Podcast: Conroy explains his net censorship regime

By Ben Grubb on Dec 21, 2009 9:48 PM
Filed under Telco/ISP

Senator Conroy takes on critics of his internet filter in an exclusive chat with iTnews.

Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy has hit back at opponents of his controversial internet filtering scheme, labelling them "frauds" that cannot accept the findings of the Enex Testlab report.

The Minister took time out of his schedule over the weekend to discuss the filter in great detail with iTnews, which is presented in a podcast (below) and features commentary from Crikey technology writer Stilgherrian and Internode network engineer Mark Newton (who speaks on behalf of himself).

Among the issues discussed, Minister Conroy said that:

Opponents of the scheme were using misleading information to discredit it.
"Organisations that have run campaigns and circulated petitions [and] advertising that there is going to be an 87 percent degradation in speed on the net are frauds. They have been exposed and they are scrambling to try and find new arguments at the moment."
That the ISP filtering scheme would be "scalable" to 100 Mbps, despite the maximum speed tested in the trial being only 8 mbps.
"We have spoken to Enex [TestLab] and we are confident that this is scalable. There is no argument that it is scalable."
That independent tests by Telstra found that a filter could block up to 10,000 URL addresses with no over-blocking and that the impact on internet speeds was only ‘one seventieth of the blink of an eye'.
That the only material blocked is Refused Classification (RC) material - which the Minister insists is only the most deviant and illegal content on the internet.
"What we're proposing to mandatorily block is not the ACMA blacklist. We're only blocking material that is illegal in libraries, in news agents, you can't buy it in book stores, you can't buy a DVD of it, you can't watch it on television and you can't watch it on the cinema. And importantly, it is currently illegal to have it on Australian ISPs."
That a mechanism will be put in place for webmasters to rectify with the classification board should they feel their site has been blocked by mistake.
"We're very conscious of wanting to... greater transparency and accountability measures.
We put out a discussion paper and for all Australians who are concerned about the thin edge of the wedge argument, for all Australians that are concerned that Stephen Conroy or any future Minister might want to secretly slip things onto this list."
That he does not see the filter as a 'silver bullet' to protecting Australian children.
"We're not suggesting for a moment that this is a full-proof guaranteed way to stop access to child pornography. Nobody is suggesting that. We need education programs - we need education for kids, for parents [and] for school teachers. We need more research in this area. We need more police in this area."

Click here for the full transcript of the Minister's interview.

Podcast: Conroy explains his net censorship regime

57 comments in this discussion

"I wish all a Happy New Year (even BTONE). I am not racist nor biased but Pro-Aussie and support our current country and values. My views are similar (yet not as far right) to Andrew Bolt, who ..."

By Digger11

Tags

censorship, conroy, stephen conroy, regime, podcast, senator conroy, filter, isplevel

