Conroy reveals plans to censor the internet

By Ry Crozier, Brett Winterford, Ben Grubb on Dec 15, 2009 3:32 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Mandatory ISP-level filtering comes to Australia.

The Federal Government will introduce laws to make ISP-level filtering mandatory for all refused-classification material hosted overseas.

It will amend the Broadcasting Services Act next August to enforce the filter, which it expects to be operational within a year of implementation.

Grants will be made to providers that wish to further filter X18+ sites.

Announcing the measure today, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said that the legislation would require ISPs to block RC-rated material hosted on overseas servers. He said it was an "additional measure to the existing take-down regime for Australia-hosted content".

Senator Conroy justified the filter, saying that "most Australians acknowledge that there is some internet content which is not acceptable in any civilised society".

"It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material," he said.

Report released

Senator Conroy said a pilot conducted by Enex TestLabs in conjunction with Australia's largest ISPs proved that such filtering was viable.

"The report into the pilot trial of ISP-level filtering demonstrates that blocking RC-rated material can be done with 100 percent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed," he said.

Transparency?

The Government announced that the list of blocked RC content would be compiled "through a public complaints mechanism".

But these public complaints will only form a subset of the total content blocked. The Government will also add "specific internet addresses (URLs) of known child abuse material through sharing lists with highly regarded international agencies after an assessment of the rigour and accountability of classification processes used by these agencies".

The Government said it was "also introducing new transparency measures to ensure the public can have absolute confidence in the process for material being placed on the RC Content list" but is yet to release details.

It is believed the mechanism for this process will be hammered out during the consultation phase over the next few months.

Click here for industry reactions to the news.

Read the latest breaking news on the filtering announcement here.

Conroy reveals plans to censor the internet

50 comments in this discussion

"Tits like coconut... An elderly maiden in the UK some time ago switched on her wireless set and heard "...Tits like coconut..." she immediately switched off and wrote a letter to the BBC, ..."

By geriatrixcomputerix

Tags

conroy, internet, filter, filtering

Conroy abandons mandatory ISP filtering

Tim Berners-Lee calls data retention a 'really, really bad idea'

