:

08:32am | 17/12/09

I find it very offensive that the first part of this essay is a picture of nonsensical, rambling feedback, as if that represented the considered view of the people that oppose this legislation. It puts a foul taste in my mouth that your initial argument is to ridicule the people that have a valid and important point to make. It only confirms to me that your rotten legislation is based purely on politics and not on the general wellbeing of our society. I urge all opposition parties to defeat this bill.

shabangabang says:

08:35am | 17/12/09

What a load of s%&t. Might f$#&ing; as well move to Beijing so I can get onto the internet uninterrupted. This stupid f#&!*ing egomaniac seems to thing he can run my life f#&% you Conroy (See, self sensoring is possible. No government assistance required)

Michael says:

08:35am | 17/12/09

http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/results.html

DWest says:

08:36am | 17/12/09

Listening doesn’t appear to be one of your biggest skills Mr Conroy. Who do you think you represent anyway? Us?

Ken McMaster says:

08:37am | 17/12/09

Hi Steve,

You say that this is not a “silver bullet” solution—I agree. As a matter of fact, I don’t even consider it to be a blank bullet solution.

You defend the filter proposal by saying that it is only one component of an overall safety initiative. This does not make the filtering component any more useful or palatable. If you have other ideas to improve online safety, please—let’s hear more about them! Whether this filter is your standalone solution or part of a suite, it is not going to solve any problem.

You say that the Government believes parents want assistance. That’s fine. Why, then, can the Government not provide assistance by giving parents a choice of methods to keep their children safe online? Why must you prescribe a particular method and insodoing assume responsibility for the care of other parents’ children?

On another front, why do you believe that Australian adults need to be protected from information? Information, in and of itself, has never harmed anybody. I find it offensive that you want to control what I see and hear and read.

These are simple questions, Stephen. They have been asked before. Please provide us with some answers.

mid says:

08:39am | 17/12/09

Senator Conroy, I think the best way you could help parents protect their children would be to re-instate the free, government provided client software that you shut down. This kind of technology will be much more efficient and effective than anything you do at the ISP. This solution you have is just a gesture and it is obvious that the filtering vendors are hard at work pitching this to you as the silver bullet. Smells like netclean is around?

William Richey says:

08:49am | 17/12/09

Somebody REALLY needs to explain to Conroy just how much material is “Refused Classification.”

This is by NO MEANS “content which is not acceptable in any civilised society. ”

Martin says:

08:50am | 17/12/09

I keep hearing that DOCS is dramatically underfunded. Maybe if you’re worried about protecting kids you could fund an agency of volunteers and professionals instead of implementing a hugely unpopular, costly and ineffective scheme such as this.

To say that anything was ‘proven’ after such a limited trial is naive. The fact that you have to come out with a defence of it every time you speak shows that you know it. The technical flaws notwithstanding, the real debate should be around whether we need it, whether we want it and, assuming we do, what oversight there will be on managing it.

How long until youtube and wikileaks are blocked, I wonder?

M Atkin says:

08:52am | 17/12/09

Does anyone think Conroy is even going to bother looking at the comments here?

The Pope Smokes Dope says:

08:55am | 17/12/09

Is this about RC as in Refused Classification or RC as in Roman Catholicism?

Nick says:

08:55am | 17/12/09

Very worrying. I hope this wont stand for long. This trend of increasing Governmental interference in the everyday lives of responsible adults is a trend that I hope Aussies wont let continue for much longer. I for one would rather go and live in the US.

Jason says:

08:58am | 17/12/09

The truth about Net filtering is in what part of your essay exactly? The truth is that it’s a monumental waste of time and money. The truth is anyone who consumes such material will simply work around it (the report even says as much). The truth is that children will still be able to view porn and other so-called nasties even with the filter. The truth is that the overwhelming majority hate this idea, seen the polls on this topic? You’ve obviously seen Twitter’s reaction.

I’ll share a truth with you though. I’ll be putting Labor last in the 2010 election. I’ll make sure I won’t be the only one.

mid says:

08:58am | 17/12/09

Just one more question for you Senator Conroy, why is wikileaks listed as RC? What part of that site caused it to be refused classification?

Mark M says:

09:09am | 17/12/09

You should look up the meaning of the word “truth” Senator Conroy because it doesn’t appear you know the meaning of the word or actually know how to speak it.

DG says:

09:16am | 17/12/09

A few comments and questions for Mr Conroy, if he would be so kind as to consider the following.

“The Government believes that parents want assistance to reduce the risk of children (including the 60% of 5-8 year olds now estimated to use the internet) being inadvertently exposed to such material on the internet.”

A more effective means of helping parents is educating them, not doing it for them. You are treating parents like the children they are supposed to be raising. If you have no confidence in the ability of parents to take responsibility for protecting their children online why do you not have the courage to stand up and say that, or do you believe that parents have the ability to protect their children (and as such your argument that it is done to help parents is substantially flawed).

Is the attempt to take parental responsibility from parents anything other than a vote of no confidence in parents ability to supervise their own children or to acquire a personal firewall that would block material that parents wished to block?

——————————————————————-

“This pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100% accuracy. It also demonstrated that it can be done with negligible impact on internet speed.”

If I recall correctly the report also made it clear that you can not do both of these things at the same time. Which you propose: 100% foolproof with substantial impact on internet speed or minimal impact on speed for substantially reduced efficacy.

———————————————————————————

“the RC Content list for ISP-filtering will be maintained through a public complaints mechanism”

Unlike software, books and other materials that are refused classification which are discoverable to the public - the proposed blacklist will be a secret. Given that this will be a secret list how can a person effectively complain about the information that is being blocked without being accused of a serious issue of attempting to acquire material that has been refused classification?

For example, there is already some suggesting that those opposing the firewall must be accessing child porn - how do you propose to avoid the character assassination of individuals who wish to know what websites have been blocked and the reasons for their removal?

—————————————————————————————-

“Therefore we will work with internet companies to help them to offer additional filtering services to people who choose to have them.”

Will the additional items covered by the “opt in” filter be listed?

—————————————————————————

“mandatory filtering of only RC-rated content”

Can the Minister confirm that it is ONLY RC material that will be filtered and no other material (including unclassified material) with be obstructed? Is is proposed, for example, that whole domains being blocked where one item is RC and the remainder of that domain not RC? Consider a website selling books - one book in their listing has been classified RC, and that listing includes an extract from that book, will the whole site be blocked or only the entry related to the RC material?

Further, given that, unlike Movies, games and other publications, websites are not static creatures but are altered on a monthly, weekly or even daily basis - can the Minister confirm that no site will be blacklisted after the RC material has been removed, and that a site that did contain RC material at the date of a complaint but the RC material was removed before the classification of the image, movie or material, will not be blacklisted for previously containing prohibited material?

glengyron says:

09:17am | 17/12/09

What about the proposed mandatory filter is different than the discredited ACMA blacklist?  Nothing.

All sorts of material will end up being included on this list that simply shouldn’t be there.

Getting vile material out of the community is a noble aim, but this mandatory filter is 44 million to not solve that problem.

It won’t stop one determined pervert from accessing the content, and it won’t stop one paedophile from grooming children online.  So what sort of ‘safety’ or security does it actually offer?

All this move does is bring derision and hate to Labor in the younger demographic while not solving any serious policy objectives.

Sherlock says:

09:21am | 17/12/09

In other words the government can ban anything it feels doesn’t fit within it’s dogma. Our government is deciding what is suitable for it’s citizens to read.

Seriously I can’t believe any democratic government could even think to bring this in. Especially when most internet users will get around the filter in less than ten seconds. If they don’t know how yet I can assure you that the internet is full of friendly people who will only be to happy to give them clear and simple instructions on how to bypass the filter.

So those that want to visit the banned sites will and the government gets all the bad publicity for almost no real result.

The opposition is going to have a lot of fun with this one

Sorry Senator Conroy, it doesn’t make any sense to me.

Mico says:

09:24am | 17/12/09

The ISP providers don’t want it and don’t think it will work. Children’s advocacy groups don’t want it and don’t think it will work. The sheer majority of Australians don’t want it and don’t think it will work. Why won’t you just listen to the people who put you into power? You say it was tested and will only slow it down 10%, but it was only tested to a limit of 8mpbs, when the new broadband network promises up to 100mbps. You want to spend millions on something that NOBODY wants and that will directly counteract another major Labor policy which itself costs billions. What sorts of clowns are running this country? Here’s for a one-term Government.

Eddie says:

09:27am | 17/12/09

Blatant spin/PR piece, Conroy. You’re not fooling anyone.

This policy is a guaranteed vote loser.

Mark says:

09:30am | 17/12/09

“The Government believes that parents want assistance” What the government believes and what is reality are two very different things. You (the government) have never consulted the stakeholders which are the Australian public. We are the ones paying for this disgraceful filter, yet we are the ones who are being ignored.

My son uses the internet, and with firewalls, filters, timers etc I closely monitor his online activities, and never, ever, ever has he come across something that is objectionable. And all this without the mandatory filtering.

So forgive me If I, like 96% of the Australian population do not want or need you interfering with our parenting skills.

This was never about ‘protecting the children’, so when it comes election time, i hope the true stakeholders, the Australian public who are paying for this and you so eagerly wish to control will vote a resounding no to you.

I know I will.

Paul D says:

09:31am | 17/12/09

The constant misrepresentation about what ‘RC’ constitutes is astounding. Sen Conroy makes RC sound like it isn’t anything anyone would want to look at. But a topics such as euthanasia, suicide and drug harm minimization are all potentially RC. Anything that promote criminal activity is RC. Does this mean that promoting illegal/unsanctioned strikes is RC? What about promoting unsanctioned environmental protest action?  Add to this that the rules that ACMA uses state quite clearly that X18+ or un-childproofed content IS Prohibited Content! Read it for yourself:  http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_90102

This is not a tool that any political party can be trusted to used impartially.

john says:

09:37am | 17/12/09

Labour has completely failed to deliver on their promises, and in fact is now going in direct contradiction of them. And libs aren’t offering any reasonable alternative

It’s time to get the third parties in. Vote Green or Australian Sex Party at the next election.

Knightyme says:

09:39am | 17/12/09

The RC Content list for ISP-filtering will be maintained through a public complaints mechanism
- Does it work both ways?  eg person offended by adult porn, another person wants it back, who has final say and on why specific criteria?  Is it a the most on pro / con side win? eg 2 people want it restricted, 3 people dont, or want ban lifted

—-

The Refused Classification criteria is determined at arms length from Government by the National Classification Board.
- So a government funded but not government controlled entity?

—-

There have been many wild claims made about ISP filtering technology and this is why we undertook an independent live pilot. This pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100% accuracy. It also demonstrated that it can be done with negligible impact on internet speed.

- until a service changes a IP or URL (depending on how the filter is setup)
- I read about the tests, the impact was as bad as 80% slowdown
- There was a 5% error rate in the tests
- I note you use ‘Can be’, I’ll use reality is often not even close to ‘can be’.  Perhaps you wish to rephrase based on reality of the tests you did.

—-

The Government believes that parents want assistance to reduce the risk of children (including the 60% of 5-8 year olds now estimated to use the internet) being inadvertently exposed to such material on the internet.

- Not to put too fine a point, but the parents should be monitoring children of this age group as well as having had installed filters on the home computer.

—-

Through a combination of education resources, the mandatory filtering of only RC-rated content on the internet, and optional filtering services, we have a package that balances safety for families and the benefits of the digital revolution.

- From a cynical viewpoint, what if the independent body decided that the PM’s speeches and comments was classified as RC, because they think he / she is an idiot?  You yourself have no recourse, assuming you follow your own rules that you would impose on us.

- A Christian fundamentalist on the choosing committee,  decides that homosexuality, abortion, other religions are all to be determined as RC content.  What then?

I know you will say such things will never happen, but then how can you guarantee it wont?

Trent says:

09:43am | 17/12/09

“Around 15 western democracies – including the likes of the UK, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands have taken steps to encourage ISPs to implement filtering” ... but what you fail to realise, all these countries have VOLUNTARY filtering through ISPs.

The list of MANDATORY filtering countries (like this abomination of a filter) include Zimbabwe, the UAE, China & Iran…

Great company to keep.

Angela says:

09:44am | 17/12/09

I have been online for more than 10 years and the filth that is out there with one misspelling is nothing sort of vomit inducing that some can say its okay to view people have sex with animals shows you how far we have sunk.

One example that happened to my 9 year old son, one misspelled letter looking for Pokemon graphics in Google search for images and the poor child was exposed to a full frontal nude shot of to gay men doing its so if the net filter at least stops this I stay happy, and no I dont like the state putting on net filters for any reason except this one. Just protect the kids and let the adults go to hell in their own time and space.

Simon says:

09:46am | 17/12/09

It must be quite embarrassing for you Conroy, to be the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and be completely and utter ignorant of anything technical.

Why is Rudd and yourself so keen to turn this country into China 2.0. They’re already an oppressed group of people, what guarantees can you give us that it won’t happen in this country (either by your Govt or one in the future).

mid says:

09:46am | 17/12/09

Does anyone have any idea of what the proposed penalties will be? All I can find on the ACMA website is a daily $27000 fine for ISP’s that don’t filter their service. It says nothing of people who choose not to allow their internet connections to be filtered…

wolf says:

09:47am | 17/12/09

Since no amount of rational argument seems to work I endorse the tweet of ajcunningham03 above.

The Labor party will not be getting my vote - I will happily vote for any party (even Liberal) if they oppose this insanity.

Verity Pravda says:

09:48am | 17/12/09

Wow.  It really is interesting to see people just blankly refuse to listen.  To have people try to use the ACMA lacklist introduced by the Howard Government is part of this.  In Conroy’s statement he has made it clear he is only proposing to block access to web browsers accessing URLs that contain material that is Refused Classificatio - that is to impose on the web the same rules as apply to importing discs and books.

As I’ve said before gun control laws do not eliminate death by gunshot.  Should we therefore not have such laws.  Indeed we have laws prohibitting murder that are not totally effective, should we not have them?

monkeytypist says:

09:49am | 17/12/09

If Conroy was so sure that parents “want” mandatory internet censorship, he wouldn’t have sat on the supposedly amazing results of his trial for months on end and released them at a time when everyone’s attention is distracted by Christmas and the Copenhagen climate conference.  The timing alone shows this exercise up as a cynical charade.

Martin says:

09:51am | 17/12/09

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html

“One of Australia’s top communications experts says the Government’s internet censorship trials were designed to succeed from the outset, presented no new information and are now being used by the Government to further its political agenda.”

Rocket says:

09:52am | 17/12/09

Yet another example of how the “progressive left” thinks Big Government can solve every problem. Add this to the list of other failures including the award winning “GroceryWatch”. Piss off Conroy, and take your expensive, politicised and ineffectual junk policies with you.

Peter of Adelaide says:

09:54am | 17/12/09

Stephen Conroy:

I think before to go further with this you spell out in detail exactly what is to be defined as RC and why.  Also a detailed explanation of what constitutes X.  X being for example Child Porn.

Child Porn and Exploitation:
- A child under the age of X
- a child in an erotic pose
- - and erotic pose is defined as ...
- a child wearing erotic clothing
- - Erotic clothing is defined as ...

you get my drift i’m sure.

You don’t need to tell us which IPs are going to be blocked, but you do need to spell out what is RC, how it is decided and what process the majority has to change a current RC to a classification.  At least that way you will be doing that the majority want, and not what you and your mates want.

Lets be fair here, what has the government done in recent times that would make the majority of Australia believe the government will actually do as it says it will, and not change the conditions on their whim?

In short why would we trust you in particular, the current government in general to do the right thing?

Ben says:

09:55am | 17/12/09

Conroy you are preying on the concerns of mums and dads to pass your own hidden agenda. You know that ‘protecting the children’ is nothing but a disguise to get this horrible tool in place to control the liberties of free adult australians. You are doing this to buy votes and appease those that are filling your pockets with political donations. You are disgusting and I look forward to voting you out at the next election.

Grant says:

10:01am | 17/12/09

Mr Conroy,

I believe you are misreading broader public sentiment in regards to this issue, and politically for you and the ALP it will be very damaging for a future election.

Please remember you serve us.  Not the other way round.

Alan says:

10:06am | 17/12/09

Is Rudd so concerned about his image that he needs to censor what the electorate sees?

Peter of Adelaide says:

10:06am | 17/12/09

Angela @ 9:44am

Filth?  What your son saw is legal in Australia, so your trying to impose your morals on the Nation?

I must ask why you don’t have filters installed on your computer?  Particularly after your sons experience.  I know you don’t have a filter installed, because if you had you would have mentioned that it didn’t block out the site.

This is exactly the reason we the people have no ‘faith’ in the government, all it takes is a few people with the same likes as you to decide what is and is not acceptable and put an RC sticker on it.

You come across as a loving parent, and it is not meant as a personal attack.  My point is that any given person will have a different set of ideals then others.  Where to draw the line?

I’m not Gay, nor do i look for or search out such images.  I was just making a point.  Apologies if i offended.

Brad says:

10:07am | 17/12/09

There is extreme violence, rape and child abuse in the Bible. I will support the filter if, and only if, all Christian sites are blocked. We cannot let children be exposed to such objectionable material.

There are detailed descriptions of crime and drug use in overseas court records. I will support the filter if, and only if, all overseas courts are blocked.

There are detailed descriptions violence, murder, suicide and rape in the works of William Shakespeare. I will support the filter if, and only if, the Complete Works of William Shakespeare on the British Library web site are blocked.

There were detailed descriptions of crime and drug use when the British Parliament debated the Drugs (Sentencing and Commission of Inquiry) Bill. I will support the filter if, and only if, the British Hansard is blocked. (Since the filter only applies to overseas sites, similar obscene material on aph.gov.au won’t be blocked.)

There is a description of crime and suicide in a song called Walzing Matilda. I will support the filter if, and only if, all instances of the song are blocked.

