Conroy to keep pushing mandatory ISP filters

By Ry Crozier on Aug 10, 2010 2:08 PM
Filed under Networking

Even without Senate numbers.

The Government will push ahead with its controversial mandatory ISP filter plan despite appearing to no longer have the Senate numbers to see the bill pass.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy told the ICT leaders debate in Canberra that the Australian Labor Party, if re-elected, would continue its implementation of the unpopular policy.

"We will bring forward the legislation once we've finished the review [of refused classification guidelines]," Conroy said.

That elicited a surprised response from Greens Senator Scott Ludlam. Both the Greens and Liberal-National Coalition have indicated they will not support the current proposal.

"I'm a bit surprised to hear that when they no longer have the numbers in parliament to bring it forward," Ludlam said.

"It does seem to be a waste of resources."

Opposition Communications Minister Tony Smith criticised the technical trials commissioned by the Government and the delays in introducing the legislation to parliament.

He also said that "the only way [internet filtering] won't slow the internet is if it's totally ineffective", resulting in protests by Conroy: "That's not true."

The Coalition has indicated it supports PC-based filtering rather than filtering at the ISP level and committed $60 million over four years to reintroduce PC filters.

Conroy to keep pushing mandatory ISP filters

16 comments in this discussion

"I laughed how in the communications debate, Steven Conroy said "so are you going to let those 400 child porn websites available on the internet to see" I was like, hmmm, Im pretty damn sure that ..."

By deteego

Tags

election10, stephen, conroy, internet, filter, refused, classification, content, review, telstra, optus, iprimus, voluntary, filter, isp

Telstra, Optus to rely on old filter trials

Conroy delays ISP filter until after content review

Feds focus on voluntary-filter ISPs

Telstra, Optus, TPG buy $2bn of mobile spectrum

Breaking Stories

Mater CIO shows QLD Health 'how it's done'