Industry backs 'workable' filter solution

Pirate Party wins right to contest federal election

Breaking Stories

Microsoft researcher predicts Eurovision winner

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

Comments: 50

Sams Dec 15, 2009 3:38 PM	Moronic. "The report's release appeared to coincide with an outage of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy website." Confidence inspiring - not. It also coincides with the time that political interest is focussed elsewhere.
estate Dec 15, 2009 4:06 PM	Just absurd. The government deciding that we are not allowed to view content that is LEGAL to view within Australia. If you want to stop your citizens from watching certain material, pass legislation making that material illegal. Governments have no business preventing people from viewing legal content.
Maxxi Dec 15, 2009 4:19 PM	That content may have been "legal" yesterday estate, however it will not be legal when the new legislation is enacted. Governments do have business defining what is legal (aka making laws and legislation...) and then are accountable for the implementation of measures to support the enforcement of those laws. The government decided that we are not allowed to access content that will bge defined as illegal at that time. Trying to apply a law that is coming to circumstances from the past is an error.
Maxxi Dec 15, 2009 4:21 PM	Sams, the report was available on various mirror sites. I expect it was an overload as thousands of folks crowded to download the file... As for the timing, well what did we expect...?
anonymous Dec 15, 2009 4:27 PM	"Don't worry, everyone's thinking about Copenhagen and Christmas holidays, so we'll sneak this in and the punters will have forgotten about it when they come back from holidays." Yes, Minister. This is not courageous, this is the dumbest thing done so far by a government that looked as though it would do a lot better than this. You might find that the punters are paying a lot more attention to your secret political censorship than you think, or would like.
TruthSphere Dec 15, 2009 4:46 PM	What the f* is happening!??!? 2009 is the year the Web went to s* in Australia. - Conroy Filters Internet - Sony etc. (AFACT) Declare War - Conroy NBN Fail What's next?
Digger11 Dec 15, 2009 4:58 PM	Like always aroind here, I actually agree with the cleaning up of the web. Having young children who want to use the Internet, I have to monitor it so closely as it as an absolutely horrible place that is full of child porn, paedophiles and lots of really disgusting places. and remember, not everyone can look after themselves like I am guessing most posters on this website can do.
nate.cochrane Dec 15, 2009 5:04 PM	Conroy's release says that video games will be immunised from the filter until the adult rating is considered. Conroy: "The Minister for Home Affairs yesterday announced a public consultation process into whether there should be an R18+ classification category for computer games. Until this process is complete, online computer games will be excluded from mandatory filtering of RC content."
Robby Dec 15, 2009 5:05 PM	Christian Lobby Groups 1 - Australian Freedom of Speech 0 So much for the seperation of State and Religion in Australia. Think of the Children is simply an excuse to stifle public debate on topics the Christians love to hate - Abortion, Euthansia, Gay Marriage and anything else that may or may not be a sin. I've always voted Labor and for the very first time, I'm actually considering voting Liberal. Congratulations KRudd and Conjob, I'm no longer a believer.
matte Dec 15, 2009 5:05 PM	This is just more government censorship and control. What happens when they block a site that contains negative content towards the government? What happens when they block a web site that suggests global warming is not man made? I want a clause in this legislation for the tax payer (or the guy who funds all this stuff). When the government 'accidentally' blocks a web site that is actually OK - $1,000 is to be credited to every taxpayers return for that financial year. There is no penalty for the government to do the wrong thing. No penalty for doing the wrong thing - more mistakes will be made. No contract in the real world - does not contain penalty clauses. Why should we excuse the government? Oh and another thing - where are all these 'people' who what this? I don't know of - or have meet anyone who seriously wants this.
nybler NQ Dec 15, 2009 5:18 PM	This is the begining of instruments being put into legislation allowing the government to censor anything that they dont want us to know. If they want to hide the next interest rate rise or maybe even whats happening on border protection or perhaps laws we wont even know about until we are in court answering to them. Right on cue Digger11 comes out with something ridiculous, we all hate the paedophiles pal so how about actually reporting all those sites you have found to the police like the rest of us do if ever stumbled upon. Its not hard you can it anomalously through crime stoppers. All that is needed is comonsense not censorship.
KJ Dec 15, 2009 5:20 PM	digger11 at the old astro turf support again again. I monitor my three kids on the net and they never seem to find these disgusting places ....
BrettWinterford Dec 15, 2009 5:28 PM	@KJ - maybe Digger11's kids discovered the 'History' tab on his browser... :)