Sanchez says:

10:08am | 17/12/09

The rational, polite and well reasoned arguments against this insane policy have all been put to you time and again Mr Conroy.  Obviously they have gone in one ear and out the other.  I will therefore make my point in language and egomaniacal bully like yourself may understand:  I would rather vote for the Climate Change deniers and religious fundamentalist crazies currently in charge of the Liberal party, than bring myself to support this policy.  I would further suggest you employ some additional personal security services as if I ever had the pleasure of meeting you in person I could not vouch for your safety.

ceebee says:

10:08am | 17/12/09

We all know this is about pandering to a a tiny but influential right wing religious clique.

It has absolutely nothing to do protecting children.

Conroy and Rudd are destroying the rights of ordinary Australians for short term political gain.

Very sad.

Simon says:

10:12am | 17/12/09

@Verity:
“In Conroy’s statement he has made it clear he is only proposing to block access to web browsers accessing URLs that contain material that is Refused Classification - that is to impose on the web the same rules as apply to importing discs and books.”

How totally naive of you. The leaked blacklist already showed that there was content that SHOULD NOT have been blocked, and was blocked purely for political reasons (of course there was the one site that was ‘hacked by the Russians’, in which the explanation Conroy gave is simply not possible, I would know, I’ve been developing secure websites and applications for 10 years).
If you actually followed this issue (rather than just believing everything you read from Conroy), you would see that they plan on extending this to a dynamic filtering system down the track, which runs into the whole issue of over/under blocking. Not to mention that this doesn’t filter P2P which is where a lot of the illegal material is actually distributed, NOT via HTTP. And on that note, you should know that since the movie/music studios have taken such a swipe at the online piracy issue (which is no doubt the real reason for this filter), P2P will shift dramatically from BitTorrent to another medium within the next 1-2 years rendering any P2P filtering they try to achieve null and void.

Sarah Smith says:

10:16am | 17/12/09

I have emailed Conroy and made it clear that we will not be voting labor at the next election in the federal house of representatives and the senate. I have also made a submission for the R18+ Public Consultation. I have also emailed Liberal party. What more can we do ? The entire majority in Australia is completely against the proposed internet firewall and blacklist! I am also bypassing the proposed firewall already.

Macca says:

10:19am | 17/12/09

LOL @ Shababang

Cameron Watt says:

10:22am | 17/12/09

The claim mandatory Internet censorship is about child protection is absurd and insulting.

Senator Conroy has said it is not about blocking political content, the intent of the policy is irrelevant to me, it is what it does that I care about.

The policy will not protect children, soak up valuable resources from law enforcement and will block political and free speech content.

This page which has pictures of male masturbation and anal fisting was rated PG by the Classification Board http://faculty.unlv.edu/pkane/ART242X/beauty/son.html (NSFW), the Classification Decision is here: http://www.classification.gov.au/www/cob/find.nsf/d853f429dd038ae1ca25759b0003557c/88b4d852b729dbecca25767100786c73!OpenDocument

The “Peaceful Pill” video on YouTube will be blocked as it has been rated RC. Recently the Victorian parliament debate a private members bill to legalise euthanasia in Victoria, if a parliamentarian or member of public wanted to become informed so as to participate in the legal debate they would be denied that right.

The RC classification includes content that would currently be illegal, so by definition it will suffocate discussion, lobbying and advocacy of many legal reform issues. Another such example would be surrogacy, there was a time that was illegal as well and we would do well to remember it was not that long ago homosexuality was illegal.

A complaint based system is that is prone to abuse by extreme religious groups and others is not what we need, it is not what our children need.

Geppetto says:

10:25am | 17/12/09

conroy - you lie!

Judas says:

10:25am | 17/12/09

Those in favour of the filter often mention that they have no need of child pornography or information on how to conduct terrorist attacks and therefore those that oppose the filter somehow do.

This kind of straw man argument infuriates me as it is devoid of any understanding of the actual issue.

If we used the same kind of logic with other crimes, specifically murder. A filter would be the equivalent of putting a sheet up or covering a body as a solution to the murder. It is out of site so it must be protecting people! The focus should be on prevention and removal, not covering up.

For those that are under some illusion that the filtering solution will somehow protect their children need to be educated otherwise and be given the correct knowledge and tools (such as good old monitoring and parenting) to make their child’s internet experience safe.

Now after saying all that, it is clear that all of the above is irrelevant anyway as the real reason the government wants to implement this is for censorship and control. And the real issue people are concerned about is the inevitable scope creep that will occur: which became clear when the Christian lobby announced that they wanted government reviews of the filter within hours of its announcement.

You will fail Mr Conroy, and may even pay the ultimate political price for your failure.

Private Citizen says:

10:27am | 17/12/09

References to the ministry of truth are highly applicable. After all we are talking about a big brother mechanism and the ministry of communication is arranging the limiting of communication (how mini-speak of us).
The truth is the minister is making a lot of statements and arguing that one “truth” makes all of the statements true.
Lets get this straight this legislation is force every ISP in australia to block access to a “secret” list of sites at the moment numbering less than 2000 sites. The statitstics on children accessing these sites are not available, but I guess that it would be statistically irrelevant.
Why? because there are millions of sites available offering material above and beyond MA15+ classification. At the moment these sites are not covered by the ACMA list.
The catch: is the “open system for public submissions”. I would suggest that within a week of the legislation being enacted the number of public submissions will increase that list significantly towards the 100,000 mark over time that list will reach the million mark, then a billion mark.
Once on the list we can never review the block sites in line with the changing standards of the Australian community, and with list being secret you dont know which sites need reviewing.
Now with address blocking you are not checking the list once for every transaction. Internet transactions are split into really small pieces called packets. A Megabyte file will get split into about 5000 packets and each packet has to compared to the list. 5 minutes of youtube will be about 150,000 packets. Comparing 150,000 packets against a list of 2000 takes lot less time than a list of a million sites.
This report bears no information on the impact of list growth. It bears no information on impact of network speed improvements and increased users.
It is a typical govt inspired report where you only ask the questions that will get you the answer you need politically.A carefully selected report and a carefully selected “truth”.
In Senator Conroy’s case we have a new candidate for the title of “lying rodent”.

DG says:

10:29am | 17/12/09

Angela (09:44am | 17/12/09)

As a responsible parent why do you have an unrestricted internet connection that you allow children to access? A filter that bans adult content would filter out any such material and would be a simple measure to protect your child - just like making sure they wear a seatbelt in the car, locking the cupboard and drawers containing knives, glasses or cleaning chemicals and keeping medication out of reach of children.

I have every confidence that you are capable of protecting your child from that material, just as you protect them from other risks every day. I don’t think that you need to turn responsibility for the care and protection of your child over to the Government, do you?

Of course, that material you described is not RC and as such would not be blocked by the proposed filter. If it was hosted in Australia it would also be free of the filter. Or do you propose that the filter should block legal material.

In your own circumstances the proposed filter would be ineffective, and a home based filter would be more effective, at the very least an opt in firewall would be more appropriate to block the material you have identified.

Joe L says:

10:36am | 17/12/09

It appears as though Australia is inheriting China’s ‘great wall’ internet security. I thought the ALP would be the party most sympathetic to anti-prohibitive actions, but apparently not. Perhaps Rudd should’ve left some of the totalising, controlling ideologies behind in his Chinese History lessons at ANU.

Grant says:

10:37am | 17/12/09

Stephen Conroy

Can’t you just come out and admit it.  That the filter isn’t about child protection, but about politics and a senate preference deal between Labor and Family First.

Paulm says:

10:38am | 17/12/09

I will start by saying I agree with most of the points already made and I will vote gainst Labor next election on this issue, simple as that.  I hope Kate Ellis has a big enough majority that my vote won’t matter?  Now, I am a father and a tech savvy one at that.  I know I can bypass your filter without much effort, but will you send the Gestapo around to arrest me if I do?  I also think the biggest threat online is actually online chat rooms linked to My Space, Facebook and so on, that’s were the dangerous predators prowl.  Similarly, via youtube they can see videos of all sorts of things, and you can’t filter that because every video has a unique URL, unless you are going to block the entire youtube domain?  Randomly stumbling on a site is a risk, but that is were software like net nanny comes in, and its already available, works well, and can be used by concerned parents without CENSORING the internet for the entire ADULT popuplation.  You also fail to address bit torrent and other file sharing systems, or even basic email attachments for that matter.  And what about encryption??  I can only think that putting this filter through will guarantee you a few votes from Family First in the Senate and other hysterical religous groups?  Actually, have you thought about censoring various Christian and Jewish websites?  I hear they believe in chopping the tips off babies penises, how disgusting and abhorent?!

Ben says:

10:41am | 17/12/09

Um, no Conroy.

There is no need for this, nor is there any substantial demand for it either. RC is only illegal if it is child abuse. Whether or not ‘society’ deems it inappropriate is beside the point. RC also includes euthanasia content, which also ‘has no place in a civil society’ in your words.

We applaud everything else in the ‘cyber-safety’ plan except censorship. Deliver on everything else but that. Can a murderer say that they did a lot of charity work and was very nice to people, then murdered a lot of people, and be forgiven by the law? No. So don’t bring in the other parts of the plan. Deal with the censorship plan on its own, and don’t say it’s only useful with other parts.

There’s a lot more I could say, but I’ll end it now.

Honest Politician says:

10:41am | 17/12/09

@Verity:

“As I’ve said before gun control laws do not eliminate death by gunshot.  Should we therefore not have such laws.  Indeed we have laws prohibitting murder that are not totally effective, should we not have them?”

Yes, we should have gun laws.  Yes, your analogy is horribly flawed but I’ll humour you.

1. I can still own a gun and use it, legally, if I want.  I have that choice.
2. There is no choice in this censorship.

This filter “blocks RC content hosted on servers overseas.”  What, pray tell, does this do to protect children?  Nothing.

There’s so much spin on it blocking CP.  What does that do to protect anyone?  Nothing, it throws a blanket over it… at great cost.

Not only does it cost, but it also blocks arbitrary sites.  Now you may say, “of course there would be issues, it was a trial.. that dentist’s site was unblocked!”  And I say: there will always be issues like this as long as such a filter exists.  That is, a closed filter managed by an elite group who answers to nobody and blocks whatever they deem inappropriate.

You may go a while without running into the filter.  But you’ll know about it as soon as a site you want to see, or better yet, your own site, presents you with an error message saying you’re blocked and there’s nothing you can do to get around it.

Or is there?  That’s the other thing.  If you’re motivated, you can quite easily get around this stupid thing anyway.  The whole thing is a giant waste of money.

To close on your original point, gun laws actually do something in the way of stopping violent crime.  This censorship isn’t going to decrease crime.

gaz says:

10:58am | 17/12/09

Truth, Conroy & Internet Censorship in 1 sentance ROFLMAO now thats an oxymoron if ever I read 1.

Tony says:

11:01am | 17/12/09

Mr Conroy,  in all my voting years on this planet, NEVER has a single issue been inclined to sway my decision on polling day. THIS ISSUE WILL .  I am angry now and will still be angry on voting day .

Kristia says:

11:01am | 17/12/09

As a parent I am insulted you feel I am incapable of protecting my children online.
Simple proxy server, VPN, RSS, translators, cached pages and mirror sites, Web2Mail, Alternative domain servers and names can give you access through a filter in two seconds flat. I can do it and it wouldn’t take long before my 12yo son could too if he was determined to do so. No special hacking, no special programs, no IT knowledge required.
Telling parents the internet will be safe for their kids is grossly misleading. Inappropriate stuff will still be freely available by the user driven web. Facebook, Youtube, message boards, Twitter, MySpace, Bebo, chat rooms and Email are just to name a few off the top of my head. Sure enough the administrators of those sites would quickly remove inappropriate content but you can’t make your child unsee what they just saw.
A better solution is to get more police for the CPOT, further education. Parents need to be warned about the reality of the dangers on the internet so they can make a move to prevent those dangers, not be told the gov has done it, it is all OK now.
Parents!!! Don’t let your child be unsupervised on the internet. No filter, program or promise will work as effectively as good plain old supervision.

Cameron Watt says:

11:03am | 17/12/09

The Internet has developed in such a way that it more like a conversation between people rather than a broadcast medium like TV.

This policy is so wide in scope that it effectively attempts government regulation of your conversation with others on the Internet, would you accept that face to face. A government censor standing by you in a pub monitoring and censoring what you can say and what you hear?

How many people have webmail? Anyone been sent an email from a friend that is in bad taste? Refused Classification is EVERYTHING that does not fit into the other categories, it is very wide and just might include that email. Think about that.

Anyone indulged in a bit of role playing in the bedroom, maybe tried a bit of spanking? Did the world end (maybe it shook a little)? That could be RC and be banned.

The government does not censor your conversations with family, friends and associates, that is what is being proposed by censoring the big international conversation that is the Internet.

Paul says:

11:07am | 17/12/09

Just a few points (I doubt these will be read by Conroy though).  We can agree that children need protecting but…

- This filter will be ineffective, new domains can be created in seconds and spam can be sent promoting the material.  Spammers will be able to easily get around it.
- Through the use of VPNs and Proxies, children with a small amount of technical knowledge will be able to get around it.
- Where are the parents?  Why do you encroach on free speech in the digital realm to cover for neglectful parents who do not supervise their children appropriately or do not take steps to secure their computers?
- Filtering will just send pedophiles/beastiality freaks underground to torrent sites trading data and to membership sites where the material is hidden from people like you, building pitiful domain censorship lists.  Leaving content out there is a great way to CATCH pedophiles, the federal police can monitor websites.  Children don’t search for beastiality/pedophile websites.  Those websites can be added to client side filters and google already does a great job at removing this material from searches.

The filter won’t work properly, it is open to abuse, it has the potential to impinge on our freedoms.  Australia does not need to join countries like Iran and China in filtering our Internet.  This policy is a joke, and despiute voting labour for 16 years, this policy will send my vote to the liberals.

In political terms, you have just lost a lot of votes, particularly from the under 40 demographic.

Louis McLennan says:

11:09am | 17/12/09

If you vote like a moron, you get morons.

N says:

11:15am | 17/12/09

Wow nice spin Mr Conroy, you must be working close with Mr Rudd on this. Of course you can DELIVER the list with 100% accuracy, that’s the nature of DNS. What you will find the majority of those apposed to this ridiculous implementation are concerned about, is the accuracy of that list. We have already seen the initial leaked list with glaring errors; information systems are only as good as the data fed into them.

I’ve got an idea for you; how about you, and the other ministers who are so eager to put this solution in, have your names directly associated with it? That way when the legal defamation suits start, you and the other clowns who think this will work, will be out on the street begging and no longer able to hold a position of power. You’ve been warned by the IT community repeatedly that this is a next to useless solution, but you proceed anyway. Why don’t you use the money for this project to start paying back your parties incurred deficit instead of wasting it pursuing an un-attainable goal?

My company uses the internet as the forefront of its business operations, if it’s in any way affected I’ll have you in my sights.
Reap what you sow Mr Conroy….

PA says:

11:16am | 17/12/09

Well said Peter of Adelaide.
I believe that the internet is at the very least a PG classified environment and like television programming, magazine purchases etc. it is the parents, not the nations responsibility to monitor that.

Furthermore, the technical knowledge of kids growing up online is going to far exceed that of their parents and policy makers (see Tom Woods and Net Alert). If kids want to find out about this stuff, they will. And what will that mean then for our nation? A bunch of over-protected fogies, even less in touch with our youth?

No clean feed for me thanks, Conroy.

AtaLoss says:

11:17am | 17/12/09

I dont want and do NOT use any filtering. I have a 12 yo son and I talk to him and discuss the dangers and stupidities that exist in the world. I discuss the problems and his likes and interests and he learns from me.
But no matter how much I talk to him he will want to learn and explore for himself. Just as most of us spent some time in our youths looking up strange and rude words and concepts in the school encyclopedias and dictionary.
My job is to guide my son and teach him to assess an analyse the information he gets and to found that in the respect for all living things and beliefs. Its my job to teach him and guide him in the expectations of our society, his rights and his responsibilites. He cannot benefit from this if all information and opinion is one-sided. Its not your job. your job is to help me and guide ME not prevent me from being a fully informed and consenting adult that should be able to access legal adult material befitting my age (55)

John A Neve says:

11:19am | 17/12/09

Stephen,
Having read your article twice, I can only say if this is the best solution you can come up with, try another occupation.

This, like your broadband solution is no solution at all, just a giant waste of time and resources.

What children watch is for their parents to decide.

As to broadband, our population is too small to warrant so many players. You need to re-nationalise Telstra and let them intrduce broadband as the market dictates.

Andrew Goff says:

11:24am | 17/12/09

THE TRUTH??? Mr Conroy PLEASE!

Yesterday you said that this filter was 100% accurate. The numbers in the very report you claimed to be siting said that it was 96.6% accurate.

Why did you lie?

Why do you lie that this will protect children in the home? This is the worst kind of politics as it will make parents less vigilant about protecting their children from these creeps. YOU KNOW that it is an ineffective weapon against these evil sickos, but you hypocritically sell the world your spin.

No impact on speeds… except YOU defined that as up to 10%=no impact. ANOTHER LIE.

YOU say you will be the first in parliament to stand up and argue against filtering political sites… but YOU KNOW that there would be no such debate… it would be a departmental decision by a minister only. LIES LIES LIES.

And you have the hypocrisy to come on here and claim to tell us what the truth is!

I *HATE* the reactionary, extremist, “Liberal” nutters controlling the opposition at the moment. But if your party supports this legislation I will NEVER VOTE FOR LABOR AGAIN.

Private Citizen says:

11:24am | 17/12/09

I have no less than 40 cousins who live in a perpetual state of homelessness and overcrowding, there are suburbs in australia where my poeple are living 5 to a bedroom. There is not enough affordable housing and I could argue that they recieved inadequate education and support. Yet the government wishes to spend hundreds of millions implementing this censorship regime.
Quite simply this ministry should not have these funds to waste while some Australians do not have basic shelter.
My young cousins dont see inappropriate material on the web, they see it in the bedrooms that they share with Adults.

