Filter trial report in September: Conroy

By Ry Crozier on Jul 9, 2009 6:30 AM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Government says its aims are “modest”.

A report on the first round of internet filter trials is still up to eight weeks away due to the staggered approval of ISPs, said Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.

Speaking to iTnews after a broadband conference in Sydney this week, Senator Conroy said it was too early to determine how or if the Government's policy direction on filtering might shift as a result of the trial.

"All ISPs haven't yet completed the tests," he said.

"We had hoped to have the final report by now but because of the staggered way ISPs came into the trial, we expect to get the report in the next six to eight weeks."

Unwired is the most recent addition to the trials, receiving an $1870 grant to participate in late May, according to Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy documents.

iTnews reported at the time that Unwired had also received an extra month to spend its grant money, pointing to a time extension on the first round of trials.

Optus and Nelson Bay Online joined the trial in late April, more than two months after the first six ISPs were announced.

The original six were Primus Telecommunications, Tech 2U, Webshield, OMNIconnect, Netforce and Highway 1.

Testing is being done by Enex Testlabs, whose contract with the department for services relating to the filters is up for renewal next month.

Conroy said the Government's aims for ISP-level filtering had not changed - and hinted they are unlikely to be expanded as a result of the report.

"Our proposition has always been a modest one - to block child pornography," he said.

Filter trial report in September: Conroy

16 comments in this discussion

"It's not only power-driven subterfuge; it's also money drive. Hollywood studios donate large sums of money to certain political parties - and tehy are also very big proponents of internet ..."

By Bourkie

Tags

conroy, internet, filter, isp, trial, report, optus, unwired, policy

Conroy to keep pushing mandatory ISP filters

FamilyVoice call to expand ISP filters

Telstra, Optus to rely on old filter trials

Conroy delays ISP filter until after content review

Breaking Stories

New NZ IT minister accused of 'extraordinary secrecy'