Rhino Dec 15, 2009 5:36 PM	I'm with KJ, I monitor my kids use of the internet all the time and they have never, EVER come across anything which is not appropriate for them. This has nothing to do with pornography. And as for "conjunction with Australia's largest ISPs". What a load of sh**!! They picked what are the 3 (was it) smallest ISP's in the country who implemented and opt in trial, which gathered a user base of I think 2,000 users. Why not trial it on Telstra, Optus, Internode, iiNet (Diggers fav provider) with a user base of 100's thousands, and see how good the filter works then. But that doesn't support the governments stance on it. Congrats all you fans of this, you have approved sending this great country down a disgraceful path which we may never recover from. I bet when the censorship block something you're interested in you'll be crying the loudest.
gikku Dec 15, 2009 6:35 PM	"100 percent accuracy" hilarious!
MichaelJM Dec 15, 2009 6:45 PM	Communications Minister Stephen Conroy so far has ;- (1) done his best to stuff up the NBN. (2) tried hard to censor the Internet. (3) endeavoured to screw Telstra shareholders by splitting Telstra but only after the Government has sold its shares. So what will this dork do next??? He is totally unsuitable as a Communications Minister. He couldn't even train a pigeon.
legless Dec 15, 2009 6:47 PM	Well Australia joins a list of open, free countries that are fully supportive of their citizens' rights to freedom of information and open discourse. Countries like Iran, Cuba, North Korea and China. It won't stop the ability of paedophiles to continue their nasty hobby but it will allow the government to control what we see. For now it's child porn but who knows what future governments will deem unsuitable and add to the list. There should have been a referendum on something like this that affects our freedoms. A move like this is likely to put the government back into Liberal hands at the next election and under the control of Abbott and his minions. Well done Conroy and your brain dead cronies. You've just sent us back to the 19th century.
regan Dec 15, 2009 7:44 PM	TOR based ISP filtering by-pass routers for sale.... http://pymblesoftware.com/store/index.php/systems/tin-foil-hat-isp-filtering-by-pass-router.html
matte Dec 15, 2009 9:24 PM	If your a parent - and your concerned about what your kids are looking at - FINE - use the governments web filter. I object to it NOT being optional. I also object to it being funded by tax payers. Why don't parents purchase a web filter or proxy if they require it. The tax payers of Australia are getting very tired of consecutive Governments thinking that they are an endless source of money. btw - Brett - I thought your comment was funny - even if nobody else thought so ... ;-)
FLashy Dec 15, 2009 10:01 PM	I found Conroy's brother http://www.worktobejudged.com/strippause/peca.html By the way can we ban all religious pages too?
Mordd Dec 15, 2009 10:23 PM	Thats it, ill be sending in my paid Pirate Party membership application next week, bring on 2010 federal election! Now it wont just be the great fireWall of China, it will also be the great barrier wreath of internet access.
Mordd Dec 15, 2009 10:30 PM	Any reason why this won't work to get past the filter btw: http://aaron552.syte.cc/blog/2009/04/30/tor-windows/ I don't see the need to actually go to a hardware level to get past it, that cost is rather extreme, and last time I checked it was relatively simply to setup software based TOR connections right?
tallguy Dec 15, 2009 11:22 PM	Did I miss something? I thought the filter was only intented to target RC material - i.e. stuff that is not legally available in any other medium in Australia, so why should it be available on the internet? I doubt this is really about protecting people from themselves so much (despite arguments about the children). There is still plenty of stuff on the web that is not RC that I would definitely not want my kids looking at!
ap Dec 15, 2009 11:55 PM	Senator Conroy is playing with words I think. His statement that the filter can "block RC content with 100% accuracy" is technically correct. In order to be deemed "RC" something has to have been investigated and formally "refused classification". A specific item of content from a specific web site on a specific IP address, which has previously been investigated by the police and deemed to be RC, can be blocked from direct access. Easy. 100% accuracy. However, I think most people reading the statement (and perhaps the accompanying price tag on the solution) would be lead to believe that once implemented, this filter will completely, and with 100% accuarcy, block all child porn (and other RC material) from being transmited across the Internet, anywhere in Australia. There is a huge chasm between these 2 definitions of "100% accuracy". The political spin-doctoring will sell the "block all unwanted content", while strictly meaning "block previously identified material".
Sams Dec 16, 2009 1:04 AM	I also have a young child, and I certainly will not be relying on the government to determine what they can and can't see. Most computer users are quite capable of following the simple instructions required to install filtering software of their choice if they wish to. Aside from the fact that fear-mongering hyperbole such as saying the internet is "full of child porn" does not stand up to scrutiny, the government filtering plan can in no way achieve what it claims. It is certainly not going to block the vast majority of material that is not suitable for young children, and will have zero impact on the number of paedophiles on the net. The information and tools to get around the filter will become commonplace (Firefox add-on?). I think the thing that takes the cake is the government trying to give the impression that they can run around and classify all of the content on the Internet. I can't decide if its a comedy or a tragedy.