MIss Viv says:

11:24am | 17/12/09

People seem to be forgetting that it wont be JUST about porn.
As Australia doesnt have a rating for computer/video games all games that are unrated or have a R18+ classification will be banned for all Australians via the internet. Online games such as Secondlife will not be able to be accessed through Australian servers.
For anyone that has played Secondlife or even heard of it will know it is not a harmful or corrupt environment but it is for people over 18.
The governments internet censoring is absolutely ridiculous.

Gizzt says:

11:25am | 17/12/09

Censorship IS CHILD ABUSE

Censorship/filter increases child abuse.
Why?
1) Parents will get a false sense of security and not look after their kids.

Predators will still have access to their kids… (no parents are watching like they would in real life)
Kids will still have access to porn…

Thus, put the PC in the family room people, its not hard!

2) Creates a wall between child abuse and the public allowing child abuse to go unnoticed and therefore cant report child abuse to police: the people that really solve these problems.

(It is the same as if you see a child being abducted in the middle of the street, you will cover my ears and look away instead of reporting it or your windows have been boarded up by the government while this is happening.)

zz says:

11:25am | 17/12/09

Conroy you must have balls of titanium. Because you have declared war on the most technically savvy generation in history. And you plan to fight that war on enemy territory. The whole world is watching with intrigue to see what happens in Australia. Believe me that interested parties will want to participate in the fun. You are about to taught a lesson on the nature of freedom. It is one you would do well to heed.

ES says:

11:27am | 17/12/09

We’ve got to ask: What is the purpose of this filter?

If it is to protect children, then why make it mandatory?

If it is to prevent people from accessing child porn, then it is easy to circumvent, and will encourage people to use technologies such as VPN and TOR, and make it next to impossible for police to catch people accessing child porn.

If it is to control and track what citizens can say and hear, then it will do a reasonable job at that.

PA says:

11:28am | 17/12/09

Furthermore, is it not horrifying to have this RC material going underground, where it is less traceable?

Andrew Goff says:

11:31am | 17/12/09

And Another Thing Conroy, you disgraceful blight on Democracy. You said:

“Around 15 western democracies – including the likes of the UK, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands have taken steps to encourage ISPs to implement filtering whilst Germany and Italy have already passed legislation to mandate it.”

So the only two Western Democracies in the world who have mandated censorship are Germany and Italy. WELL **** ME let’s follow the German and Italian example on censorship. That an historically good move. You’re meant to be socialist, not National Socialist.

And in modern times, are you saying Australian Democracy is as flimsy as Italy’s? Where the richest media magnate in the country got into power and introduced internet censorship? DEAR GOD are you our “communications minister” or our “minister for information”.

Eric Vigo says:

11:32am | 17/12/09

Hey all.
It’s now very obvious to me that this filtorship does squat all to really take care of the threat of CP.
Since it’s as close to a lie (and spin) as I have seen for a long time, then what is it really about?
1. Senate realignment
2. Votes in seats where there are young families that don’t know the internet, helicopter parents/ live off fears for their children, and want the govt to fix everything.
3. Christians (which include parents, and often are in the seats of 2.)

ALPs successes in
1. for Fielding and right wingers in the Coalltion. No guarantee this will work, but likely done to pass other legislation.
2. Now, this is the tricky bit. These people do exist, and if the Daily Telegraph etc support this filtorship, they may stay onside. However, there seems to be a LOT of people like myself, and we email and talk about this. Especially as it turns out, this does nothing to protect the children. People may (or may not) learn. If they don’t learn, this one is a success for Conroy, and they will vote ALP next election.
3. Guaranteed!

So, all in all, a big risk for the government. But if they get to censor things they don’t like, then the risk is worth it for them. Just sayin’

Garry says:

11:33am | 17/12/09

Thank you Mr. Conroy for the contribution I do appreciate it, however, sorry you are going about this in a manner that is not for the masses but for a minority. Is this truly how a government works? Is it that if I have enough money or enough of a voice I override the majority?

Please rethink this, look at these responses are they not indicitive of the majority voter out there?

I truly appreciate the effort but feel the mandatory enforcement accross everyone to be on a filtering system and not an opt in/opt out as being very single minded as distrustful. If parents want in, they get in to the filtering they get the protection they want, how will it benefit those who do not want in?

Dave says:

11:34am | 17/12/09

Dear Mr Conroy,
As a parent of two young girls I would like to take this opportunity to ask you and the rest of the government (Federal, State and even Local) to get the hell out of my living room and let me raise my children myself.

Your job is to provide adequate services to the nation of Australia.  As Communications Minister, please start by providing adequate internet speeds to those of us that do not live in the metro areas.  Your inability to perform this basic function is disgraceful and holding back business development in the rural areas.

Your job is _not_ to perform the parenting of my children for me.  Australians need to take back responsibility for their children and their own actions.

An Mr Conroy?  Many questions have been directly addressed to you in the above responses to your article.  Have the decency and the backbone to address the questions here.

Pistola says:

11:35am | 17/12/09

A week ago the thought of me ever holding my nose and voting Liberal would have been laughable, now it seems very likely indeed.

Lost voter says:

11:36am | 17/12/09

I used to like you a few years ago Conroy, but then you sold out.  I hope you get what you deserve in the next election.

jamie says:

11:36am | 17/12/09

“For those who missed it, the Government announced legislation that will require Australian Internet Service Providers ...”

Well, you tried your best to make sure that it slipped under the radar.

Anything else that you and your cronies would like to cointrol in our lives?

Michael says:

11:37am | 17/12/09

Quote from the article:
The Government believes that parents want assistance to reduce the risk of children (including the 60% of 5-8 year olds now estimated to use the internet) being inadvertently exposed to such material on the internet.

The biggest problem here is that parents will believe that the internet filter will give parents a false sense of security. You are just filtering URLs - have you thought about emails? Instant chat messages? Emails? What about using IP addresses or alternate URLs to access the same content? How about open proxies that can be used to completely circumvent the filter? Please, spend the money on educating parents and children, and put some into the police force to ensure you catch the people responsible for abusing children.

If none of this convinces you to drop the filter, at least make it optional for end-users. Make it ‘opt-out’ so by default you are filtered unless you explicitly decline it from your ISP. Get the ISPs to send out communications to their users to educate them about what exactly this filter does (and does not do), plus the alternatives to that parents can make a judgement.

I’m asking you to listen to the public that you’re supposed to represent. Drop the filter altogether, of if that’s impossible (which I don’t see why it would be) then please make it optional.

Derek says:

11:40am | 17/12/09

I have been using the internet since it first became available here in Australian and have never, NEVER, stumbled upon child pornography.
The sick animals who get caught with this stuff and say they stumbled upon it are liars, proven by the fact they kept the images they found and usually thousands of them.
These sick animals actually go out of their way to view this material and operate in very tight closed circles that this filter will have no way of stamping out.
If you want to stamp out child porn do some thing usefull ,like shooting the sick animals that persue this stuff, this would deter far more people from persuing this material than a stupid filter.
Locking these sick animals up with a group of there mates in luxury accomodation you call a prison under protective custody for a couple of days just lets them share their sick ideas and plan new ways to get around whatever you put in place.

Ben Shurey says:

11:41am | 17/12/09

Mr Conroy,

There are two problems with your proposed filtering system which you have not addressed in the above. Firstly the danger associated with giving government this much control over information. Fear of creeping overuse of this system is a big reason for opposition to the filter. In the UK, powers given to spy on citizens, ostensibly for detection of terrorist activities, have been frequently used for such trivial activities as investigation of littering or taxi overcharging [1]. There is no guarantee that, once this filter is in place, it will not be used by the government to filter an ever greater list of undesirable content, using populist rhetoric to justify this action.

Another issue at hand is the fact that safe filtering technology is available already and it is free for any parents who would care to use it. OpenDNS provide a DNS based filtering mechanism totally free of charge for household use[2]. Why are we spending so much taxpayer money on technology that is available for free? The only reason I can see would have to be from ulterior motives. Either my first criticism is valid and the government plans to use the filter for further purposes at a later time or alternatively you simply don’t trust families to protect their children properly.

This is a bad decision Mr Conroy. Society is inexorably steering towards becoming freer and more open. History will judge the man who tried to move us in the wrong direction very harshly. I would strongly advise you to rethink this step before it’s too late.

Sincerely
Ben Shurey

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/17/council-surveillance-abuse
2. http://www.opendns.com/solutions/household/

Brett says:

11:44am | 17/12/09

Stephen: IT JUST WON’T WORK.

None of your goals (whatever they are - they seem to change with the wind) are achievable by the implementation of this policy. How can you not understand what a colossal waste of time and money this whole thing is?

Have the people not spoken already? You are at odds with everyone who understands what you are proposing and its impact. Your only supporters either have a vested interest (the christian/moral “right”) or do not understand what you are proposing (they think you are proposing to magically block all kiddie porn and save all children from all predators on the internet).

You should stand down on this policy before it’s too late for you and your party.

Maddy says:

11:47am | 17/12/09

@ Angela

Google has safe search on by default so for your son to have viewed what you say he did, someone changed those settings.  Maybe you should be speaking to other adults in the house about their surfing habits?

Which is the root of the whole problem.  There are already sufficient options available to those who want to filter their online experience or do so for their children, however, as with viruses, any software is only as good as the end users.  This filter is nothing more than a false sense of security for parents and will do absolutely nothing about email, IM’s, facebook, chat or peer to peer.

And just so we’re clear, I’m a parent, was sexually abused as a child and am firmly against this filter.

Murray says:

11:48am | 17/12/09

Inadvertent exposure?! What a joke! I have never ever accidentally come across RC material in my life. Blocking HTTP traffic will do absolutely nothing! Stop trying to protect us against things that we do not need protecting against! There is no “truth” to internet filtering, you keep on changing the reasons why you want to do it. You WILL be voted out

Gizzt says:

11:54am | 17/12/09

Heres something logical to do… reopen Howards NetAlert Scheme…. and increase advertising to it? Maybe require ISP’s to MENTION the scheme when they sign up?

This way everyone is happy!

welcome to 1984 says:

11:55am | 17/12/09

“When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, this you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.”

- Robert Heinlein

V says:

11:58am | 17/12/09

The filter has NOTHING to do with child porn.
Just like the ETS and Copenhagen treaty has NOTHING to do with man made climate change.

The government now think that if they cry about helping children and the next generation that they can justify ANYTHING. Too bad we all smell this BS a mile away.

The moment it was announced this filter was going to be trialed was the moment I knew it was a done deal. Governments have a way of preconditioning us slaves to change. Letting us get used to the new shackles being fitted so that we don’t make to much of a fuss.

VOTE LABOR OUT

copenhagen = global fraud says:

12:00pm | 17/12/09

This story(tale) has the wrong heading it should read:

THE LIES ABOUT NET FILTERING

Simon says:

12:04pm | 17/12/09

For those who do not understand the concept of RC, please read Mark Newtons article here: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/163063,commentary-why-we-dont-need-a-filter.aspx

Chris says:

12:10pm | 17/12/09

President Obama is asking China to relax it’s mandatory internet filter, yet at exactly the same time, we have an arrogant, self-righteous fool pushing for our very own.

It’s simple Mr Conroy, your political party (at all levels) will reap the dischord you are sowing and I will happily do my part by placing Labor last in my preferences. This is one Labor vote you have no more.

government accountability NOW says:

12:11pm | 17/12/09

Conroy, even those who are not afforded a position in government can see through this poorly veiled attempt at censorship that has NO grounds. You know there are better, cheaper, more effective solutions.

Just as the ETS is a FRAUD so is this filter.

This holier than thou, nanny state rhetoric will be the undoing of your government. We are sick of being lied to. Sick of being restricted, taxed, fined, legislated. We don’t want large government bureaucracies. We are sick of the government trying to raise our children. The government now pervades EVERY part of our lives. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

I will vote against you and against any party that seeks to implement this filter and the ETS (enormous tax scam) because I am sick of the spin of the double talk and of the endless attempts to run my life. 

AUSTRALIANS NEED PROTECTION FROM THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT.

Clint Walsh says:

12:19pm | 17/12/09

I will change my vote from Labor to the party that opposes this.

Richard says:

12:24pm | 17/12/09

If this scheme actually only results in a 5ms latency increase (an eyeblink is around 400ms - which I might add is forever in internet terms) then I will eat my hat. Especially under load - and especially when the ban list gets bloated by overzealous nanny state pollys - which is inevitiable.

Eric Vigo says:

12:28pm | 17/12/09

So my question is, in regards to the comment “or do not understand what you are proposing (they think you are proposing to magically block all kiddie porn and save all children from all predators on the internet).”
A question to everyon: how many of these people do you think are out there (suburban, rural) that will revote in Rudd or move from any other party to voting to the ALP?
My guess is they would. I mean, I am sure this was focus group tested before being released onto the public, and therefore Rudd has confidence to do so. Otherwise, why would they have bothered?

WE ARE BEING LIED TO says:

12:29pm | 17/12/09

Conroy, Rudd and Wong are working really hard for the Australian people. They are doing everything in their power to ensure we have an authoritarian dictatorship ruled by unelected bureaucrats (UN and World Bank) to the detriment of national sovereignty and our democracy.

Andrew Goff says:

12:32pm | 17/12/09

FWIW, I wholly support the ETS. This internet filter is a complete FRAUD. That such ideolical opposites can come together, well, that alone tells you something.

For possibly the first time in decades the Left and Right, socialists and capitalists, progressives and conservatives, believers and deniers (in God or Climate Change!), all agree this is disgraceful legislation.

The only defenders are the ones who think this will stop internet child porn, which is simply not true (and in fact is dangerously false).

lies, lies and more lies says:

12:33pm | 17/12/09

A free and open internet is enemy number one for governments around the world. WikiLeaks and Cryptome have leaked numerous documents revealing government corruption and malfeasance.

On December 6, China indicted dissident Liu Xiaobo for subversion of state power for posting essays on his blog about human rights and calls for democratic reform in the country. Liu Xiaobo faces 15 years in prison.

Is this treatment what we can look forward to Conroy?

Drewboy says:

12:35pm | 17/12/09

I think Senator Conroy has bitten off a little more than he can chew on this one!

Once a Labor Voter says:

12:36pm | 17/12/09

How dare you feed us this tripe and expect people to believe it. This policy is nothing but a Big Brother agenda. If you were actually serious about protecting kids from internet nasties, whilst appeasing free speech advocates, you’d make the filter optional. You’re not. End of discussion, hopefully the end of the Labor Government as well.

John says:

12:36pm | 17/12/09

The Labor Party should be ashamed of its self. This all about limiting free speech, any illusions I had about open minded political party are gone. We will be just like China, Burma and Iran where the Government is taking control of what people hear and what information they get. Shame Labor, Shame.

thatmosis says:

12:37pm | 17/12/09

I believe this is the thin edge of the wedge. There are no checks and balances so who’s to say the Governnment wont want to censor political sensitive sites or people who disagree with the Government. We live in a so called free country but our Glorious leader and his band of comrades wants to censor us for their own political ends. Bring on the election as this is another nail in the Labor Coffin

Chase Stevens says:

12:39pm | 17/12/09

I just turned 18, I was looking forward to voting for Labor (Typical youth that I am) and now I’m looking forward to voting against Labor and giving my vote to the other guys (Which honestly I doubt will be much better). It kills me to say but I will be voting Green prefs to the Liberals in both the State and Federal elections. What better way to tell the Government that I’m unhappy with them. You know what? I’m not alone, a lot of my friends who were going to vote Labor are doing the same thing over this single issue.

Fair warning to Conroy and co: Continue this line of policy and I assure you, you will have a swing against you, hopefully you’ll lose seats too.

John A Neve says:

12:43pm | 17/12/09

GAN @1211hrs,

Says “Australians need protection from their own government”. Wrong, Australians need protection from themselves.

For years now the electorate has sat back and blaimed all our ills on “the government”, be it federal or state, be it Labor or Liberal anything that went wrong, blame “the government”. Just how weak can a people be, we claim to live in a democracy, you know “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

So what part do the people play in all this?  Sweet F/A, we vote once every now and then and then sit back and whinge.

Democracy is not a given, it’s something people have to work on, sadly we don’t.

Jim says:

12:43pm | 17/12/09

This is outright censorship and will bring us nicely in line with other police states such as China, Zimbabwe etc. Check out this report which Conroy has been ignoring http://www.ecu.edu.au/pr/InsideECU/2009/12/ecu-professor-contributes-to-internet-filtering-debate/

Glad I'm Not Australian says:

12:46pm | 17/12/09

“The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.”

Phil says:

12:47pm | 17/12/09

Soon-to-be-ex-senator Conroy:

It’s called democracy.  Get a dictionary and look it up.

Start working on your resume while you’re at it.

COF says:

12:50pm | 17/12/09

Stephen
I was optimistic when I saw your piece - it was at least good to see that after months of having this policy, you’ve finally decided to ask the people that voted for you whether they like it or not. That’s called democracy for future reference.
The optimism quickly eroded though. You have an incredibly flimsy and ambiguous argument which may hold up in debating club, but not when you propose to infringe on the rights of millions of Australians, many of whom you owe your career to. This policy is the absolute zenith of mindless arrogance and disrespect for the people you govern, most of whom are as moral, if not more moral, than you are. This is clearly shown in your slimey attempt to discount your critics as immoral people.
As a christian, you will recognise that it was not the money changers or the prostitutes or the many other immoral people that forced the son of god to his death. It was the people of highest moral standing, the people that when they should have shown open mindedness and compassion saw only blasphemy and immorality in the actions of Jesus himself. It seems that you have conveniently forgotten one of the primary messages of the bible, that morality is a personal journey and one not meant to be imposed on others.
And so we come to your mandatory internet filter. You talk about its effectiveness and that it should be nothing to complain about, but it doesn’t matter how good it is. The argument comes down to the word MANDATORY. In essence, you are controlling what people are allowed to see. Much of it is very immoral, but how can you guarantee that all of it is immoral? Who determines what is immoral, what is RC, what is R18+, etc.? In the end, the immorality of the subject matter doesn’t effect the argument. You are giving us no choice on what we can expose ourselves to. Call it sensationalist if it pleases you, but it is plain truth - this is the first step towards totalitarianism.
Drop it, please.