QLD Transport to replace 'cumbersome' data search

Melbourne firies use drone to check dangling truck

DNS DDoS attacks skyrocket

Photos: Toshiba's 2013 laptops

Comments: 16

EMwyres Aug 10, 2010 2:14 PM	headdesk Is there no limit to the idiocy and/or deviousness of this man?
RDEFCON1 Aug 10, 2010 2:20 PM	/facepalm
Maxxi2 Aug 10, 2010 3:30 PM	What, you really thought that some political positioning from Tony Smith and Scott Ludlam prior to the election was going to be enough for Conroy and the ALP to drop the policy? Did you really think it was going to be that easy? Meanwhile, getting back to reality, the ALP is not convinced there are nearly as many votes to lose with this policy as the Libs and Greens are hoping can be won. Conroy sees just 100 people turn up for an anti-filter event chaired by Turnbull in Sydney and does his numbers. Conroy's people and election strategists place no value in online polls, and have not for a long time, as they are far too easily manipulated... The filter is noise value at best for the big parties, and a veritable minnow compared to education, NBN, economy, health, trade, GFC stimulus spending etc. There are thousands of examples of pre-election statements and political positioning that puffed away in the first breeze post election as deals are done and they get down to the real biz of government. Good luck if you are relying on the Coalition in opposition post-election, but I would not hold your breath if I was you. You also have to remember that Conroy was also pillored for staring down Telstra and calling their bluff more than once, and he eventually prevailed. Underestimating his resolution and execution is something Sol, the Libs and the Telstra board can all talk about at length...
scan06disk Aug 10, 2010 10:54 PM	Why is this guy soo selfish ??? Its our $150 million he is THROWING ON wasted precautions that will never work ! What kind of party would hire and still manage to keep a nutjob like him ?
peterniss Aug 10, 2010 11:23 PM	I just felt a hundred IQ points stupider reading Conroys statements. Until Conroy admits his filter plan is stupid as it stands I cant respect him. His google bashing does him no favours either. I want the NBN but I dont want the China like authoritarian rule that Conroy insists goes with it.
ITrant Aug 12, 2010 12:26 AM	A re-elected Labor government will claim a mandate for their censored internet even though they took it off the table for the election. We need to seriously vote Greens and independents to check this insanity.
Ace Aug 12, 2010 10:25 AM	I was initially worried about that too @ITRant. However, given the amount of opposition so far, I think it would be very difficult for Labor to claim any kind of mandate on filtering. The fact they took it of the table for the election removes their ability to make such a claim.
advocate Aug 12, 2010 10:45 AM	Ace: there were many things that were not on the table prior to the last election when the Rudd Labor Government won power from the Howard Government, the NBN was not even on the Labor election platform, but here we go with it being rolled out, the voters will get their chance mandating that one on August 21st! I would like to know what the 'massive opposition' to internet filtering that people are quoting here is, and I don't mean minority opinion from tech geek forums like this or Whirlpool, I mean proper statistics that represent the population. Edited by advocate: 12/8/2010 10:47:34 AM
deteego Aug 12, 2010 12:28 PM	@Advocate, Its more then just geeks or nerds If you have a look at QA, responses to media coverage on the issue (on non tech websites) etc etc, 90%+ of the responses are against the filter. The filter only has "unanimous" support from very narrow minded lobbyists (Christian Democratic Party for example) which is the kind of people that Labor are trying to get "support" from The agenda for the "average" person is more on the issue on free speech (this is for example what Getups main position), the only other countries that have nationwide mandatory ISP filtering are all non "democratic" countries (China, Iran, North Korea etc etc). The agenda from the more tech savvy people (also along with free speech) is that its ineffective (most of this material is now shared through PVP, easily circumvented, cannot be used on high traffic websites without a massive speed decrease, the speed cost is greater the more websites get filtered, so only a select number of websites are actually filtered (400 according to what Steven Conroy said at latest)). There are a lot more then 400 child porn websites out there ;) So as I said earlier, look at places like Getup and whatnot, alot of former Labor Voters have also moved to Greens (because originally they were the only party to actually stand against it). Now the coalition is as well
anonymous Aug 12, 2010 2:44 PM	@Ace, you're right about Conboy (probably under orders) taking the filter off the table until after the election, but while it might be out of sight, it's certainly not gone. Conboy will simply repeat what he did after the last election, when he attempted to impose a much wider filter coverage than was in the election policy. And again he'll have the hide to lie about it, and claim a mandate to do whatever he wants in conjunction with his pet "stakeholders".
advocate Aug 12, 2010 7:52 PM	If you think that the single issue of the internet filter is going to determine whether Labor, Coalition or the Greens gain or lose seats you are dreaming, it has a frenzy of interest in cosy closed tech forums like this but in the real world most voters couldn't give a stuff. Edited by advocate: 12/8/2010 07:53:46 PM
Ace Aug 13, 2010 12:41 AM	It seems there was enough noise about the proposed filter for it to be a worry for Labor with respect to their election campaign. While it may not be a vote changer, it's the kind of thing that could distract papers/voters in a negative way for a least a few days, much as Abbotts network plan has distracted papers from what he is trying to say. When a party puts something up as a major policy issue that gives people a reason to vote for or against you during an election, and they win, then they have a mandate. Taking an issue off the table removes that claim. So I imagine that post-election, should Labor win, it'll be game on again
deteego Aug 16, 2010 11:35 AM	@Advocate Maybe you should watch that QA episode (one of the most watched shows on Australian public TV) which I was talking about. Practically the whole audience opposed the filter, boo'ed w/e Labor senator was supporting it (I think it was Tony Burk, I can't remember exactly who it was) and the Twitter page was being flooded with comments about people against the Filter. It was obvious that the panel was not filled with "tech nerds" because the issue doesn't just involve them Getup's petition against the filter already has 160000 people signed up for it
RDEFCON1 Aug 16, 2010 12:22 PM	The scariest thing about the filter is that it will be almost completely ineffective as it can be bypassed in a number of ways. The next step for a government, seeing their filter is ineffective and facing the inevitable post-implementation criticism in the media, would be to enact laws making bypass of the filter a criminal offence. The filter is just the first step on a VERY slippery slope. I don't understand why the media themselves are not making this a much bigger issue.
anonymous Aug 16, 2010 3:27 PM	Excellent points, RDEFCON1. It's been suggested that Big Media may be quite happy with the concept of government censorship. It won't apply to them and it will inhibit user access to some of their smaller and more nimble competitors. An added bonus would be if they were able to convince the government (perhaps through a chance meeting at some exotic holiday destination. . .) that the censorship system should be expanded further to control access to filesharing technology.
deteego Aug 16, 2010 6:59 PM	I laughed how in the communications debate, Steven Conroy said "so are you going to let those 400 child porn websites available on the internet to see" I was like, hmmm, Im pretty damn sure that 1. If someone wanted to see those specific porn websites, they could easily bypass the filter 2. There are a lot more then 400 child porn websites 3. Those websites can use other strategies themselves to bypass the mandatory filter (reverse DNS etc etc) 4. Majority of child porn (and probably biggest offenders) is on P2P????? 5. The government was forced to block such a minute amount of websites (original number was meant to be >1000) because evidence showed, the more you blocked, the bigger stretch you put on the bandwith. Also blocking high traffic websites was pointless 6. Steven Conroy admitted that high traffic websites couldn't be blocked for reason #5, so does that mean high traffic child porn websites won't be blocked???