Golodh Dec 16, 2009 4:12 AM	GO AUSTRALIA! Speaking as a foreigner, I'm grateful for Australia's antics in the censor-the-Internet arena. First of all, let no-one doubt that this filter will be 100% ineffective in blocking things like pornography or violent shoot-'em-up games. Just log into any http proxy server and all restrictions disappear. Or use Google to find appropriately named zip files on hosts. Or use p2p filesharing software. Or use bulletin boards dedicated to pornography. Or use certain ftp servers. Not to mention Usenet, which will need to be banned altogether. Perhaps some grown-ups (those holding government positions ?) won't know what that means (or how to do it), but most kiddies between 12 and 18 certainly will. And if they don't, their mates will fill them in. To me the best thing about this little experiment is that it will be conducted in a corner of the world where it can't do much harm, but where its effects (and failure) will still be highly visible (i.e. Australia). Rest assured that the new Governmental Blacklist will contain as many false positives as the old ones that were posted on Wikileaks. Yup, at least two copies of the ban-list were published, the first one dating from immediately before, the second one from immediately after the first list was published on Wikileaks. The funny thing is that the second list is about half the size of the first one. Apparently publication of the list prompted the authorities maintaining that list to drastically purge it. Shows that "the Government" was on the right track with its list, right? Out of curiosity I downloaded those 2 versions and viewed a sample of those disallowed sites. I have to admit that most sites in that sample were indeed pretty objectionable, and about half of those did indeed feature child porn of some kind or another. So ... I'm not against such sites being filtered. The question is of course: is it worth it to empower the Government to pre-emptively censor what people can or cannot see on the Internet? As soon as you allow that, you're interfering with freedom of speech, and that's the classical road to dictatorship. China for example has some pretty clear-cut ideas about that, and uses "unhealthy material" as an excuse to block anything to do with Tianmin, Tibet, Oighurs, Falun Gong and the like. An example which Australia now seeks to follow. Will there be atleast some people who are hurt by banned material being available? Probably. Is that worth the price of restricting freedom of speech? Some countries (thankfully my own included) give precedence to freedom of speech over nebulous "save-the-kiddies" initiatives. Individual cases of harm will still occur, but they simply are the cost of doing business. For comparison, car accidents claim around 40,000 lives in the US annually. But only a fool would suggest that automobiles should be banned. I think the same holds for Internet sites. The problem is: simply blocking sites with child pornography is not enough. You can mandate safety-belt legislation, but you cannot effectively block a subset of hosts on the Internet. The Internet having a _network_ structure, it's easy to route around blacklists. So either the whole scheme falls flat, or you have to start blocking the workarounds too. And the workarounds to the blocked workarounds, etc. etc.. For example, disclosure sites like Wikileaks cannot be allowed either, because they show copies of blacklists. Search engines like Google cannot be allowed either because they serve as a primary means for estalishing workarounds. Zipfiles must be scanned too, because pornographic material can be (and indeed is) stored on file-sharing servers. Encrypted datastreams must trigger an alert and a police raid, because if they don't that's how pornography will penetrate the Great Australian File Firewall Extension (I like the acronym). The same for historical records of anyone downloading a file that is found , after the download date, to infringe the banned-list (or you allow people to slip in and re-distribute any old material before sites are blocked). Has anyone done a cost-benefit analysis of the benefits and disbenefits of this "save-the-kiddies" initiative? Apparently not in Australia. Oh yes, I do want to offer at least one positve contribution to the Australian situation. According to this link (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7878412.stm ) about 50% of all bush-fires in Australia are lit on purpose. So here's my proposal: ban the sales of matches to all Australians over the age of 5 and get 50% fewer busg fires. How about it?
Creationist Dec 16, 2009 9:50 AM	I do not know what rock you guys have spent the last 10 years under, but various types of filtering has been available to businesses for quite some time (just look at BlueCoat proxy products) and guess how it "slows down the Internet"? I bet you guessed it right - exactly no noticeable effect. And why are you not protesting filtering at your workplace? After all it is too funded from "your" pocket (one way or another)? My point is - your rights are not that sacred, since you have put up with filtering already. If they are "contextual", then look at this in the context - your employer has the "right" to restrict your access to certain Internet resources. Your state/government has the same right, since it provides and maintains the framework that makes your Internet access possible. Yes, you elected the government (cannot say this about your employer, can you?) but that changes very little. Can anyone of you say that he or she got the bigger picture? Do you really know the extent of damage that "unrestricted" Internet access makes? Just accept it that some desions sometimes have to be made and they are not at all democratic. to Ghat: "Gun control to reduce crime... Has it?" Has it not? Have a look at http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders And how nice of you guys lashing out at Christians, especially considering that this country's progress to where it is now was possible because of its Christian values. Any atheistic regimes making it to the top of the list on civil rights and freedoms lately? North Korea, anyone? Russia? Cuba? China?