Ben Acomone says:

12:51pm | 17/12/09

Thanks Conroy, This is not going to even remotly stop the people who you are trying to stop. How about investing more money into actually catching these people instead of the bandaid solution you have opted for.

This Filter is complete bullshit.

Mark says:

12:52pm | 17/12/09

Completely outrageous that this filter has even been considered for implementation. It shows how out of touch the government is with the Australian people. Worst of all these acts of censorship are tarnishing our international image. This is unforgivable and un-Australian.  I will do everything in my power to stop this, you’ve lost a voter.

harquebus says:

12:55pm | 17/12/09

The vast majority just do not want the internet censored. John Howard did not listen to the people and suffered for it at the polls. Comrade Conroy, you too will suffer at the next election. It is my intention to vote every Labor politician last and my rep. holds a marginal seat which the Liberals lost at the last election. Imposing the will of a few right wing religious nuts onto the majority is not democracy.
Forced censorship is not the solution to child abuse. Internet censorship will only sweep the problem under the carpet and it will then continue unseen. Let’s keep everything in the open and force authorities to attack the problem, not hide it.
The internet is an adult place. End of story.

Ken says:

12:57pm | 17/12/09

Here is a list of marginal seats, if you happen to live in any of these areas, write to your member and tell them you are changing your vote;

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/calculator/

Macquarie (NSW)  ALP 0.009%
Robertson (NSW)  ALP 0.1%
Macarthur (*) (NSW)  ALP 0.1%
Gilmore (*) (NSW)  ALP 0.2%
Solomon (NT)  ALP 0.2%
Swan (*) (WA)  ALP 0.3%
Herbert (*) (QLD)  ALP 0.4%
Corangamite (VIC)  ALP 0.9%
Hasluck (WA)  ALP 0.9%
Dickson (*) (QLD)  ALP 1.0%
Bass (TAS)  ALP 1.0%

Bruce Fitzpatrick says:

01:01pm | 17/12/09

Net filtering is rubbish. It’s moral bullying at its worst.

Tan says:

01:05pm | 17/12/09

Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy know the majority are against the issue yet they press on to impose their Christian/catholic views on the internet towards the whole population, trying to take control of how we can view things.

Well you know what? I’m against communism and censorship. This is not a democracy. Why can’t we have a public discussion or a public vote? This is outrageous.

Kevin Rudd, you lied to the Australian people when one of your election promises was OPTIONAL filtering. I will never vote for you again. And Stephen Conroy, who do you think you are? Your dictactorship can go to hell. You obviously have no knowledge of technology. You shouldn’t even be in government. You and Rudd should go back to China.

KNeeJerk says:

01:06pm | 17/12/09

I’m a long time Labor supporter but with this stupid idea and a dodgy NSW Premier coming to power, I’m going independent or Liberal.
Let parents be more responsible and teach their own children how to deal with trash in the internet and in real life.

Kevin Rennie says:

01:07pm | 17/12/09

If the government’s aim is to protect children from inappropriate content, then this scheme won’t achieve that. If you want to stop illegal material on the web, then it should be confined to criminal material of a sexual nature as proposed in the ALP’s policy in 2007. If you’re trying to increase Labor’s popularity amongst “families”, then it’s wasting time and money.
http://laborview.blogspot.com/2009/12/australias-brand-spanking-clean-feed.html

Mark says:

01:13pm | 17/12/09

Around 15 western democracies have filtering!
Bullshit!
Of those 13 are optional filtering.  The other 2 Italy and Germany are strictly setup to filter “ONLY CHILD PORN”!
Your filtering system is more aligned to Iran, Syria and China type government filtering.

Nick says:

01:18pm | 17/12/09

Labor Minister Penny Sharpe has spoken out against this on her blog!!

They’re starting to listen! Finally.

Bruce says:

01:21pm | 17/12/09

Stephen, as a parent of a young child I am very happy with this initiative.  There is some sick stuff out there and my concern as a parent is my child not being exposed to it. As you have mentioned internet use amongst young children is increasing and we wont be able to keep track of everything that they look at.

I am sure people will be able to get around the filter but if it works to block out most of the sites then it will help..

You have my total support on this.

Real pissed says:

01:23pm | 17/12/09

CONROY! this will never happen and I’m surprised given all the crap Krudd now finds himself in he isn’t on the phone telling you to pull this one and quick! This is a looser for you and I am very surprised you can’t see that. We go to war to stop this type of thing. My grandfather and those of his generation who made the ultimate sacrifice will be rolling in their graves. How dare you try to slip this in on the Australian people! I’m sure there will be a public demonstration against this one. Never been to one before but this is just the issue worth standing up for so count me in. This is worth going to jail for! Look out Conroy! Hear our mighty roar…

SD says:

01:25pm | 17/12/09

Conroy:

You said: “ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100% accuracy”

So what? URL filtering is not the problem. The vast majority of illicit material (in particular child pornography) is not accessible via a browser.

Browser based content (via port 80) is just a very small part of the internet. In particular, port 80 content is what we know as the “world wide web”. Other components of the internet consist of FTP, Bit torrents, Email, IRC, Skype, ICQ, MSN Messenger and so on and so forth.

A URL based filtering system ONLY looks at content you COULD access via a browser on port 80. It doesn’t actually look at what is being transmitted. To block the other material would require a very different mechanism. For a start, it would require what is called a ‘packet sniffer’ (a packet is a unit of data transmitted via a given protocol over a network). A packed sniffer would look actually at the CONTENT of the material being transmitted - and is much more complicated than just blocking a URL without inspecting the actual data. Essentially, every thing that anyone does on the internet would be examined by the Government. Email, Facebook, everything. However, thankfully this is impossible, due to the encrypted nature of many connections such as SSL (SSL – Secure Socket Layer - is for example what you use to make a credit card transaction).

So essentially, whilst a URL filter may well be “100% accurate” - so what? What is there to go wrong with this system? The list says, ‘block this URL’ and it does. Therefore it will achieve a 100% success rate ON THE LIST. However, what if the list is incorrect? The success rate is still 100% - but this figure is really meaningless in terms of efficacy.

You also said: “To put that into the context of real time, Australia’s largest ISP, Telstra, undertook its own testing that showed the impact on internet performance would be less than one seventieth of the blink of an eye!”

Again, you are spinning the facts here.
Is this for each packet of data? For each byte / bit / kb / Mb? What?
My point is that a single microsecond multiplied by several million IS quite a difference. Depending on how you look at it, there could be several million data transactions
Nevertheless, it doesn’t really matter. As the above explains, your URL filter is a farce.

Since Google proposes to very soon update links in realtime for many sites – and already has a current indexing time of a few days– do you propose that the Australian Government will be a step ahead of every illicit link? Of course it cannot.

What if you were to block the following:
http://www.test.com/badpornsite123

And realising that I have been blocked - I change the address to http://www.test.com/badpornsite1234. Your filter is suddenly rendered ineffective. Or are you proposing to block entire domains? Would you block all of AOL? 

So explain yourself – if you know how.

Robbles says:

01:26pm | 17/12/09

Seems to me that most people posting here are needlessly scared. I am not sure what of though. If any of you bothered to read the details of the announcment you will see that it is only RC (Refused Classification) material that will be blocked and that there is also a consultation paper about what would be the best process to ensure transparency and to allow for appeals against a site being blocked. So, unless you are seriously into illegal stuff and cannot figure out how to use peer-to-peer (watch out though the AFP are getting good at cracking this as well) what are you afraid of?  Do I see you mounting such an ill-informed campaign against the “censorship” of RC pornographic magazines? Thought not.

Liam says:

01:27pm | 17/12/09

Conroy says: “There is no reason Australian consumers should not have similar protection. “
In America, they have a first amendment (free speech). There is no reason Australian consumers should not have similar protection.

NEO says:

01:29pm | 17/12/09

Dear Mr Conroy you and this entire labour government are facist conservative pigs solely concerned about what your own pathetic conservative morals dictate rather then What is most beneficial to this country , many of the alledged drug based site you will block are based solely on harm reduction and correct education since your government or any Australian government has never provided any such information to the general public you should be thanking these sites for saving countless lives not blacklisting them a long with kiddie porn ,

People who want access to child porn are in many cases very tech savvy and It would be my assumption that most of these peo-ple will circumvent your filter within a week, while the rest of us are left to swuffer as a result of your governments ignorance and stupidity . Notice we are the only country in the western world to have such restrictions on our internet use ...you disrespect our inteeligence and feel we are not capable of making informed decisions ourselve .

Mario Savio says:

01:33pm | 17/12/09

If you want the people to keep driving the machine you better give us our freedom for if you don’t, we will prevent the machine from working at all.

John A Neve says:

01:34pm | 17/12/09

Tan @ 1305hrs,

This is not about “communism and censorship”, ALL power groups try this on. Pig Iron Bob, MaCarthy and Hitler, all practiced censorship it’s the main weapon of control. Even Little Johnny used it, all in the interest of “protecting” you.

But you are right Tan, “This is not democracy”.

Robbles says:

01:35pm | 17/12/09

Liam. So “free speech” is used to protect child pornographers? Not sure that is what the founding fathers had in mind….

neo says:

01:36pm | 17/12/09

Robbles congrats on having the only postive thing to say about this stupid scheme ....thankyou for demonstrating your ignorance to many books about drugs that recieve the RC rating are based around harm reduction and legitimate scientific research Pihkal by Dr Alexander Shulgin for example the guy is employed by the DEA and yet his book which is one of the most informative well researched and well written pieces of Drug education ever produced is classified RC by our censorship board do some reaserch before dribblling your if your aginst it you must be a criminal junk

Robert says:

01:37pm | 17/12/09

This is a joke.

Save yourself the 10’s of Millions of Dollars for this sham of a system that the public obviously does not want and spend it on something that matters. There are plenty of free net filters out there already.

The Australian public is educated enough to realise this. Senator Conroy, I therefore must assume either one or all of the following:

1. You think we’re stupid
2. You believe you have the right to tell people what they can or can’t do
3. You directly and personally benefit from introducing this legislation.

Neither are acceptable.

Labor, you will never again receive my vote.

moving to south america says:

01:37pm | 17/12/09

With Rudd and Wong selling us out to the UN in Copenhagen
And Conroy silencing free speech and destroying our democracy,
I wonder whether this government could get any worse….
But as we have all come to realise - of course it can.

moving to south america says:

01:38pm | 17/12/09

With Rudd and Wong selling us out to the UN in Copenhagen
And Conroy silencing free speech and destroying our democracy,
I wonder whether this government could get any worse….
But as we have all come to realise - of course it can.

Grant says:

01:42pm | 17/12/09

@ Robbles

The scope of what Refused Classification (RC), is quite large.  The blacklist confirmed as the Australian version on Wikileaks demonstrated that it can and will include political material, this is why people are not happy.

RC ‘refused classification’ can include:

“promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence.”

-  The book dealing with euthanasia The Peaceful Pill Handbook by Dr Phillip Nitschke and Dr Fiona Stewart banned

-  A computer game based on graffiti: Marc Ecko’s Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure banned because a majority of a sub-set of the “provided elements of promotion of the crime of graffiti”.

-  Representative Council of La Trobe University banned because it contained a satirical article titled “The Art of Shoplifting”.

“depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence

-  A political speech website primarily dealing with anti-abortion.

-  A website designed to help drug users inject safely as to prevent the spread of aids.

Finally,

Adult sexually explicit material is classified RC if it portrays:

“Fetishes such as the application of substances such as candle wax, bondage and spanking.”

Spanking isn’t my thing, however I’m not particularly offended by it, and should adults have access to it?  yes of course.

By the way the actually personally having RC material isn’t illegal.

Political Poison says:

01:43pm | 17/12/09

For a political party that got into government purely on the back of the anti Work Choices vote they sure are pushing their luck with this one.

Simple fact. It won’t work! I won’t go into detail. It’s all been covered in the above comments.

I hope Tony Zappia has a sizable margin because he has just lost three votes in my household.

Vidar says:

01:46pm | 17/12/09

What is the opposition so quiet about this, especially if it’s an election winner for them, which it’s not? Methinks they like it just fine and can’t wait to one day be in charge of it.

Stephen the main reason this unworkable and expensive farce should never see the light of day it that one day the Liberals will be in charge of it. You will be bad enough, but the very thought of the Coalition running it sends shivers up and down my spine.

Robbles says:

01:52pm | 17/12/09

Neo,now Shulgin, this is the guy who “popularised” ecstacy?  You want to use HIS material as a reason for not banning RC?  Maybe not! Unless you think we should all be popping drugs?

Jasper says:

01:52pm | 17/12/09

One of the early comments here is an accusation that Conroy’s listening skills aren’t up to scratch. I’d add, based on the stream of comments over the past two days, that no-one’s listening skills are very good. Either that or we are caught in the same cycle of polarisation that has infected all of our policy debates for a decade or the anti-filter brigade is, rather disingenuously, exaggerating the affects of the filter for their own ends.

The best example is the list that was leaked to wikileaks, it has been said over and over that this list did not originate from the classification authorities and I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary provided by the anti-filter camp. It seem to me that this list of supposedly banned sites is this debate’s equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion – a load of fabricated rubbish to further one side of the debate at the expense of anything remotely resembling the truth.

The vast number of “the sky is falling” comments only demonstrate that most people have a very poor understanding of the current classification system. This is not the beginning of Chinese or Cuban style censorship in Australia but the extension of the current system to online content. I can walk into a bookstore anywhere and buy a copy of DeSade’s 120 Days of Sodom, The Unabomber Manifesto or Steal This Book by Jerry Rubin, actually I have walked into bookstores and bought all these items! If these items are available in print, they will continue to be available on the web.

The thing that everyone needs to remember is that the classification board is made up of ordinary Australians; anyone can apply when a position becomes vacant. In general, they do a good job of reflecting the Australian norms and values. Who here honestly believes that the classification board will suddenly morph into a secretive morality police just because of a technological change that allows classification to be applied to online content?

Items are not refused classification based purely on the sexual and violent content; the context of the context is also taken into account. So the hypothetical put forward by one of the Punch articles yesterday that the therapeutic discussion of abuse between victims could be banned is absolute and total scaremongering. If this was the case, the police would be raiding therapy groups all over the country as paedophile meeting groups!

But there is also a huge amount of hyperbole around a trial that will probably prove that the whole system is not technically feasible and therefore will not be implemented anyway.

Finally, there is a genuine concern about content on the web; the “everything must be freely available” crowd must adequately address these concerns if they want their desires for the net satisfied as well. Start taking the concerns about content seriously and you may find your concerns are taken more seriously as well.

In a civilised society, ‘freedom’ implies responsibility.

kobold says:

01:55pm | 17/12/09

i am not a 12 yo child and i want to make up my own bloody mind on things.

it is disheartening to see this criminal act evolving to this stage.

this kind of ‘wag the dog’ approach will have a backlash - conroy will be held personally responsible.

E says:

01:56pm | 17/12/09

Firstly, Stephen Conroy has a low IQ, which is why he has been so easily bamboozled by a slick sales pitch from the people who manufacture this software.

He doesnt seem to realise that there are literally tens of millions of URLs which will fall into the catagory of ‘offends the easily offended’ and that they change daily. There has been no testing of what effect a list containing even one million URL’s will do to network performance.

Secondly, he has failed to provide a single positive reasonable argument for this draconian overstep. Its rididculous the lack of public support this thing has, if only we were having an early election we could remove this total failure of a government before KRudd goes overseas again and stuffs things up (every time he leaves the country, he stuffs something up!).

Finnaly, as we saw thanks to wikiLeaks, the AMCA already cannot handle the workload of 1500 sites, the list they currently have is 50% in error! How on earth can he seriously think they wont totally fail to manage a much larger list? He is a fool and the sooner we get rid of him the better.

Phil says:

01:56pm | 17/12/09

@Ken

Senator Stephen Conroy doesn’t care about marginal House of Reps seats.

You can effectively remove Conroy by voting for whomever you like in your seat, but just don’t for Labor in the senate.

Simple.

If Labor were complaining about being crippled in the Senate this time around, imagine how tough it will be when they have even fewer Labor Senators after this debacle.

pete says:

01:56pm | 17/12/09

freedom of speech in australia is an accepted practice. It is not a right, nowhere is it mention in the constitution. we have to ask ourselves why governments of all ilks have never moved to change that.

Mr. conroy, apart from being a member of the biggest political non event in recent history (and I’m a labor voter)  You and yours have made a bit of a blunder. You have commenced treating us as fools who dont know what is good for them. A fatal political blunder that comes back to haunt you

Andrew says:

01:58pm | 17/12/09

There are a couple of issues that I have with this
1) The RC list doesn’t seem to be public. So the governement can put anything it likes on this list and there is no watchdog to make sure that it isn’t additionally blocking content that is for example , critical of the current governement.

2) For those people who want to get around this filtering , it is trivial to use a proxy server or encrypted tunnel to avoid filtering. Encrypted DNS and http requests are impossible to filter as they are encrypted at the client / server end and anything in between cannot view the content. You cannot block encrypted content at ecommerce, confidential corporate information has to be sent encrypted.

In short if anyone was actually looking for the content on the list , they would be able to find it. For anyone else it does nothing except for providing the government with a method to censor information it does not want the general public to find out.

The better approach would be to provide funding to the police to actually prosecute and investigate the people responsible for the child abuse. Guess what, _that_ can cross borders and that will do more to deter people than an internet filter.