Govt spies early exit from Telstra contract

Suncorp rules out outsourced IT as customers go online

Accenture wins Health data warehouse deal

Comments: 16

Gaspode Jul 9, 2009 7:56 AM	"Our proposition has always been a modest one - to block child pornography" Conroy can't keep his story straight from one sentence to the next. On SBS' Insight in March he said "We've only ever intended to block Refused Classification material." Back in 2008 (and before) the intention was to block "Prohibited content" as defined by the Broadcasting Services Act (RC, X18+, R18+, MA15+). Even if they do finally come forward with a WRITTEN proposal to block NOTHING BUT child pornography, nobody in their right mind would trust Conroy, the ALP, or ANY future government to keep it that way, and to never ever expand the scope of the Rabbit-Proof Firewall. Every single national blacklist that has leaked so far has proven that governments cannot be trusted with the power of censorship, and that's WITHOUT delving into the totalitarian states like China and Iran. Stephen Conroy comes up for re-election in 2010. Everyone, please, even if you still think you might vote Labor, PLEASE! VOTE BELOW THE LINE! Please don't let the system re-elect this maniacal sociopath.
Sams Jul 9, 2009 8:55 AM	Conroy is on the record as saying this in parliament: “The pilot will specifically test filtering against the ACMA blacklist of prohibited content, which is mostly child pornography, as well as filtering of other unwanted content” The guy is a liar.
Slatts Jul 9, 2009 9:39 AM	if anyone wishes to contact the minister, this is a link to his contact detail page. If it were mine, I'd have the photo changed.
anonymous Jul 9, 2009 9:43 AM	Conroy is a serial liar, just as Gaspode and Sams say. Conroy runs the only-to-block-child-pornography line to blindside Net users in forums like this, while revealing elsewhere that the real intention is to secretly ban all "inappropriate" content. The Rabbit-Proof Firewall won't stop the pedophiles because they will go straight round it, a fact that Senator Conroy doesn't want to know. But it will do a great job of facilitating the shutdown of opposing political views. So Conroy will announce triumphantly that the trial has been a great success and the filter will be imposed immediately, in accordance with the current Chinese government principles of saving the children. Who could possibly argue against that?
Bourkie Jul 9, 2009 3:37 PM	Internet censorship filters simply drive child-abusers further underground (onto encrypted P2P networks etc) and therefore makes it much harder for police to track and catch these rock spider pedos. As a direct result there will be more of these child-abusers marauding your streets, your shopping centres, and your playgrounds - with YOUR children! Supporters of internet censorship filters are therefore directly supporting child-abusers; in effect they are essentially child-abusers themselves.
Slatts Jul 10, 2009 7:25 PM	Bourkie wrote: Supporters of internet censorship filters are therefore directly supporting child-abusers; in effect they are essentially child-abusers themselves. Jesus Bourkie, don't hold back mate...
Bourkie Jul 13, 2009 11:15 AM	Conroy accused respectable Greens senator Scott Ludlam of being pro child pornography. That makes him worse than a liar; a hypocrite - Conroy is far closer to directly increasing child-abuse than Ludlam ever will. When will these religious fundamentalists go to hell and die?
Maxxi Jul 16, 2009 4:48 PM	Ah Bourkie, you remain a total epic fail as a human being... You can be counted on to give the gov more ammunition to shoot down the "blogging radicals" than anybody else alive. You really have no idea do you. (not a question) People like you guarantee that this filter and P2P controls will happen.
anonymous Jul 16, 2009 5:43 PM	Perhaps some of Senator Conroy's staff and supporters are trying to defend the indefensible by attacking people who use their democratic right to point out that some of his policies are less than perfect. Suggestions that only a dozen people are opposed to Conroy's stupid filter are so obviously wrong that they need no response. And attacking comments by Bourkie et al is just grubby old strawman politics instead of anything constructive.
Maxxi Jul 16, 2009 7:29 PM	Hey anonymous, Jul 16, 2009 5:43 PM... It's called Freedom of Speech mate, and it sounds like you are trying to censor me? Not another Censorship Troll? It is my democratic right to point out that Bourkies statements are less than truthful and border on utterly ridiculous... Going by Bourkies logic, 95% of UK ISPs are child abusers, as are 70% of German ISPs... They were all voluntary users of internet filters. I was dumbstruck to learn that 95% of all UK ISPs were religious fundamantalists and child abusers... And of course only grubby old strawmen would attack the saintlike Bourkie, right? He never attacks anybody personally, does he?
HyRax Jul 17, 2009 4:29 PM	@Maxxi: Not trying to detract from the craziness that is censorship in this country, but Australians do not have an actual constitutional right to Freedom of Speech like Americans do. The government in this country actually does have a right to stick its face in everything we do short of what is outlined in the Privacy Act (which of course can be amended as the government sees fit). Sure, we'll all kick up a stink, march in the streets and threaten the government with no votes in the next election - that is about the only thing that stops the government from employing full-on communist tactics - but what also scares the government is being proved WRONG. If this became law tomorrow, Conroy and the government would have major egg on their faces when everyone starts bypassing it and sends millions of Australian dollars to America when people start buying virtual servers over there en-masse to do their surfing. Not only that, the Federal Police will have a dramatically harder time trying to catch the real cyber-crooks out there because an SSH/VPN connection to a server can have many hundreds of connections on it (eg: P2P), but as far as the ISP is concerned, they would only see one connection (that being the SSH/VPN tunnel), and it's encrypted! Short of outlawing SSH and VPN tunnels (which will drive billions of dollars of corporate business away from Australia), any form of filtering will fail. The Great Firewall of China has failed because of the ability to tunnel out. If the Chinese government can't execute a 100% perfect filter, what hope does the Australian government have? They are in way over their head. And here's the really funny thing about it all - the very kids that Conroy is trying to "save" from the evils of the Internet will be the ones by-passing the filters first, such is the impetuousness and ingenuity of youth. :)
Maxxi Jul 18, 2009 11:41 PM	Hey HyRax, you raise some points that need looking at... What I can never figure out, is of the filters are so easy to get around, which I figure is true, then why all the outrage from some people? Most folks will not even bother and will just keep on surfing as before, and some folks will use their VPNs and proxies and enjoy their freedom. But communist tactics? My dad fought against communists in SE Asia, most here have no idea... Communist tactics is shooting folks in the head, dragging them off to prisons, all opposition parties outlawed. If you figure Rudd and Conroy are going down that path then we have whoa bigger problems than some pissant filter... I keep reading that all the pedo stuff is already on P2P, so why does AFP work become harder now then? No logic. It only get's harder if there is substantial pedo stuff on WWW today, which means Conroy is right??? What I cannot figure is this 100% filter thing? I have googled my ass off and cannot find a statement from Conroy that ever spoke of a 100% filter guarantee, or that being the success criteria?? Yep, many kids will get around the filter when they want, clear... But most won't even bother. We found ways of getting at mens mags when were teenagers as well... But that is not going to stop this filter thing going forward. In the real world of senate votes, Minchin and Xenophon have bigger fish to fry and will barter off their votes. Your point on freedom of speech is a good one, that gives me some food for thought. Thanks...
Bourkie Jul 27, 2009 11:54 AM	Maxxi wrote: 'Ah Bourkie, you remain a total epic fail as a human being...' Ah the personal attacks again, instead of evidence - well done you! The Labor government has cut millions of dollars from OCSET federal police funding - already making it so difficult for them that they have to refer many cases to state ppolice forces because they don't have the resources to handle them themselves. Obviously you knew all this already, because you're just so erudite in this field of expertise aren't you. Maxxi wrote: 'It is my democratic right to point out that Bourkies statements are less than truthful and border on utterly ridiculous...' Without any evidence? You have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever explaining why my original post contains any factual flaws. We all eagerly await your irrefutable evidence! Of course, if you can't provide any then that makes you not only a liar, but far far worse; a hypocrite as well!
Bourkie Jul 27, 2009 2:55 PM	Perhaps if some of you wowsers actually watched enough erotica your love-lives would improve and you wouldn't be so stressed and irritable, hmm? Just because you choose to live lives of relative celibacy doesn't mean you have any right to restrict sexual freedoms involving adults. This is the third millennium not medieval Europe, stop living in the past. I was watching Changi on the ABC one night. It showed an extremely explicit and graphic depiction of a Japanese soldier shooting a kneeling Australian prisoner, execution-style, right between the eyes at point-blank range. This is a violent act on free to air television, screened by our national broadcaster. (not to mention, could very well also engender or inflame racial hatred, along Hanson lines). Yet you wowsers want naked adults removed from the internet?! Over my dead body! If you believe that naked adult flesh is worse than violence, then I am sorry but you are mentally ill.
anonymous Jul 28, 2009 12:42 PM	Bourkie, it's not the ACL wowsers and their mates (who want to ban everything) who are the main problem. At least they are acting from genuine conviction, misguided and technically ignorant as they may be. The real dangers are the lying politicians and their apparatchiks who want to control what we see and hear. They cunningly figure that if they keep saying it's all for the children, the chorus of support from the godbotherers will drown out the protests from those who can see through the duplicity.
Bourkie Jul 28, 2009 1:33 PM	It's not only power-driven subterfuge; it's also money drive. Hollywood studios donate large sums of money to certain political parties - and tehy are also very big proponents of internet censorship (torrent sites etc).