Sams Dec 16, 2009 10:12 AM	Creationist: "Any atheistic regimes making it to the top of the list on civil rights and freedoms lately? North Korea, anyone? Russia? Cuba? China?" Netherlands.
adamskee Dec 16, 2009 10:23 AM	to the delusional "creationist" and "Sams" if you think that christian values built this country you are more deluded than a starbucks in North Korea.......our prisons are filled with Christian (this is statistically proven). If you look at the countries with the highest standard of living and the highest GDP, then Sweden, Norway and other Athiest dominant countries take the lead....... Religion and especially Christianity has held back scientific research for 1000 years......in the future they will look back and laugh at the Dark ages and the way religion and ignorant uneducated morons held back the human race. as for the filter.........i am a computer programmer and i will release a site showing how to get around the filter in 2 minutes that any 12 year old can follow.....thanks to krudd and conjob for wasting our money on a completely useless system....if they think pedo's use http:// for sharing pornography then they need some new advisers......the filter will not work.....
Sams Dec 16, 2009 10:25 AM	Creationist: "My point is - your rights are not that sacred." Some rights are. I wouldn't use the word "sacred", but I would say that a large number of us believe that there are such things 'human rights', and they are not defined by the government of the minute. If we thought for a minute that the government's filtering scheme would indeed be 100% restricted to child pornography with 0% false positives, and could never change scope over time, then that would be a different story. What concerns us is the degree of control it gives the government to make snap decisions on a vast range of content, and its past failures to implement anything near an acceptable system. People experienced with Australian politics have seen how legislation such as this can be twisted to suit the aims of a regime. We have seen how laws like this have been misused beyond anything they have initially been proposed for. With the press of a button a campaign site can be "accidentally" black listed just before an election. Not to mentioning the incompetent bungling seen in previous blacklists. There is no way I want to see any government with this degree of control.
Sams Dec 16, 2009 10:30 AM	adamskee: ".i am a computer programmer and i will release a site showing how to get around the filter in 2 minutes that any 12 year old can follow" So am I, and I already have a proxy on an overseas server that I can connect to via HTTPS. adamskee: "to the delusional "creationist" and "Sams" if you think that christian values built this country" Not sure why you included me there.
Lukas Dec 16, 2009 10:40 AM	@All the moralising W%&nkers who claim that internet filtering will protect their children from internet bogeymen.. Where are all these illegal porn websites that you are so worried about your children discovering??? There ARE none!!! All that filth exists on other networks (P2P), which filtering will have little effect on. So your claims that filtering is a moral obligation to protect our children is a furfy cooked up by the holier-than-thou, narrow minded crusaders like Conroy and his supporters. Cracking down on illegal web content is a job for the police, let 'em do their job! Internet censorship is for authoritarian states. Which other countries have internet censorship... China, Iran, North Korea... and now we get to be on that list. What a fkn joke!
Mordd Dec 16, 2009 8:41 PM	GetUp is running a campaign to raise awareness about the filter legislation and to utilise people power to try and stop the legislation from being passed. I would highly recommended everyone signup here: http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442 Then use GetUps tool to send an email alert to everyone you know to bring this to their attention. This is no longer just an issue for techies, activists or journalists, this is now an issue that every net user in Australia needs to be aware of!
Creationist Dec 17, 2009 9:03 AM	To adamskee: "...our prisons are filled with Christian (this is statistically proven)" - I would like to see some URLs, you know, pointing to this "proof" of yours. "If you look at the countries with the highest standard of living and the highest GDP, then Sweden, Norway and other Atheist dominant countries take the lead" - do not be so quick to take credit for something you did not do: when these countries got there they were predominantly Christian. "Religion and especially Christianity has held back scientific research for 1000 years…" - is this the only fairy tale children of atheists got to hear before they go to sleep? Just try to explain next time you bring this nonsense up how it is happened that science sprung up in Christian Europe, when there were little or no "scientific research"? Oh, and how was "scientific research" doing at the time elsewhere? To Sams: "People experienced with Australian politics have seen how legislation such as this can be twisted to suit the aims of a regime. We have seen how laws like this have been misused beyond anything they have initially been proposed for. With the press of a button a campaign site can be "accidentally" black listed just before an election. Not to mentioning the incompetent bungling seen in previous blacklists. There is no way I want to see any government with this degree of control" - this is my concern too, but then the discussion should shift its focus from baby cries "this filter will slow down MY Internet" to "does public have enough control?" And if it does not, then do we really need it? To Lukas: "Where are all these illegal porn websites that you are so worried about your children discovering??? There ARE none!!!" - You must have got your first Internet connection up and running yesterday, right? "Cracking down on illegal web content is a job for the police, let 'em do their job!" - Yeah, right, especially if the content you are talking about is hosted outside of Australia... To Mordd: "GetUp is running a campaign to raise awareness about the filter legislation" - Well, that is at least _something_, but then again it is no more than a populists' hysteria, that offers no solution to the problem - there are sure a lot of "steam" out there and all of it will simply go to a whistle.