Grant says:

02:07pm | 17/12/09

@ Jasper,

Your right…

Senator Conroy admitted that the latest black list dated March 18th - “seemed to be close” to ACMA’s current blacklist”.

It was apparently leaked from a ISP vendor who provides filtering based on the original ACMA blacklist with additions of their own.

NEO says:

02:08pm | 17/12/09

Robbles the iignorance of the vast majority of people in Australia never ceases to amaze me and you are no exception
Poularised well if you classify a massive amount of discussion to it benefits in psychotherapy as popularising then I guess so , I wonder if you would like to estimate the countless number of lives his reserach has saved by providing valid education , dosgae levels , and effects based information for over 300 widely used substances, no you’d rather we have needless deaths from substances which are quite safe in all reality despite the governments best efforts to convince us otherwise

personally yes I would rather live in a country full of PEA users ( the correct term for this category of substance ) then a country full of beer swilling arrogant , apathetic morons who can’t even stand up for their own rights but thats another arguement entirely.

Gunther says:

02:11pm | 17/12/09

There is no better judge of what information I should have access to than myself.  If that means using encryption to tunnel my packets through some china-esque firewall to escape Australian despotism, so be it.

John A Neve says:

02:19pm | 17/12/09

Jasper @ 1352hrs,
Says “the classification board is made up of ordinary Australians”.

This is only true if ordinary Auistralians are media people or lawyers. There is not one plumber, shopkeeper, bus driver, why go on, among them.

Mitch says:

02:21pm | 17/12/09

“The Government believes that parents want assistance to reduce the risk of children (including the 60% of 5-8 year olds now estimated to use the internet) being inadvertently exposed to such material on the internet.”

Whaaa?  Wasn’t the whole point of this filter to prevent child pornography, something which I would think a child would be highly unlikely just to stumble upon?  In any case the ENTIRE population of Australia does not fall under this ‘concerned parents’ category.  The Howard Govt introduced a free, voluntary filter for parents to download and the take up was not very high, so that throws doubt onto this claim that there is high demand for a filter.  Also it may come as a surprise to you that children don’t just accidentally stumble onto porn sites, and anyone underage that wants to see porn will find a way filter or no filter.

“Around 15 western democracies – including the likes of the UK, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands have taken steps to encourage ISPs to implement filtering whilst Germany and Italy have already passed legislation to mandate it.”

You missed an important word in there, VOLUNTARY.  Other than Italy and Germany, whom have clearly outlined what they intend their filters to do and have made them transparent (and on both counts you have failed miserably at this), these other countries are implementing voluntary filters.  In any case you are somewhat comparing apples to oranges, or do you believe that the firestorm against this policy is just because people are out to get you rather than your equivalents in Germany and Italy?

Thanks to this policy I will be voting Greens (ugh…)  next election, and you have the second last place on my Senate ballot reserved unless you somehow make more of an idiot of yourself then Steve Fielding (and I wouldn’t put it beyond you Mr Conroy) in the next 9-12 months.

Tim says:

02:30pm | 17/12/09

Conroy—Blah blah blah LOOK OVER IN THAT DIRECTION. I’m going to avoid the issue by focusing your attention somewhere else.

You talk about misrepresenting figures yet you don’t understand the 10%, less than the blink of an eye figure yourself. Explain what happens when all these moments in less than the blink of an eye begins to snowball? IPv6? ADSL2+? Fiber speeds?

Just testing what you know will make your solution look doable, it’s the Rudd/Conroy way.

Besides, filtering misses the entire problem in attempting to ‘protect’ the children. This filter will do nothing, nothing at all to help protect any child.

Rowan says:

02:30pm | 17/12/09

Shhh don’t complain, the government will hear you and this conversation or ones like it in the future may get added to Conroy’s censorship list.

And that’s the point of course, we the public will have no idea what or how things get blocked in the future if this gets passed.

Don’t let it happen!

SPEAK UP WHILE YOU CAN!

mid says:

02:31pm | 17/12/09

Just been reading the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (yes, slow day at the office) - which I believe Australia signed up for. Would be interested in seeing a legal interpretation of Article 19 and how it would effect the proposed filtering (especially considering the fact that Conroy acknowledged the leaked list was ‘similar’ and some sites that were included were more political than illegal).

Jay says:

02:35pm | 17/12/09

FACT: Content filtering applies only to HTTP (web-based) content.
FACT: Most illegal materials are not distributed through HTTP
FACT: The government has given no assurances that the filtered list will contain only materials that have been found to be ILLEGAL in Australia
FACT: 100% accuracy refers to the blocking of a list of only 1175 URLS.  There is no target for an acceptable amount of OVER-BLOCKING that is acceptable.  (Over-blocking includes material which is unintentionally blocked and whose contents are legal)

Of the 1175 URLs which were blocked during the trial, only 33% relate to sex abuse.  46% of that list is material which was classified R18 or X18+ which is LEGAL in Australia. 

I do not want the government to be the parent of my child.  That’s my job. 

I do not want the government to be my parent.  I am an adult.  Prosecute me if I do something illegal, but do not create ways of controlling content which I am legally entitled to see or read.

We are heading down a dangerous path where a handful of people will act “for the greater good”, but will end up abandoning Australian freedoms and independent thought.

Tristen says:

02:37pm | 17/12/09

I’ll be just another person totally opposed to this idea. I really hope this legislation isn’t passed. Everybody that is opposed to this idea needs some kind of coordinated way that we can ensure that any kind of filter is opt-in only because otherwise it will be forced onto adults who should be able to make decisions about what’s “appropriate” to view online! Let’s not vote for this Government of nannies again either!

max says:

02:44pm | 17/12/09

why filter the internet, it would be better to ban it, disconect australia to the whole web, and why stop there, shut down television and radio shows too!

your goverment is already banning movies and video games so it would be better to just stop it showing them or importing them in the first place, take off newspapers too, there a lot about pedophilia there and also the bible, they are stories about rape in there you know and theres a lot of violence, censor that, i dont want my kids to read that sick stuff in that book

John says:

02:48pm | 17/12/09

As a network engineer of 15 years experience in a variety of environments ranging from public universities to fortune 500 companies including IBM I can say that I can confirm that there is in fact material available on Internet web sites not suitable to children, and can absolutely confirm there is in fact no silver bullet for cyber security and that net filtering will handicap Australia’s ability to improve any aspect of its cyber security.  ISP filtering will in fact weaken Australia’s cyber security.

Additionally, while the government will assure its citizens that it know which content is suitable and which isn’t, in reality this task is tantamount to managing each individual phone call in the country for suitable content.  Some undesirable calls will be curtailed, but if successful, it is at best a pyrrhic victory.  While the rest of the world benefits from free flow of information, Australia will wallow in its own backwater.  Ironically, Australia won’t really gain significantly from its ISP filtering is terms of protecting anyone.

Dingo_aus says:

02:49pm | 17/12/09

Who watches the watchers?

Should we trust any Government to do the thinking for us?  Of course not!  No one is better placed to decide what you do on the Internet that YOU!

Ross says:

02:49pm | 17/12/09

For the first time in my life, I’m TRULY embarrassed to call myself an Australian.  Leave the parenting to the parents. 

The only reason you’ve been able to get this so far is because you’re making the entire issue look completely black and white.  When there’s many shades in between.  This plan won’t stop child abuse and nor will it protect the children.

I’m disgusted, Senator.  Why waste so much money on this?

Kale says:

02:54pm | 17/12/09

Conroy youre a joke the whole world is laughing at you

Dan says:

02:57pm | 17/12/09

Welcome the dark ages.

Orwell says:

03:04pm | 17/12/09

This article is an absolute crock. Just because there is a “public complaint” mechanism driving this doesn’t mean that it is anything better than an orwellian attempt to legislate morality. Allowing government to legislate what people read, listen and watch is tantamount to allowing them permission to censor thought.

Stop criminalizing free speech Australia, the world is watching.

Matthew C says:

03:05pm | 17/12/09

Dear Senator Conroy,

Could you please convey a message to Mr. Rudd and the Labor party for me? You have gone too far, and have lost my vote both in the Senate and House of Representatives forever.

I’m traditionally a swinging voter, with a bit of a preference for Labor, and I voted for Labor in the last Federal election, but never again. I am sick of your attempts to tell me how to live my life; I’m sick of your attempts to restrict my freedoms. For starters, how dare you lecture me on the amount that I drink - I live in NSW, where you need to drink copious amounts of alcohol just to barely tolerate the ineptitude of the State Labor Government. And now you’re placing yourselves as the moral guardians of the internet, and operating a “secret” black-list of banned material?

I pay taxes, and I expect service from the public servants that are elected to represent us. I do not expect those elected representatives to steer their own agendas and disregard the views of the electorate, and it is exactly this that the Labor party continues to do.

A war on alcohol was not part of your election campaign platform, nor was a compulsory internet filter. If it had been, I would not have voted for your party - and I certainly now regret voting for your party.

I assure you, Senator Conroy, that I will never use the precious vote that is given to me as a free citizen of Australia to vote for Labor again, in either Federal or State elections.

William says:

03:23pm | 17/12/09

Australia’s about to join a very elite group of nations: China, North Korea, Iran, Burma…

The effect on children of seeing negative material is small, and preventable through parental education.  The negative effect on adults of having their view of the world limited by ‘public complaint’, however, is limitless.  Will you allow people to read the websites of wartime enemies?  To research or otherwise try to understand sexual dysfunction?

It is considerably better for everyone for you to pursue and prosecute people who download illegal material from overseas, rather than criminalize ISPs and throttle Australia’s internet and their access to diverse ideas.  Child pornography, while despicable, is not sufficient grounds for Australians to stop thinking.

LogicPrevails says:

03:27pm | 17/12/09

It is far easier and more sensible to World-Proof a child than it is to try and Child-Proof the world.

Michael says:

03:27pm | 17/12/09

As a traditional Labor voter, this government is on the nose. Bring on the double dissollution so we can get rid of it.

winston_1337 says:

03:27pm | 17/12/09

just lost all my respect for australia.

David says:

03:28pm | 17/12/09

Apparently the filter showed only a 3.4% over blocking rate.
Considering that the internet is a trillion pages in size, 3.4% of a trillion is a very large number indeed (34 000 000 000).
Considering also that the internet is growing at a billion pages per day, the only acceptable over blocking rate is zero.
That is assuming that sites are properly classified in the first place….
When the original blacklist was leaked, there was a dentist site, a boarding kennel, a tour operator, an astrology site, and something rated “pg” by the classification board (Henson picture). If this is worst of the worst, as Conroy is claiming, Australia is in a lot of trouble.

Craig says:

03:28pm | 17/12/09

This will only serve to increase the cost of an already sub-par network inside Australia. As a systems engineer I am ashamed to live in such a technologically backwards state where funds are misdirected into time wasting drain-holes such as this. While I do not disagree that there is content within the internet that is not suitable for minors I do -not- believe that this or any of the so called ‘suite’ of measures will be successful.  I foresee a very swift end to Mr Conroy’s political career.

smiggle says:

03:32pm | 17/12/09

Wow. So much alarm you people!
1. If it won’t work, why are you all so afraid?
2. It’s more like UK than China. Your exaggeration does your case no favours.
Yes, the UK is voluntary, but we get the same end result (over 90% of net use filtered by independent org.) I have ideological objections it being compulsory but who cares. It’s forced on TV, radio, etc.
I could go on but there is so much extreme reaction here it’s hardly worth it. Tone it down if you want Conroy to take you seriously..

Peta says:

03:32pm | 17/12/09

This is disgraceful. Where’s the public consultation? First this, then the abhorrent self serving opinion of Mr Atkinson on R18+ rating for games, then the axing of Rees to install a politically safe puppet - I have lost complete trust in Australian federal and state governments.

I - and others- will be looking upon you with complete distrust and resentment as you have caged us like slave children and refuse to let us be adults.

Lachlan says:

03:33pm | 17/12/09

This has nothing to do with ‘protecting children’, there are options already there for parents. This is simply laying down the logistics and systems too be able to censor information that some individual / special interest group finds objectionable.

Besides, you will never be able to block people who are dedicated to find this sort of illegal material, as a bureaucratic organization will never be able to keep up, and soon will begin working in broad strokes to ban a much wider range of material.

Bob H says:

03:42pm | 17/12/09

I wondered what possibly could get me voting for Abbott - well you’ve done it.

J.T. says:

03:43pm | 17/12/09

Garbage, absolute garbage.  It is a parent’s job to raise a child, not the government’s.  Provide recommendations on content, certainly.  Establish warnings, perhaps, that content is not rated or beyond the scope of the rating system, definitely.  Spread information to allow parents to make informed decisions.  Do not make those decisions for them.

Drongo says:

03:45pm | 17/12/09

No filtering at ISP level. Filtering should be done at the terminal in the home or office.
And whatever the outcome, no secret wowser committee should be allowed to impose it.
Child porno is repulsive but it is illegal It is not distributed on the open web. A perv will know how to find it. Go after them, not us. Transparency from this government is an essential element . Dont dare even suggest compromising it. You will lose a lot of support, especially from your looney left.  We do not support censorship for adults. I am my own best censor. This is worse than the Roman Catholic Church, that coven of pedophiles and cover up conspiritors who supported censorship while they debauched the children of the faith.
Appalling in a mature democracy.

Steve says:

03:58pm | 17/12/09

Thank you senator Conroy! I wrote to your predecessor about this repeatedly, but she did not have the guts to do anything. I admire your courage to do the right thing, despite all the abuse you knew you would get from misguided, rude, selfish libertarians.

Nick says:

03:59pm | 17/12/09

Thought I might clear up a misconception that appears to keep raising its head in this discussion thread. This filter is not a content filter, it does not analyse the pages to either allow or deny them in real time based on content (see http://www.bluecoat.com as an example of a content based filter). It is a DNS blacklist, which is a static list of domain names and/or IP’s updated manually, that are blocked. DNS lookups are not just performed by HTTP/S based protocols, so if you think its solely web pages that are affected, you are mistaken. 

At a reasonable guess (I’ve been doing technical design / architecture for some time for a multinational IT company) a government department will have master DNS servers which hold this blacklist DNS zone, replicated to slave DNS servers hosted by every Australian ISP. Thus if someone were to crack a master DNS server, the zone list could be poisoned to add normal sites (say google.com) or remove “sick” sites. Seeing as this is such an unpopular move, I’d hate to be the security architect overseeing this project.

Frankly I don’t trust the government to keep this list within the scope of just RC material, as Mr Conroy states. As far as I’m concerned it’s a 21st century version of the Gestapo minus the German efficiency. I hope Labour pays dearly for this at the polls.

Shaun says:

04:06pm | 17/12/09

I think our glorious minister Stephen Conroy is doing an excellent job. Forward with the internet filtering, forward with the protection of Australian citizens!

http://www.wetpapernews.com/

Davo says:

04:06pm | 17/12/09

Mr Conroy,

I’ll preface this by saying that I am not an advocate for child pornography, I’ve never abused a minor and I’m supportive of efforts by the government to stop any mistreatment of minors.

However, your proposed filter is nothing short of a national disgrace that will not have a single ounce of positive impact on the Australian public.

This policy is Labor’s “Work Choices”.

You will lose an un-loseable election on the back of this fraudulent policy.

The report has said that the filter is easy for people to circumnavigate, and a huge amount of the material that you want to see banned is not traded on HTTP connections, rather torrent, newsgroups and other methods.

You’ve bent over to the Christian lobbyists, Steven Fielding and major record companies. You are a national disgrace and your political career is bound to be short.

Conrad says:

04:21pm | 17/12/09

Dear Mr Conroy,

Kindly put someone who knows what he is doing in charge.

You have already done serious damage to Australia’s reputation around the world. I do not doubt your intentions but clearly you have been assigned a task that is way beyond your capability to perform.

There is no shame in admitting you do not know the solution to an unsolvable problem. Blundering on when you know you’ve been sent on a fool’s errand, however, is beyond merely foolish and, given your position, highly irresponsible.

You are also undermining a lot of goodwill that was hard-earned by your government in the last election. Give it up now.

Nobody will blame you.

Chris says:

04:36pm | 17/12/09

@Robbles

Professor Shulgin did quantitative and qualitative scientific study in addition to invaluable research on organic synthesis concerning Phenylthalamines and Tryptamines. He was legally allowed and licensed to do so (1 of the 5 organic chemists allowed to do so if memory serves)  by the US government. The fact that he supported the recreational use of SOME of these does not lessen or negate his work in any way. You are an idiot, Robbles.

NEO says:

04:37pm | 17/12/09

all this arguement for and aginst on points about the filtering is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things this is a Democracy Mr Rudd and Mr Conroy , you will not be reelected and hopefully the next government will have thesense to reverse your stupid laws - Maybe even the senate will be that sensible and trigger a double dissolution election by rejecting your bill although i won’t hold my breath its obvious more then 50% of the country oppose your bill so how bout you accept the principle that Democracy is government by the people for the people and start doing what the people of this country want as oppose to what your own narrow minded morals dictate

Private Citizen says:

04:44pm | 17/12/09

“Germany and Italy have already passed legislation to mandate it.” , Those are democratic states that have at one stage in their history voted in Fascist regimes. I do not wish to follow their lead.

m says:

04:51pm | 17/12/09

Greetings from America. I’m not sure why you are all trying to copy the Chinese.

Bobbob says:

05:03pm | 17/12/09

“The Government has always maintained there is no silver-bullet solution to cyber-safety and this new measure is one part of a comprehensive suite to address the range of challenges online.”

Lets also add magical rocks that keep pedophiles away. Hey, its only one part of a range of solutions!

“The Government believes that parents want assistance to reduce the risk of children (including the 60% of 5-8 year olds now estimated to use the internet) being inadvertently exposed to such material on the internet.”

Thank you. My children are always stumbling over child pornography, drug use and bestality. It’s about time the government implemented a list of a few thousand obscure websites that contain nothing illegal (if it was illegal the police would take it down, the classification board has no power labeling things ‘illegal’) just in case my children inadvertently expose themselves to a list so small compared to the amount of content on the internet, which you would have more chance of winning the lottery 10x over then accessing any of the links ‘accidentally’.