Simon900 Dec 17, 2009 12:50 PM	@Creationist "To adamskee: "...our prisons are filled with Christian (this is statistically proven)" - I would like to see some URLs, you know, pointing to this "proof" of yours." Would like to, but the content has been filtered. Some Christian groups complained it put Christians in a bad light.
bcmobile Dec 17, 2009 1:45 PM	@Creationist: Firstly, employers own their own infrastructure and since they pay you to be at your workplace, they have no obligation to give you ANY internet access. They filter certain sites to avoid causing offence to those working around you. Secondly you wrote "this country's progress to where it is now was possible because of its Christian values. Any atheistic regimes making it to the top of the list on civil rights and freedoms lately? North Korea, anyone? Russia? Cuba? China?". This country got where it is DESPITE christian values. Also, none of the countries you mention are "atheist" countries. Do your homework! There is no such thing as an Atheist country. Lastly (annd probably most amusing) you said "Just try to explain next time you bring this nonsense up how it is happened that science sprung up in Christian Europe, when there were little or no "scientific research"?". If you really want to know the answer (and Im sure you dont) it was the Muslims who preserved all of the knowledge that science had documented before the crazy christian anti-science nutters burnt all of the books causing what is know as the DARK AGES. Remember that??? Has it not occurred to you that net filters are a digital equivelant of burning books? Of course not, or you would'nt have been stupid enough to mention it in defense of a netfilter.
Creationist Dec 18, 2009 3:19 PM	To bcmobile: "Do your homework!" - What an excellent advice! If only you followed it yourself… "This country got where it is DESPITE Christian values" - how interesting, any examples in support of such a bold claim by any chance? "Also, none of the countries you mention are "atheist" countries" - Of course there are none, we are all believers! Read what I said carefully: I mentioned "atheistic regimes" (not countries) - governments and other institutions that promote atheistic world view. The population of these countries can have any combination of believes. "If you really want to know the answer (and I'm sure you don't) it was the Muslims who preserved all of the knowledge that science had documented before the crazy Christian anti-science nutters burnt all of the books causing what is know as the DARK AGES. Remember that???" - I know it is very difficult to type in Google "Library of Alexandria" and then read an article on Wikipedia, so I did all the hard work for you and other readers. So, the Library of Alexandria was burned several times by Romans (allegedly in 48 BC and then again in the 3rd century), allegedly by a Christian Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria in 391, and (again, allegedly) the final destruction came to the library in the form of supposedly "pro-science" Muslim Amr ibn al 'Aas in 642. Lots of fiction in these accounts notwithstanding, it is obvious that "crazy Christian anti-science nutters" did not "burnt all of the books". I think it would be useful to remind you once again, that systematic, methodologically sound way of collecting, analysing and producing knowledge, that we now call "science", was made possible thanks to Christian philosophers and thinkers. That all these "dark ages" you are talking about were in fact centuries of steady progress in every aspect of human life that, among everything else, paved the way to Reformation. So my question is still standing: "Did this happen anywhere else?" Where did all this "knowledge that science had documented" go in other parts of the globe? "net filters are a digital equivalent of burning books" - Oh really? Thanks for lighting my day up. I did not know that sitting behind a proxy server with some filtering on I actually burning digital books! Wow… Did you let Amazon know?
Sams Dec 18, 2009 8:23 PM	Ceationist: "Thanks for lighting my day up. I did not know that sitting behind a proxy server with some filtering on I actually burning digital books! Wow… Did you let Amazon know?" It's called an 'analogy' - look it up. Look up 'equivalent' while you're at it.
Maxxi Dec 19, 2009 3:45 AM	@Golodh: Thank you for the great example on why the filter is good news! Appreciated... Quote: "For comparison, car accidents claim around 40,000 lives in the US annually. But only a fool would suggest that automobiles should be banned. I think the same holds for Internet sites." Exactly and what a great example. It would be idiotic to ban all cars and all drivers. The law actually seeks only to ban the dangerous cars and drivers *who contravene the laws of the land are are deemed dangerous... No one is proposing banning all websites, just those that have been identified as unacceptable by Australian law,and as such have been deemed RC. Great example, excellent example. Just ban the dangerous ones... Hey hang on, isn't that what they are doing??? Oh yes it is! Isn't that great? Happy days folks.
Maxxi Dec 19, 2009 3:58 AM	Ah bcmobile, you have such an eloquent way with words... You are sure to convince the average Australian of the well considered basis of your viewpoint and to win them over with your concise and balanced handling of the subject matter: "Has it not occurred to you that net filters are a digital equivelant of burning books? Of course not, or you would'nt have been stupid enough to mention it in defense of a netfilter." Lib Party senators will be clamouring to support this line of thinking and vote against the filter... I can just see you there on the steps of parliament, with a pile of child sex abuse and rape pic books, defying anyone to even think of burning them... (I actually do not believe that you will do that, but consider the idiocy of someone actually doing that...) Yes, we need to protect the the RC "digital books" from the blasphemy of a digital burning... So which digital books do you wish to protect from digital burning? Apart from that, the digital books are not being "burnt" at all, nor destroyed. Ever think of that? As an Australian internet user, you will simply not be able to access them via a filtered connection... The books are still there, the content is still there. In other words, your comparison is a crock of codswallop mate.
Slatts Dec 19, 2009 3:31 PM	The thing that I've enjoyed the most about the internet in the 15 odd years I've been using it has been its general anarchy. The thought of any interest group trying to mould it to suit their world view fills me with unease. The interwebs in Aus, till now, has been largely free of interference from government, religious and special interest groups. They've been able to publish their agendas freely and anyone else was free to publish a rebuttal. I'm aware that by passing a law, what was legal today will become illegal tomorrow. That doesn't make it any better. The fact that the lawmakers in our country are holding their jobs by virtue of winning a popularity contest doesn't fill me with confidence either. Think back to your high school days. Who was the kid most likely to be elected school president?
Creepy creature Jan 26, 2010 5:24 PM	Like hell this twat is going to filter me and things i do on my internet. I pay for the internet and we as tax payer's make his job comfy. And i will be damned if im going to let that **** take away my freedom of speach. I will be making my stand at parliament house in Adelaide.
Slatts Jan 26, 2010 10:59 PM	I don't think your mindless rant is helping the cause Creepy creature. Perhaps you need some time out.
Mark D Jan 27, 2010 11:45 AM	Go for it creepy creature, just keep in mind that politicians use emotional outbursts like above as spin to label anti-filter activists as pedophiles. Just like Conroy did and just like your AG (Michael Atkinson) has in labeling all people who have a voice for R18+ games as "criminals". http://www.gamers4croydon.org/
Creepy creature Jan 27, 2010 9:05 PM	Um to slatts it's not a "mindless rant" In my view we have a freedom of speech and this cencorship is taking it away from us, If you like the idea thats fine, But i dont agree with it. And thanks mark D
geriatrixcomputerix Feb 23, 2010 1:09 PM	Yes, there is a lot of rubbish on the internet. Do we trust the minister to censor it for us? NO. If the internet had existed a few hundred years ago any site where the word "Galileo" appeared would have been blocked. And if the internet had existed a 2000 years ago any site containing the word "Christ" would have been blocked.
geriatrixcomputerix Feb 23, 2010 1:18 PM	In the 1960s the Danish government got the idea to get the police to confiscate pornography. A cartoonist submitted a drawing to a newspaper showing two moronic looking police officers debating whether they should confiscate a book called "Adam Homo". They decided to confiscate it. "Just the title...." (which the officer found disgusting). Morale: Before you decide on censorship, consider who is going to implement it.
geriatrixcomputerix Feb 23, 2010 1:32 PM	Yes, there is a lot of rubbish on the internet. However, a filter will * introduce a delay in traffic * block something that should not have been blocked * let through something the censors would rather have blocked A filter will * slow down business communication * impede research onto a number of areas concerning criminology psychology psychiatry medicine -etc. And it will annoy academics. Academics tend to prefer freedom, so a small percentage of the more versatile ones will try to go to countries where the government do not breath down their neck all the time.
geriatrixcomputerix Feb 23, 2010 1:47 PM	Let's speculate a bit. Let's suggest that a TV-network in Holland broadcasts some thorough investigative journalism on child pornography and let's assume that they simulcast it on the internet. Conroy cannot preview it. Most likely he will not discover it until later. But, if they go further than he would like, will he then blacklist the TV-network? (only for viewers in Australia of course) Compare and contrast the consequences and implications of a "Yes" and of a "No".
geriatrixcomputerix Feb 23, 2010 1:59 PM	Tits like coconut... An elderly maiden in the UK some time ago switched on her wireless set and heard "...Tits like coconut..." she immediately switched off and wrote a letter to the BBC, complaining. The BBC politely answered that the broadcast had been about birds and if she had continued listening she could also have learnt what sparrows would like for people to put in their garden for the birds in the winter. Morale: Censors need to hear/see the whole thing before they make a decision. Do Conroy have the resources to vet all the sites?