I also love the way you have done major cost-benefit analysis, a few hundred million and potential scope creep is fine by me as long as someone doesn’t ‘stumble’ across child pornography! (I’m being sarcastic).

The rest of your ‘truth’ is laughable and reads like a press release as usual, not attempting to argue against any of the major problems with this policy. Instead putting some silly picture of twitter and claiming those are the main arguments or what ever the hell your on about.

*senator conroy*
Its about the children
No its not, yes it is, no its not
its not a silver bullet!
children are safe!
RC content is all illegal
adults should not be exposed
children should feel more safe
its not a silver bullet!
Circumvention is fine! Lets ignore that part and harp on about a range of solutions to help children feel safe!
I LIVE IN A HOUSE WITH NO WALLS! but the doors locked.

In the immortal words of the internet…. EPIC FAIL.

Richard says:

05:06pm | 17/12/09

Kevin Rudd,

Congratulations, somehow you’ve made Tony Abbott a more favorable candidate for the next election, while losing the support of young Australians for life. We no longer trust you and we look forward to the next election!

Anthony says:

05:15pm | 17/12/09

Some of the arguments for a filter have merit, but they should not override the many concerns that such an implementation would raise. There is a real potential for abuse and oppression of free speech, and little to no reason for responsible internet users to need one at all. I think the filter should be opt-in, for those technically-challenged users, if it is to be applied at all.

Matthew says:

05:23pm | 17/12/09

smiggle says:03:32pm
“1. If it won’t work, why are you all so afraid?”

We’re not afraid, we’re annoyed. In my case because it’s an amazing waste of money. And who pays? The end user. Everyone who is a customer of an ISP. Conroy has already said he’s not going to pay for the censorware boxes or the additional staff ISPs will need. I fail to see why I as a taxpayer and internet user should pay for this while DOCS and the OSCET team in AFP are chronically under funded. It’s obscene.
“2. It’s more like UK than China. Your exaggeration does your case no favours. Yes, the UK is voluntary, but we get the same end result (over 90% of net use filtered by independent org.)”

Uh no, the UK only does child abuse material. RC contains stuff which I can buy and view in the UK, the US and Europe such as certain games, films, a lot of pornography, graffiti magazines and films, books like “The Peaceful Pill” etc. The question is why does the government think I need to be protected from this stuff whereas citizens of other western nations apparently don’t need to be?

Mati says:

05:29pm | 17/12/09

Gee, and I though we were done with the whole, “Australia as a prison continent” thing.

Mike says:

05:50pm | 17/12/09

In the words of Benjamin Franklin:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

yoe says:

05:51pm | 17/12/09

Haha what a joke, it’s hilarious that Australia thinks they’re a first world country when they do stuff like this.

Tom says:

05:51pm | 17/12/09

What a brilliant exercise in spin and recycling press releases!

“This pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100% accuracy. It also demonstrated that it can be done with negligible impact on internet speed.”

Yes it did. What the Senator fails to mention is that the filter that was 100% effective had a 30% impact on speeds, and the filter with negligable (~10%) impact on speeds only blocked 50% of the content (according to the government’s) report.

Hardly anybody thinks that child abuse is appropriate to access, but there are better ways of preventing it than a mandatory filter (which also blocks legal material) and (imho) is a slippery slope to be going down.

It does nothing to protect children (and the government has cut funding to the thing that could which was pc based filtering software) and instead just creates a scheme (with huge potential for abuse) to provide a sanitized view of the world to those who can’t be bothered circumventing it.

Barry says:

05:57pm | 17/12/09

Our government used to censor our content during Apartheid. Quite a nice crowd you now share that honour with, Mr Conroy.

over it says:

06:11pm | 17/12/09

One more nail in Labor’s coffin.
Couldn’t come a moment too soon.

With Comrade KRudd committing hundreds of millions to third world nations in CopenFARCE and you spending similarly, it is time to admit to ourselves that this two party system has failed us all and failed us all badly.

My 60 year old parent was recently turned away from a hospital rehab ward for lack of funding and beds. There are so few wheelchairs at the ward that some patients have to stay in bed until one becomes available. The ward is understaffed and the nurses are all verging on breakdowns.

The truth is the last government have already provided a filter to any parent for free already yet you think it’s justifiable to spend this money? This really is bordering on the insane and we should be able to stop this reckless waste of money.

Don’t bother standing for re-election.

Antoine says:

06:18pm | 17/12/09

Thank you Senator Conroy for explaining clearly the purpose of the Government’s net filtering initiative. The people offended by your policy, posing as civil libertarians, are of course entitled to hold and express their views. However, as a father I am personally grateful for your help in restricting our access to material which I consider has no valid contribution to make to Australian society.

USAFLbloke says:

06:40pm | 17/12/09

This makes me sad.

And yes, this is a clear human rights violation, blatantly apparent to anybody with even the slightest grasp of history.

As a foreigner, all I can say is that this definitely removes Oz from the list of places I might be willing to live in if my country continues down the tubes. Pretty sure I’m down to Canada and New Zealand.

lantana says:

06:54pm | 17/12/09

Nobody has answered the most basic question:

Why should we allow the government to give itself (or its nominees) the power to secretly censor everything that we access on the Internet?

It doesn’t happen with books, mail or voice calls, so why shouldn’t we get as mad as hell about the govt wanting the power to secretly ban opposing points of view, etc?

aussiekiddo says:

06:57pm | 17/12/09

Major failure.  Congrats.

Glen says:

07:21pm | 17/12/09

Mandatory filtering has nothing to do with protecting children. That could be done with an OPTIONAL filter.

As galling as it will be to do so, if you persist in this madness, the next election this Bennelong voter will be putting Labor last, just below the Liberal candidate. I never imagined I could say that, but you managed to do it.

I’m sure Tony Abbot’s black granite heart is slightly warmed by this eventuality.

wazoox says:

07:24pm | 17/12/09

Obviously China and Iran are models for our western countries! Democracy, Freedom of speech, who wants that? Well done, you’re now entering the Hall of Fame of the Great Scissors of Censorship, for sure Voltaire isn’t of your friends.

Samuel says:

07:42pm | 17/12/09

Aside from all the arguments against this policy, of which there are many, the simple fact is the Australian people do NOT want this filter to be installed. Polling has consistently shown the vast majority of citizens are not in favour of it, with only a small minority of religious groups and misinformed child advocacy groups coming out in support of it. In light of this, why does Senator Conroy and the Labor Government continue to so staunchly move forward in implementing a policy that is so deeply unpopular? We don’t want it, so stop implementing it, or am I under the naive impression that you are elected to carry out the wishes of the Australian public?

Jimbo says:

07:48pm | 17/12/09

God damn this fascist State and the coercive methods it employs. Typical right wing mentality: control this, control that….

Simon Shaw says:

07:50pm | 17/12/09

Lets ban Stephen Conroy before he takes away more of our freedoms.

Looks like some of the TOP 25 websites in Australia will be banned soon.  Like to see Labor get re-elected after that.

Dave says:

07:52pm | 17/12/09

You are either in favor of free speech or you are against it. 
You either think of your fellow humans as reasonable adults who can make their own decisions or you think of them as children to be controlled.

Which one is it?

Quink says:

08:22pm | 17/12/09

Antoine.

The real solution is to put your kid’s computer in the living room, where anyone can walk past and supervise them. The real solution is to trust them to do the right thing.

Also, material such as a Queensland dentist who had his website blocked? Imagine a website like that and near enough a few million times more and you should begin to have an understanding of how much it kneecaps the web. It also won’t do a thing to restrict access to illegal materials, but will be a major, major inconvenience for those of us who rely on the Internet.

I think that you should inform yourself more and read some of the other comments. This is not a good idea and won’t do what it says on the tin.

Jim says:

08:38pm | 17/12/09

You messed up a great country. I was rather hoping to visit Australia someday.

What was once a cool place is now racist towards brown people and now treats its inhabitants like little children in a video store.

Silveira Neto says:

08:45pm | 17/12/09

I’m glad I’m not in Australia. Here in Brazil we have politicians at government that not understood how Internet works yet, but none of them could implement such an awful idea until now.
Now you guys are in the same censorship level of China. Congrats.

Stefan says:

08:56pm | 17/12/09

I’m from Germany and must tell you that Germany is trying to stop the law for isp filtering. President Koehler has the power not to sign the law to get more information. Until now he didn’t sign the law to give the german government the time to change the law.
So I think we are safe for now

Don says:

09:03pm | 17/12/09

Mr Conroy, this is a very stupid decision.

Labor may have good motives, but what happens if someone like Tony Abbott gets in, and decides to ban all sites which mention contraception, or atheism, or the Labor Party?

As other posters have said here, this is no different to Chinese censorship.

You are trying to get faster web speeds with one hand, and taking the benefits away with the other.

The only benefit I can see is that it may help Labor with the right wing christian nutjob vote. Is that what you are after?

Scott Douglas says:

09:08pm | 17/12/09

Ah so much opinion!

It’s excellent to see my fellow Australians caring so much about an issue.

Well, if you feel so strongly about it - why not drop the senator an email or give him a call?

His contact details can be found at:
http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/contact

In particular, his email address is:
minister@dbcde.gov.au

All it takes is something like: “Dear Senator Conroy: I am against the proposed internet filter.” and so on and so forth.

Get those emails flowing!

My email has already been sent.

Ciaran says:

09:15pm | 17/12/09

You can’t censor the internet. Your attempt will be a disaster.

James says:

09:21pm | 17/12/09

If your children know how to find porn, then YOUR PARENTING FAILED along time ago and no amount of internet restriction can make up for that. Become better parents instead of destroying my rights?

Michael says:

09:22pm | 17/12/09

Democracy gave you your position Conroy, a position you now abuse by trying to take away our basic and fundamental rights that are the key to any democracy.

You’ve shown your true foul colours Conroy and hopefully it will be democracy that will destroy you.

If you don’t have a basic understanding of how stupid and unworkable your plan is then you are unfit for office.

Congratulations Conroy, you’ve lost the ALP my vote and on my senate ballot paper I’ll be voting below the line to put you last!

Jeffrey Joseph says:

09:32pm | 17/12/09

**** censorship!

Tom says:

09:36pm | 17/12/09

There has not been considerable ‘discussion’ as you put it, Stephen, as that implies there are two sides to the debate. In this case, the ‘discussion’ is almost universally against your absurd plan. A SMH poll resulted in 96% voting against the filter. I realise it is not scientific, but I cannot recall seeing any such poll being so lop sided.

Timothy says:

09:44pm | 17/12/09

We don’t want it Conroy, listen to us or join the non government seat holding minority of citizens who support it. And as for the people above making it a liberal - labour thing bad ideas stink regardless of your politics.

Steve says:

10:09pm | 17/12/09

Stephen, as a parent and a Christian I understand that it’s important to protect children.

Unfortunately, your filter would do the opposite.
1. It wouldn’t stop paedophiles in ANY WAY.
2. It will drive them further underground so they’re harder to catch.
3. It wouldn’t protect children because there’s no way for you to seriously stay on top of the material online.
4. It would undermine children’s safety because parents would be given a false sense of security and wouldn’t monitor their internet use as vigorously
5. It will take resources away from police who would actually CATCH the paedophiles who would threaten my children.

I and most people I talk with at church are well aware of how you’re trying to trick us into supporting you with a dodgy policy that puts our children at risk.

This filter proposal makes me more likely to vote Liberal.

Mateus says:

10:11pm | 17/12/09

This is gibberish.
Purely hobbesian.
Get moving, australia!

Bob says:

10:13pm | 17/12/09

There have been many worldwide cases where young children have fallen prey to adults who “groom” them using social networking sites such as facebook, myspace, etc, then meet up with them and either abuse them or worse.

So clearly facebook will now be prohibited at an ISP level country-wide. Right? Right? Cause that would be protecting our children, wouldn’t it Conjob? Id say take facebook away from everyone, its all that makes sense to protect our precious vulnerable kiddies…

Conroy, crawl back in your hole. I do not wish to be governed by you, or anyone else. Get out of my life and leave me alone. The slow creep of government influence into every single aspect of our lives is sickening. LEAVE US ALONE.

Andy says:

10:18pm | 17/12/09

Conroy, your spin misses the key points. Your plan will limit freedom of speech in Australia. This is a dangerous road to walk down.

Nathan says:

10:51pm | 17/12/09

You’re a liar and disgrace to democracy Conroy.

The filter is non-transparent; you’re telling ADULTS that you know what is best for them, more than they could possibly know for themselves.
You’re wasting money on a pointless system that is easy to get around when free OPTIONAL software to filter ‘offensive’ sites for parents is a far better system, using a whitelist for the kids.

For US10 a month I can get a VPN in the USA and get around your filter, and I will. Also, you will be reimbursing me for amounts my internet speeds decrease. Its only fair given that you’re using my tax dollars to purchase something I neither want or need.

Sophia says:

11:53pm | 17/12/09

Outrageous, all this plan will is create tensions and curb freedom of speech.
Though I love in the UK I’ve followed the case of censorship in Australia closely and am trule sickned by it (as I am to most governments who trea their citizens as ignorant fools who cannot make their own choices)

If it was about protecting children the filter should only be optional for those who do have children. It is a sad day when the state takes upon itself to decide what it is acceptable for a person to like or dislike.

Jacquie Butterfield says:

11:57pm | 17/12/09

We have enough local garbage to pollute the minds of children.  I also resent items on Google from the USA describing hideous murders and bizarre ugliness.  Having ascertained that most hideous, ugly items are from the USA I don’t open any of them these days.  There is enough rancidity in Australia without importing more.  And those rancid sites often host imbeds for cyber criminals.  Convince me, anyone, how garbage- in can be of benefit?  I’m always ready to listen.

Justin says:

12:17am | 18/12/09

I won’t be voting Labour EVER again. There is so much wrong with this that it is scary and sad. You choice to legislate these laws only indicates your lack of understanding of liberty. You are not fit for any position in politics. That goes for all of you Labour MPs.

Bruce says:

12:42am | 18/12/09

Are all men in Australia really that fragile? Anything unsuitable for an eight year old is too much for them? I thought that there were real men down there. I guess not.

mid says:

12:51am | 18/12/09

Come on Mr Abbott, this time next year you could be prime minister. Take a stand against this and we’ll see to it

wake up australia says:

12:58am | 18/12/09

Conroy,

Why don’t we just round up all the children and put them in government education camps? I mean, no Australian adult is capable of making decisions for their own family, RIGHT? Let’s face it our school teachers spend more time with Aussie children than their own parents these days anyway. And the TV is the babysitter.

So let’s make it easy on everyone. You and Rudd can come clean. Rudd wants us all working like dogs to support the UN and you want to raise all the children. Get some camps happening that way all your eco-fascist malarky will go unchallenged too. And make sure you put all those kids on lots of yummy Monsanto food and lots of unnecessary vaccinations.

Don’t beat around the bush, parents can barely make enough money to pay their mortgage/ rent payments so this idea might actually be a vote winner.

Torono says:

01:04am | 18/12/09

We are laughing at you Aussies over here in Canada. It is quite a big story. People are astounded that a government would attempt this in the 21st century.

Not good for your image, makes you look like a backwater

I VOTE - NOT MY KIDS says:

01:08am | 18/12/09

This sanctimonious piece of nonsense is just as bad as Rudd’s Copenhagen speech ..... “Do it for the kids”.
What a load of BS. 
Our kids don’t vote - but we do.
And I’m getting fed up with all the preaching and moralizing that has come from Labor about global warming / ETS and this filter.

Just how often does Labor think they can pull these empty words out of their speech writing closet? Your lies are starting to wear very thin.
(From another former Labor voter)

DistrortedMessiah says:

01:13am | 18/12/09

STOP TRYING TO STEAL THE INTERNETS! They are not yours for the taking. Just provide parents with filtering tools to use on THEIR computers instead of one giant internet clog. BREAKING NEWS: Is Australian rep Conroy huffing glue? Internet experts say yes. And in no case should you let your children near him as he is armed with all the RC content. (dirty old man is keeping it all for himself)

Khaotic says:

01:13am | 18/12/09

Wow, since when did Australia start following china’s lead on treating their populace like little kids?  What’s next, are you going to have a special version of google that is Australia Approved, just like the Chinese?  Fail.

Messenger says:

01:30am | 18/12/09

THIS IS MADNESS!

Samuel says:

01:30am | 18/12/09

The greatest accomplishment of modern mankind doesn’t need a nanny. Parents need to be parenting. Conroy was given an agenda ‘turn the internet into a radio’ this move is just one more step in that direction. When is ‘the people’ going to actually tell their government what ‘the people’ want.??? Just sounds like a lot of spit and no vinegar.

kamaji says:

01:32am | 18/12/09

You show a blatant disregard for individual’s right to freedom. It is simply not the government’s duty to police matters such as this, claiming it is “for the children.” Parents must be the ones to make these decisions, which is also why AGE RATINGS on video-games, just like those that are implemented on films, should stop people who are not mature enough for the content from playing.

The state should provide guidance, not simply put their foot down. Big government reduces individual liberty.

Nick says:

01:42am | 18/12/09

An editorial in The Australian in the last few days said no one cares about this issue and it’s not important. Just unbelievable.

Pretorious says:

01:42am | 18/12/09

I really hope AU backs down and supports the basic human right of free speech.  Yes the Internet can be a scary place, but it is part of human evolution.  We created it, ye shall not take it away. Lest you want to be viewed as having similar censorship problems as China.

Sad day indeed

Spencer says:

01:43am | 18/12/09

I don’t live in Australia, but I am getting involved because you, Mr. Conroy, are severely impacting people’s personal freedoms. Your proposed ideas are bullsh*t, and if you can’t see it yourself, you are both ignorant and incompetent of being a politician. Drop this idea, it only makes you look like an idiot.

Ryan says:

01:46am | 18/12/09

This is:

- An extremely expensive project. Maintenance will be ongoing and expensive.
- Futile. It *will* be easily bypassed just as The Great Firewall of China.
- Blatant censorship. The government has NO business filtering the countries internet. ISPs and parents should do this.
- A slippery slope. They came for the illegal sex and drug websites, but since I didn’t visit either, I didn’t speak up…....

A sad day for a democracy.

Dustin says:

01:58am | 18/12/09

This is absolutely ridiculous.  Trying to turn Australia back into the prison colony it once was, are we?  What next?  What else has to be filtered so that it’s fit for your valued citizens?  There is no real freedom anymore.

Malcolm says:

02:00am | 18/12/09

This filter will only keep the ‘children’ (us) as ‘safe’ as a client-side filter would. For parents who desire a solution to lower their child’s exposure to mature content online, options are already available. The argument that this is for the ‘children’ is completely invalid.

The next supporting factor is that it’s already applying the restrictions of the real-world mediums to the virtual world. To quote from a recent report, “Untangling the Net - The Scope of Content Caught by Mandatory Internet Filtering” :

The internet is not a medium, it is a whole new media environment which requires us to rethink how we regulate content, protect vulnerable groups and define the relationship between media consumers and media producers.

One of the clear risks of focusing disproportionate public policy attention and public resources on content regulation is that many parents and teachers may gain a false sense of security when it comes to the material their children encounter online. This risk is particularly high in a regulatory system that relies on a blacklist which, by its very nature, will only capture and represent a small sample of the online material of concern.

The rules of the ‘real world’ cannot be mirrored in the virtual world.

But hey, keep on going with it, Conjob. Who cares if over 90% of the population doesn’t want this, right? You’re a joke mate.

Liberal says:

02:03am | 18/12/09

I thought we had it bad in the USA, but I guess AU really is a prison island.

est says:

02:07am | 18/12/09

China sends regards!

Matt says:

02:11am | 18/12/09

Any teenager with an interest in computers will be able to work around them. So not only are you proposing a limitation on free speech, but an ineffective one for the technology savvy at that.

Mike says:

02:21am | 18/12/09

What kind of first world country censors their people? Why are Australian politicians so scared of free speech?

Aaron says:

02:47am | 18/12/09

Conroy you are a moron for even considering this.  Like others have said you’re following in the proud footsteps of Iran, China and North Korea.  You stupid technologically ignorant politician.

John says:

02:54am | 18/12/09

This is why I hate Austrailia.

Isla says:

03:01am | 18/12/09

BAD AUSTRALIAN! Bad! You’re a big country now, you do not censor. No!

Dangger says:

04:11am | 18/12/09

Conroy,

Please don’t insult our intelligence, censorship is never good.

Matt says:

04:24am | 18/12/09

This is an unacceptable path to walk down in a democratic society.

Kim says:

05:08am | 18/12/09

If you ask the question : ‘Public Filter’ or ‘Filter Facility in each Personal Computer’ . The government has responded with Public Filter . This , I think , says a lot about the government’s attitudes and intentions . Ask the government - why not put together a freely available filter package that everyone can install on their PC’s and allow it to access a data base of categorised ( ie. with censorship categories ) or banned web sites and prevent access to those sites - under user control . The government’s response will indicate just how they regard - you - us - the voter . Further , don’t forget , Google already filters , under user control , it’s search results . Also ask whether it’s just a distraction from the government not going after the real paedo sites and associated real paedos .

Lothy says:

05:10am | 18/12/09

It is up to the parents to put child safety software on the computer that their child uses.  ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB!

Silenoz says:

06:18am | 18/12/09

Conroy, how can you possibly usher in this kind of ridiculous censorship.  The internet will never allow itself to be subjugated, no matter what you block.  I’m not on the side of the pedo’s, but thinking that this will solve or even help the problem is myopic and slides a long way down to full governmental control.

greg says:

06:33am | 18/12/09

Why don’t you guys ban some books while you’re at it?

I heard “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” has some bad words in it.

Beevbo says:

06:48am | 18/12/09

The idea that these filters are meant to protect children I find odd, simply because the types of filter content listed here, child sex abuse, rape, and drug and bomb information are really only found for those who are looking for them. I can tell you the amount of times I’ve come across this type of material while surfing by accident is almost never. Certainly children aren’t search for rape videos, and if they are they must have some terrible, terrible parents. These filters that “protect” users are a waste of time and money.

Furthermore, as I understand it peer-to-peer networks are not filtered, so people looking for the banned material will find it anyhow.

Martin says:

07:00am | 18/12/09

I don’t like the tone of this article and believe thepunch.com.au should be classified as RC

Stewart says:

07:01am | 18/12/09

It never ceases to amaze me what stupid ideas politicians can get in their heads. Even deep packet filtering has very little chance of working as you wish it, and the net result of attempts to censor things on the internet is always wider proliferation of said information. If you don’t believe it, I recommend you spend a few minutes on Wikipedia reading up on the Streisand Effect.

Even if you somehow manage to implement a working filter system, you will soon find that you are merely placing an additional burden on your citizens, i..e, the need to bypass your filters in order to get to the content they wish for. The entire venture is utterly moronic.

Jodes says:

08:25am | 18/12/09

I do not want a mandatory filter applied to the internet.  Conroy, you will find yourself booted in the next election for this disastrous, costly scheme, possibly along with the rest of the Australian government if the level of anger in the community is anything to go by.

Phil says:

08:41am | 18/12/09

The architecture of the Internets promote the liberty for the content to flow. It doesn’t discriminate the data that through the tubes. This is what made it a success. This is how it became a major economic pole. This is why it is now centrale to world wide communication. This is how it becamse a major democratic refuge against tyranny, dictatorship and censorship.

If you open the pandora box, and begin the filtering game, who knows where it will end? Will you be able to keep under control the phenomen? In 20 years, will you be able to prevent new gouvernment to filter political dissension? Will you open up the way in the western and democratic part of the world to censorship?

You are playing a dangerous game, jeoparnizing what the Internet have become : the last democratic refuge.

El Bogrease says:

08:52am | 18/12/09

I voted Labor at the last election.
I shan’t be doing that in the next round, the Greens are to get my vote.
This censorship is what i would expect of Abbott and his cave dwellers.

Ethereal says:

09:45am | 18/12/09

And I thought the US state was becoming draconian, looks like you guys can’t talk any more s**t about our country now. Have fun getting censored you f…wits.

DavidF says:

09:47am | 18/12/09

Stephen Conroy - you state that “Most people acknowledge that there is some internet content which is not acceptable in any civilised society”.
My counter is that “Unaccountable Repressive Censorship is not acceptable in any civilised Society”
- Your move

I_Exist says:

09:52am | 18/12/09

Mr Conroy.

FACTS: The filter will not stop criminals.  It will slow everyone’s internet access.  Vigilant parents are the only thing that will stop children accessing harmful websites. 

I am upset that you and Mr Rudd are operating in this manner- and out alternative is ‘Jesus freak’ Abbot!  Is there any where that the rational people can go to live?
Enjoy my taxes.

Wakanda says:

10:51am | 18/12/09

I am amazed and ashamed at the horrific outburst of fellow australians who are concerned that they will no longer be able to access illegal and extreme pornography. That’s all it comes down to.

Is this really the state that our society has come to?

mid says:

11:04am | 18/12/09

@Wakanda: sorry, not sure what you mean by that but if you still think this is about porn then perhaps you have a slight fixation on it and should think long and hard about your motivations. I don’t care about the porn, if this was similar to the German and Italian proposals where only child pornography was blocked and there was some decent oversight of the list then I would be a lot less worried. As it is though, that is not the case. Read up more on exactly what will be blocked, and specifically, check out the information that came to light when the original list was leaked…

Bob says:

11:06am | 18/12/09

If anyone is really upset about this, as it seems the current government is not listening to your concerns and complaints then I suggest you vote them out at the next election. The only party that will bring a rational and out of the box non two party type decisions will be the Sex Party. About time we kick out the religious high moraled holier than thou type governments.

Patrick Bateman says:

11:09am | 18/12/09

I simply cannot believe that we are even having this “debate”.  Has the Labor party gone completely mad with power?

Heather says:

11:24am | 18/12/09

“In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” ~ Benjamin Franklin.

Senator Conroy, as the mother of six children, I admire what you’re trying to achieve. However, no matter what your explanations and justifications, there are two things you and your government need to consider here.

The first is that this sort of filtering has been proven not to work.

The second (and arguably, more important), is that the majority of the electorate does not want this. It is encumbant upon you, as a representative of the people, to represent the majority of the people who put you there.

I have been on the internet for 12-odd years. I have never, ever “accidentally” come across child pornography (I have done so once, but as a volunteer for Geocities back before Yahoo bought them; it was my job to search for inappropriate content so that it could be deleted). My children (aged 8 - 19) have not either. Why? Because I don’t click on suspicious links, have taught my children not to do the same, and I supervise them when they are online.

From a Christian perspective, Mr Conroy, the book you say you believe in says that it is a parent’s job to raise their children not the State’s. It says to render unto Caesar—but this aspect of governence is not Caesar’s job. If you truly do believe in Christian principles you may like to stop overstepping boundaries that “God” says are not yours to walk across. Caesar receives taxes, Caesar provides roads, but Caesar cannot dictate how other people—adults—view religion or the right to say “no” to their government doing things “for our own good”, outside legitimate law and order (this covers real crime, Mr Conroy: rape, murder and catching the bastiges who really do prey on children rather than wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on a fruitless scheme).

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” ~ Albert Camus.

As for me, I live in Treasurer Swan’s electorate. I will not be voting for him next election. Neither, I am told, will my 19 year-old and 18 year-old sons. He can thank you.

Barbara Wilks says:

11:34am | 18/12/09

Thankyou Mr Conroy

As a mother with 2 boys between 10 and 14, it’s a great relief to know that soon I won’t have to watch over my kids using the internet and I’ll be able to get other things done. Many parents just can’t keep up with the technology that kids are into these days, and I applaud you for coming up with such a good solution.

In my day we played outside and nights were spent reading and discussing the bible before bed. I’m praying for kids these days that are into the filth that’s all over the internet. Thank you Mr Conroy for cleaning up the filth.

Heather says:

11:44am | 18/12/09

To Angela 09:44am

Tick google’s “no adult content” filter box before you surf, and watch for typos since you admit this is the issue. Problem solved.

vic says:

11:46am | 18/12/09

Rudd will lose the next election thanks to Conroy. The next election won’t be won or lost on climate climate or interest rates, it will be decided on the issue of Government censorship.
Barbara Wilks, do you truly believe this will protect anyone? If so, you are as ignorant of the technology as the people who will be implementing it.
This will be used as a political tool and nothing more.

Arcanum says:

11:46am | 18/12/09

It is not the thin edge of the wedge, it is the fat edge.
RC classification is outside of direct control of Government (well except they can update it).
However, RC already contains illegal, or promoting of crime as category.
So for government is a simple as making something illegal and its automatically RCed.
So Publishing the blacklist is Illegal, therefore Media reports indicating something has been blocked is prohibited, if media publishes overseas it gets blocked.
Bypassing filter is illegal, therefore instructions to bypass are blocked/issued take down notices.
So courts would not have to enforce the laws of the country, we will have government appointed personnel at OFLC to do that for us.

mid says:

12:06pm | 18/12/09

Barbara Wilks: “I won’t have to watch over my kids”
Then you don’t understand what this filter will do. Not wanting to tell you how to raise your kids, but this is exactly the false sense of security that parents need to be mindful of when it comes to the internet (filtered or unfiltered).

Jacquie Butterfield says:

12:20pm | 18/12/09

Considering most hereunder and above are going to vote Labor out, I’m assuming you voted Labor last time.  Time will tell what we end up with, and I’m looking forward to the show.  Whichever way it falls, it’s going to be an exciting time.  I didn’t realise how many need to search for garbage overseas when we would have enough here to satisfy, don’t we?

Heather says:

12:31pm | 18/12/09

Jasper: “Items are not refused classification based purely on the sexual and violent content; the context of the context is also taken into account. So the hypothetical put forward by one of the Punch articles yesterday that the therapeutic discussion of abuse between victims could be banned is absolute and total scaremongering.”

No. The point is that the filter will (and according to the test list, DID: ie, it’s not “hypothetical” at all) filter out URLs without regard to the context which you describe, and that there is no recourse to fix this. This is entirely different to print and other media currently covered by the legislation you are referring to, which is discussed in person in an open manner and which results are available to the public for all to see whenever they wish to.

Heather says:

12:44pm | 18/12/09

People, if you think Barbara Wilks is being “serious” you need to reinstall your sarcasm filters.

Unfortunately, her comment highlights that some people actually do think this way, Conroy, apparently, included.

RC list going cheap says:

01:34pm | 18/12/09

People, people, people. Give Conroy a chance!

In the course of history there are notable political Leaders that have supported the idea of Government Censorship:

* Adolf Hitler *
* Idi Amin *
* Joseph Stalin *
* Saddam Hussein *
...and plenty more

They couldn’t all be wrong, could they??

(Better get our snide remarks in now, while we still have the right to post anything anti-Government!)

Anon says:

01:47pm | 18/12/09

Just another sign of the iron curtin that is closing around our great land. Yet the general population sit doing nothing as long as they have their facebook and twitter all is right in the world, ignorant fools.

Barbara Wilks says:

01:48pm | 18/12/09

A church friend of mine found one of her teenage kids (underage) to be looking at a disgusting site called motherless which features bestiality. The family then had to get rid of their dog because this filthy site put ideas would into her head.

Do you want to take responsibly for not blocking this trash if the filter does not go through and our children are exposed to it?

The should also filter out things the same way TV shows can only be on at certain times depending on rating.

The sooner they block this stuff the better.

kate says:

02:12pm | 18/12/09

Enjoy my taxes while you’re still drawing a salary, I’ll be doing all I can to ensure that time limit is as short as possible.
IT IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS IF SOME IS PRO-EUTHANASIA, PRO-ABORTION or PRO- A -H*LL-OF -A-LOT-OF-THINGS YOUR GOD-BOTHERING PARTY LEADER SEEMS TO BE OPPOSED TO. You serve the entire population of Australia. Not just the christian lobby and it’s about time you considered that.

orwell was right says:

02:27pm | 18/12/09

NOTE to Conroy:
REPEATING SOMETHING DOESN’T MAKE IT TRUE.

No one believes your motives Conroy.
No one trusts the government.
No one wants more government interference in their lives.

You obviously have to keep blurting out the party line. No matter whether it makes any sense whatsoever. Are you all scared of Chairman KRudd? Can any of our government ministers think for themselves? Repeating the same untruths over and over and over again do not make them TRUE. This type of tactic is something labor has gotten very good at. Just press repeat and sooner or later you’ll just wear everyone down.

I for one will take great pleasure in voting against Labor next election. And unlike some posters here I won’t vote Greens either because they are more hopelessly socialist than Labor. I’m all grown up and don’t need a nanny.

Heather says:

02:28pm | 18/12/09

Oh, oh, I was wrong.

Barbara, yes, I do want to take responsibility for stopping my kids from seeing stuff I deem inappropriate. It’s my job. And one which is not actually that difficult to do.

First time one of my underage (then 17, now 19) sons went surfing for porn on my computer, I took his internets away. ‘Nuff said.

You’re a fool.

new Liberal voter says:

02:49pm | 18/12/09

When in trouble just talk like a robot
oh, and stay on message
.... stay on message

PUhhhleaaase just EMPTY RHETORIC
I want my children to live in a freer more democratic Australia than I did
And in the meantime I’ll raise them myself without all the socialist mumbo jumbo from this government.

Barbara Wilks says:

02:51pm | 18/12/09

To Heather,

And what about outside of your home? The internet is everywhere, parents are not.

zach says:

03:02pm | 18/12/09

Senator Conroy has proven to be a fool who does not understand what he is saying time and time again.  All it takes to break this entire filtering is use a private VPN that is hosted overseas. 

The australian ISP then has no idea what sites I am accessing as all they see is the VPN host.  (Many of these VPNs exist and are used in places like China to access unfiltered internet access) 

When asked about this “the good senators” response is this will not be a problem as our solution is not affected by this. 

Shows him to be a total fool and having no idea about the technology he is meant to look after.

monkey says:

03:06pm | 18/12/09

shame on you conroy. you wouldn’t know ‘the truth’ if it was a manky zit on the end of your nose.

way to take away freedom of speech. i weep. how dare you enforce the moral minority’s views upon me.

this is more than a slippery slope, this is a motherflipping waterslide to hell.

Ash says:

03:11pm | 18/12/09

Conroy, you failed to mention that those 15 countries that have a similar filter are all VOLUNTARY. Australia will be the only western democratic country with a MANDATORY filter.

I hope Labour calls an early election so we can dump them and their outrageous plan before it is implemented.

Brett says:

03:30pm | 18/12/09

@smiggle: We’re not afraid. We’re just not happy that the government is spending MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF OUR TAX REVENUE implementing a FASCIST CENSORSHIP REGIME that will REDUCE INTERNET SPEED and REDUCE INTERNET RELIABILITY and CAN NOT WORK. Do you get it yet? Thought not.

Brett says:

03:34pm | 18/12/09

@Ash: many of those countries have mandatory filters that block child porn. Australia’s filter will block anything determined “Refused Classification”, which can include anything from euthanasia material to information concerning sexually transmitted diseases. It’s a disgrace.

aus anon says:

03:39pm | 18/12/09

We are Australians
We do not forgive
We do not forget
Expect us to: VOTE LABOR OUT

delory says:

05:05pm | 18/12/09

By far the greater threat to ALL Australian children is the threat to their liberty, freedom of speech and information from the ‘outside world’ that this infrastructure would afford.
As a parent of primary school kids, a ‘ranting fundamentalist’ Christian, and a electronic/communications engineer - I cannot see ANY benefit of this proposed solution…...

Kam says:

05:21pm | 18/12/09

@Barbara.

I have to laugh at how naive you are, and be shocked at how much of a bad parent you are

1) the filter will NOT BLOCK PORN AND OTHER DISGUSTING CONTENT. Porn is not RC. You are GROSSLY misinformed as to what this filter will actually do.

2) You should have your own filter on the PC at home which CAN block this stuff, otherwise i am sorry to say you are a TERRIBLE PARENT.

3) Your friends had to get rid of their dog because they got ideas from bestiality? Um…i’m sorry to say but your friends are idiots. If they were getting ideas it wasnt the beastiality that is the problem. It is your friend. They need to seek help. I get so tired of pathetic people like you blaming problems on media. Media does NOT MAKE people do bad things. People will do bad things if they are already inclined to do so. I watch alot of horror films. Ive NEVER wanted to kill anyone. You are Deluded.

4) You mention the bible. This explains it all. You dont THINK for yourself, so why would you want to ACT for yourself OR your family? Pathetic.

You, Barbara, are a disgrace to Humanity and I hope that your children are taken from your care and given to a family that will actually make an ATTEMPT at parenting.

Ben C says:

07:20pm | 18/12/09

Me and my girlfriend Erin are absolutely disgusted in some of the things we see on the internet these days. It definitely needs a clean up. Also the abuse and cyber bullying on some of the forums these days is atrocious. Sorry for your lots Australia, but this needs to happen.

Michael says:

07:55pm | 18/12/09

I had noticed that Senator CONroy has not come back to refute any of the claims made here. He makes a single article and doesnt have the good grace to make it an open debate about the issue. If he REALLY wanted to help parents then there would be a tax rebate for NET NANNY or something similar that parents (which I am one) would be able to voluntarily get. You can not have a mandatory list that is comprised of websites that have complaints about it and MAKE THAT LIST A SECRET!! Stephen and his christian do-gooders can keep out of my house and the way that I go about my life and how I raise my children. If SOME parents want assistance then help THEM. Not me. I sit with MY children, actually interact with them and monitor what they do on the net. If you, senator CONroy, are worried about our children then why dont you block all the childrens websites that paedophiles use to hunt children. Just look at that recent case in South Australia where they 55 year old man who killed that girl after he pretended he was a teenager. Are you going to block those sites as well? Come clean with the REAL reasons senator CONroy, your christian backers want to invade my home and involve themselves with the way I live my life.

Intercept says:

10:30pm | 18/12/09

100% my arse.

Its totally hackable. If I wanted to see any of the banned crap I would be able to do it within 30 seconds flat. And you dont need to be a computer expert to do it.

Do you think people will not educate themselves on how to by pass?

What a waste of money.

ab says:

08:55am | 19/12/09

I’m all for voting labor out and I’m so inspired to see so much opposition to censorship here, contrary to what most of you said it actually gives me more hope for our country when we start to care. One last thing, if we’re going to vote labor out, especially for their blind service to religious group, let’s please not vote in the party who will do the same, Liberal. VOTE DEMOCRAT.
And if all else fails, I’ll move to Canada.

Heather says:

09:02am | 19/12/09

To Barbara: My kids use the net at school; the high school has govt filter software and ISP tracking so that if a student goes on sites they shouldn’t, the teachers are aware and their ‘net access is taken away. The primary school, likewise, as well as a form parents sign depending on what level of ‘net we want our kids to access. None of my children access garbage there. Let’s see… my kids don’t access the ‘net at the library; they don’t need to, I let them use it here.

Their friends? Yeah, that’s a risk, but only for the older boys. The 2 oldest are now adults, I control what they can do in my home, but outside that (ie, outside my rules), they’re adults and I am no longer in a position to dictate—nor is it any of my business—what they are “allowed” to view outside my jurisdiction. (OMG!! Just like Conroy isn’t for me!).  My 15 year-old, well, let’s see. He spends most of his time playing sport (parents are allowed to limit internet time, too, y’know) and what time he does spend online tends to be WoW…. which I also play. In fact, we play together. It’s fun.

Beside the point, anyway. My job is to educate my kids rather that just “worrying about risk.” The point is the filter won’t lessen risk for children. teh point is, where government has jurisdiction (ie, when my kids are at school) the job is already being done. I authorised the government to nanny net my kids in that respect, the measures that are in place there work, and no further intervention is needed. I have NOT authorised the gvernment to come into my HOME and parent for me in a manner that also parents *me* and any other adults who live there, when it really doesn’t take that much time to do the job myself.

Even if the filter would actually do what Conroy claims it does (it doesn’t), I still didn’t ask for it, don’t want it and am perfectly capable of dealing with the issue myself, rather than fobbing off my job as a parent to government agencies because I’m feeling lazy or couldn’t be arsed watching my own kids.

It also helps to know my kids and therefore be aware of what level of supervision is required. I’m not a perfect parent by all means, and am lazy by nature in general but like I said, parental control of the ‘net isn’t actually that difficult. All it takes is a bit of knowledge and comon sense.

As for “worrying about risk” and “responsibility” I can also worry about other things the kids may or may not do outside the home. What if the 15 year old mistimes a cricket ball and loses his teeth? What if the 10 year-old gets run over by a car? What if my 13 year-old daughter gets raped? Hells, I have so much stuff to worry about. We all do. So… the answer is, clearly, to ban cricket for everyone, stop adults from being allowed to drive cars, and make sure a national curfew is imposed to make the streets “safer” at night. Or, as a parent, I can… make sure my 15 year-old gets good coaching. Teach my 10 year-old how to cross the street safely and teach my daughter some self-defence and how to extricate herself or minimise situations in which she puts herself in harms’ way.

Of course, the latter decision will make it harder for me to “get other thngs done”. Maybe I should get everything banned so I don’t have to do my job as a parent. After all, then “I won’t have to watch over my kids” and “I’ll be able to get other things done.”

Still a fool.

haggis says:

01:32pm | 19/12/09

Aw, guys, guys . . . . you’re not in Canberra ruling the world, like Stevie and Kevvie and Penny are. Ruling the world ain’t easy, ask Adolf. An’ I bet you didn’t know how to buy a digital telly. See? And S, K and P with rest of the flock are running a very comprehensive (costly?) TV ad campaign explaining what the labels on new tellies mean. So if you couldn’t work that out for yourselves, it’s a bloomin’ good job Stevie’s there to counter our amorality. Onya Stevie et al - but could you shift your weight a little, my back’s getting quite painful.

Barbara Wilks says:

01:39pm | 19/12/09

To Heathen:
Yes this is about risk management. Do they let kids access adult magazines? - no they have age restriction and closed packaging. Sure it’s not impossible for kids to get hold of it, but at least it’s something that defiantly helps.

If you can access the immoral stuff you want anyway, why complain? If it prevents one child from losing their innocence then it’s worth it.

I think I might write a letter to the government about the idea of time-managed content like TV has. Except adult material wouldn’t be able to be accessed until 10:30 due to western state time zones.

Please refrain from your petty name calling just because you have weaker arguments and don’t share my view.

Peter says:

02:31pm | 19/12/09

Michael says: 07:55pm | 18/12/09

“I had noticed that Senator CONroy has not come back to refute any of the claims made here. He makes a single article and doesnt have the good grace to make it an open debate about the issue.”

I think that’s the biggest failure of sites such as The Punch and the National Times: article writers don’t have the backbone to re-appear and leave comments.

WHERE ARE YOU CONROY? says:

09:49pm | 19/12/09

The first steps to socialism are:
curtailment of information,
curtailment of religion,
minimisation of the family unit, i.e one child families (China);
Gay and same sex marriage,
Utter chaos.

Democracy by definition means the government by people.
That means that all the people should be able to have their say in one way another in everything that affects their lives.
Internet filter represented the start of state censorship.

THERE ARE NO JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THIS CENSORSHIP.
“Australian government admits less than 32% of secret censorship list is related to underage images”
The people OVERWHELMINGLY reject this, but the Govt simply WON’T listen.
There is DEFINITELY a hidden agenda here.

Chris L says:

10:30pm | 19/12/09

Barbara Wilks, if you are for real you have have surrendered your moral reponsibilities to a book and now you surrender what’s left of your free will to the government. I’m fine with that because it’s your choice to make, but I urge you not to lower your guard. Just because you put on a blindfold and say “It doesn’t exist if I can’t see it” does not remove any of the danger that exists in the world. Hopefully you are not robbing your children of the ability to cope with the world when go forth.

Brett says:

12:02am | 20/12/09

Barbara, the Internet is not a magazine publisher, a television network or a film production company. An ISP is not a newsagent, a cinema or a video store. The Internet is a communications medium, much like the telephone network. ISPs are much like (and often also) a telephone company, providing a “carriage service”.

Does the telephone country “let” your children call adult oriented 1902 numbers or talk about adult topics with each other? I presume that you, your childrens parents, prevent or educate your children against such activity, and/or you monitor or supervise their use of the telephone.

Likewise, does the telephone company “let” pedophiles communicate with each other? Do they “let” people use the phone service to discuss or plan criminal activity, which by the way likely includes euthanasia and abortion? No, they do not. Because, like Internet providers, they are simply providing a communications medium, a carriage service.

Sure, it is undesirable to have people using any communications medium in such a way, but WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS THAT DEAL WITH THIS. A filter which will be entirely ineffective serves only to create a false sense of security with parents like yourself and the wider electorate, so the government can say they’re doing something and make you feel better inside. The reality of course is that the filter doesn’t actually prevent anything that the government is purporting it can or will, and that the resources that are being used to fund the filter can only have been diverted away from legitimate efforts (policing, education) to stamp out the activity that the filter apparently aims to stamp out.

It is incredibly small minded and ignorant to suggest that the argument of the vast majority is “weak” and “petty” because in your own words, they “don’t share your view”. You are fully entitled to your “view” and I respect that everyone can have an opinion and should be afforded the right to share it here, on the Internet. However, in a future where the government makes the final call what is and is not allowed on the Internet, or any other communication medium for that manner, you may just not have that right.

Scorpius says:

03:11am | 20/12/09

You know, it’s much funnier to read Conroy’s lies in the voice of Ned Flanders.  Because that’s where this whole policy comes from.

What does the minister have to fear by having an opt-out system for those consumers (he says he’s doing it for the consumers) who want to have a feed that isn’t nannied from the government?

Oh, I know why—he’ll upset his boss.  I’m confused as to which boss, because he seems to be bleating the same old lies of the Australian Christian Lobby.  But then again, his other boss (Chairman Rudd) is the keynote speaker at the ACL conference.

I have my tunnelling software.  The firewall cannot catch me.

Epic fail, Conroy!

McWasd says:

10:12am | 20/12/09

Stephen I say this as a life long labor voter and passionate hater of tony abbot. I will be voting lib at the next election. Even if they are supporting this idiotic policy that sets up a needless cancer on the future of our democracy.
I will be voting against you out of spite. I won’t be the only one.

robert says:

02:31pm | 20/12/09

Mr Conroy over 90 % of people are against censoring TV after 9.30 and a large majority against your internet plan.. WHY dont you listen to the people and why wont you answer that question.  WHY ?

awake to the lies says:

02:49pm | 20/12/09

Using the children who have been indoctrinated by propaganda reminds me of Mao’s China and millions of children holding Mao’s red book while turning on their parents.

And yes I will use the Christmas break to inform all my not so tech savvy friends and families the truth about this censorship - I suggest everyone else does the same to ensure they don’t get away with another pack of lies.

Skogul says:

03:58pm | 20/12/09

If this happens I’m not just voting against the ALP. If this happens, I am going back to Sweden.

Heather says:

04:53pm | 20/12/09

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/163063,commentary-why-we-dont-need-a-filter.aspx

Barbara, I just spent a lot of time typing out a response but the ‘net lost it on submission and I just couldn’t be arsed doing it again, because by your ad hominen accusation it’s fairly clear you’re not even reading what people are writing anyhow. You’ve already come to your decision, which is your right. Read the above article for better facts.

For others: Germany (according to a German ex-pat friend of mine who has been watching their sites—if another German speaker can check on this, be my guest ), has NOT, in fact, passed their legislation, despite what Conroy says. At least, not as of the second week of December. It did go through both houses of Parliament, but their President refused to ratify it, so it is not law. Their proposed legislation is also much more finely tuned than this proposal: 1. it refers to only child porn. 2. There is a three-step addition process that does not rely on “key words” and is done by an actual person who can also refer sites to appropriate authroities, so things like anti-abortion sites and a tuckshop lady’s website could not be “accidentally” added, and 3. The list is not secret, and there is a provision for sites to be removed if they have been added in error.

It’s also worth noting that, according to my friend, the German media’s nicest thing to say about this is “Australia mimics China”.

Further list of those against this proposal, according to http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442

Amnesty International Australia
Australian Lawyers Alliance
Australian Network for Art and Technology
Civil Liberties Australia
Human Rights Coalition
Human Rights Council of Australia
Human Rights Law Resource Centre
Libertus.net
National Arts and Cultural Alliance
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
Public Interest Law Clearing House
Somebody Think of the Children

Final word from me:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” —Adolf Hitler.

Matt says:

10:02pm | 20/12/09

Heather, Hitler never said that, you know.

He said “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people”, he did not say the other half. That was added by a Jewish (ironically enough) scholar who was writing a fictional piece on Hitler.

Craig says:

01:41am | 21/12/09

One of the biggest issues with this proposal is well summed up by Barbara without realising it.

She believes that the provisions that Senator Conroy advocates putting in place will protect her children from things she doesn’t believe they should see online.

The problem is that the proposal from the Senator will do no such thing.

I’m sorry Barbara - I respect your right to believe the internet is ‘full of filth’ and that children shouldn’t see some things that are online - however Senator Conroy is misleading you that his planned filter will support your parenting or protect your children in any way. I appreciate that you probably don’t have a good understanding of the internet and can’t identify when the government is lying to you when they wrap it in technical talk.

Firstly the primary target of the filter is not protecting children from deviant sexual behaviour. From the ACMA blacklist, which was leaked, under 40% was related to content of this type (or was actuallly illegal in Australia).

Secondly the filter will only block a pre-defined list of web pages. It will not affect the distribution of material via peer-to-peer networks, email, newsgroups and emerging online tools. It also will do nothing to prevent cyberbullying or ‘grooming’ that goes on in chatrooms, forums and social networks. In short, it won’t block the main places where children could access the material you don’t want them to see.

Thirdly, internet content changes so quickly - particularly when it’s related to actual illegal activity (as opposed to Restricted Content which is largely NOT illegal in Australia) - sites may only exist for a few hours or days, often on hacked machines from legitimate businesses. There is no conceivable way that ACMA will be able to keep on top of blocking material - or unblocking sites once they cease being hacked. We’ve seen examples in the leaked list already where legitimate organisations remained on the list for several years incorrectly.

Therefore the Barbaras of the world are being misled by the government as their children will NOT be protected in the slightest by Senator Conroy’s filter.

A much better approach is to funnel funds to enforcement services to investigate illegal activity and, working in co-operation with other jurisdictions, actually arrest and try those who perform illegal activities.

This should be coupled with education such that the Barbara’s of Australia are aware that there are over 20 commercial filtering products they can personally have installed on their computers to minimise the risk of their children seeing inappropriate material. They also need to be educated so that they understand the real threats and can recognise the urban myths and rumours.

Many of the Barbara’s of Australia have a very limited understanding of the internet, what it actually contains and how it is used by children. The government need to help her by through education, not false promises.

Barbara, if you truly love and wish to protect your children, don’t rely on Senator Conroy to do this on your behalf. He won’t. Your best strategies are to:
- Educate yourself about the internet
- Purchase an appropriate filter for home - your ISP probably already offers an opt-in family filter for this purpose (similar filters are already in place at school)
- Educate your children as to what you believe is appropriate for them to see, and what to do if they see something that disturbs them.
- Monitor your childrens’ internet access - keep computers out of their bedrooms in family areas (although quiet ones for those studious senior students)

These approaches to parenting work for every other form of negative activity your children may be curious about - such as drugs, alcohol, sex, stealing. The government can’t provide a better role model for your kids than you can.

S. Avethechildren says:

09:17am | 21/12/09

I find the contents of this page offensive. In fact I find everything Conroy says offensive. I think I better report it so children don’t trip over it. SAVE THE CHILDREN!

AJ says:

10:37am | 21/12/09

To those who would vote Liberal over this issue, please remember that Captain Catholic and the hard-right brigade are in charge.  So, don’t expect meaningful opposition whilst the Coalition are in bed with the Australian Christian Lobby, Cardinal Pell, the NSW Hard Right (of Opus Dei and Exclusive Brethren fame) and Bolt/Albrechtsen et al.  If you want this opposed by a party that’s actually in Parliament, you’re going to have to vote Green (or possibly for Xenophon).  If you want to send an even stronger message, put the Pirate Party and Sex Party as your first two preferences, then direct to the Greens.

Heather says:

02:18pm | 21/12/09

Matt, thanks. I’ll have another look.

vic says:

02:20pm | 21/12/09

90% of child pornography is accessed through bulletin boards according to studies. Will these be montored under Conroy’s plan? NO.
So, is this about protecting kids? NO

Garry says:

03:39pm | 23/12/09

@AJ…. and then we have ‘Stay overseas Rudd’ Deeply committed to not doing anything for Australia - i.e. environment, health, Federal Police (okay will admit to accepting a stimulus which my kids will pay off), new home investment going, first home buyers going, access to money to give us solar heating at home going. Or when he does it is with a radical anti people attitude of religious minorities win i.e. the filtering (look at the number of ‘say no’ responders and not one response from Mr Conroy).  We have a deputy whose only comments to a question ‘please tell us your policies’ is to respond ‘well under liberal we will have workchoices badck again’ And well, who else is there? Mr.Swan, still not sure if he can run the treasury - is there anyone else in governement really?

In essence both sides are pretty bad, especially with the merging of religion and state. So lets throw the mud both ways shall we.

I am saddened we are debating but no one is listenng.