Conroy remains committed to mandatory filtering

Censorship fears as Iran's internet disrupted

Conroy warns of cloud uncertainties

Aus, NZ Govts consider 'decoupling' mobile roaming

Breaking Stories

Roses Only goes with its heart for hosting

Bankwest credits IT for flat operating expenses

Conroy warns of cloud uncertainties

Hiring strategy vital to government IT transformation

Melbourne scientists ready 2013 bionic eye trial

Comments: 57

Dangolbery Dec 22, 2009 12:04 AM	The fact of the matter is that the government should not and can not be allow to censor (hence control) the thoughts and expressions of its population. I don't give a f*%& what Conroy thinks is inappropriate material for me or my children to view. I'll decide that! The 120 or so million dollars that has been squandered on this crusade by senator Conroy would of been far better off furthering the public health care system or public infrastructure in general to create jobs. We should be marching in the streets over the use of our own money to fund this assault on our freedoms. Protests need to be organised against the bagging and gagging of our internet! It's the only way to really get heard. Australians are getting too complacent! If we continue with this 'someone else will do it' attitude then we will be ruled by a government we deserve and it'll be similar to Iran or China. Side note on this thought: In Queensland just recently the union sold out it's representatives and gave up boxing day as a public holiday. I didn't even heard about this until visiting my parents for christmas (as my mum works in retail). Why were there no people rallying in the streets! We cannot stand for this treatment, people in power will take everything from you if you let them. Just look at the USA. Want to work 3 jobs to pay the rent so your boss can drive another porsche? I sure as hell don't and won't.
cw Dec 22, 2009 12:41 AM	About the 87% figure, it was straight from the closed environment trial report, it wasn't a cooked number as it was also the filter that had the best blocking performance (blocking what it was meant to) IIRC. Also in the ENEX report from the Internet censorship trial regarding the performance of the 'Other Categories of Content' p3 "One technology, however, displayed a noticeable performance impact. This finding was similar to levels recorded by Enex in previous trials." Give the announced policy did not make the 'Other Categories of Content' filter mandatory I think it is safe to conclude that the policy makers agreed that it was not feasible. This was the assertion of the many learned commentators at the time. Senator Conroy is the source of most of the misinformation in this debate, I feel sorry for his staff. Listening to Senator Conroy I am reminded of the Bertrand Russell quote: "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
Maxxi Dec 22, 2009 2:14 AM	cw: was the 87% figure from a testing of ISP network based filters, or end user client based filters? Was it for blacklist filtering, or dynamic category filtering? Huge differences there. One does not equate to the other. Network based filters are far faster. Blacklist filtering is by a significant magnitude faster. Also, dynamic category filtering will almost never have the same accuracy of blacklist filtering, which is usualy 100% accurate. The performance and accuracy impact findings you note were related to the dynamic category filtering and not to the blacklist filtering. Also, do you really believe that the products and technologies tested were the scope of the filteringtechnologies in the market? lol. Soz cw, but you are sadly mistaken if you believe that. These tests were trials of products chosen by the ISPs for the trial... You conveniently leave out the qualifiers and additional information that they have also seen massively more powerful and performance based technologies...? tut tut cw.... Again, significant difference. Your assumption on the policy decision is clearly wrong, as the ALP policy on mandatory filtering for all internet users was always restricted to blacklist. Category based filtering has always had a degree of subjective inclination, as someone has to calibrate the content analysis engines, and veryone has a slightly or more pronounced view of what is acceptable or not. If I read through many of the forums and blogs on this subject, and see just that example of the accuarcy and performance misquotes that mix up the blacklist and categorisation filtering alone, together with FUD on IPv6, "Nazi" Australia, this filter equated with the China monstrosity, quoting 87% performance loss as applicable to this proposed filter model, denial that other democratic nations have similar filtering, et al and ad infinitum, with umpteen thousands of posts buzzing around the same mistakes, then I think your statement about who generates the most misinformation is less than accurate... And as so often happens, some folks just cannot resist taking the personal attack line yet again....
peterniss Dec 22, 2009 4:08 AM	So what about the other reports not so favorable to Conroy's plans? Are they "frauds" as well. I am absolutely appalled at the governments intentions to censor the internet with secret lists and no true opt-out abilities. We join communist countries like China and Iran. Something that is just unbelievable in this age. Looks like I will be voting Rudd out this next election. A shame but that is the only way to fix these people. I wish he was as keen to get the FTTN network operational but that's still nowhere after years. A sad day for Australia.
btone Dec 22, 2009 4:49 AM	@Maxxi: And as so often happens, some folks just cannot resist taking the personal attack line yet again.... For example the following? "I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child pornography". (Conroy to Ludlum)
Digger11 Dec 22, 2009 8:24 AM	@peterniss ISP's already block hundreds of dodgy sites - weren't you aware of this ?
cw Dec 22, 2009 8:50 AM	@Maxxi: I will try and clarify what I was saying for your benefit. The previous Closed Environment report is available here: http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_311316 The live trial report is available here: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/123862/Enex_Testlab_report_into_ISP-level_filtering_-_Full_report_-_Low_res.pdf Firstly, the policy has evolved over the last two years significantly, discussions about the policy from 12 months ago may no longer be relevant as more information comes to light. The parallels drawn between the two reports and performance figures relate to what you might call the "Child Friendly" and not the RC content list / ACMA blacklist only options. Both tests did not test exactly the same thing, that would have little or no value I am sure you would agree. The mystical 87% figure was for dynamic classification, similar to the 'Other Categories of Content' filtering from the live trial. I don't think a mum and dad sitting at home cares about the way the filtering vendor delivers a filtered Internet, that is some a filter vendor would be concerned with though. It was those tests, that in both case were NOT THE BLACKLIST ONLY, but a wider scope of material that attempted to reduce the chance of viewing adult and other material. Reading the latest Enex report exactly what does "similar to levels recorded in previous trials" mean to you? I interpret that to mean they recorded performance degradations similar to that recorded in a previous test they conducted. No-one is claiming that similar level was 87% though, I think everyone would be shocked if that product (Gamma) was even being considered for ISP deployment. What I am saying is it is disingenuous to say people that drew attention to that figure when the report was released in June 2008 are frauds.
cw Dec 22, 2009 9:36 AM	@Maxxi "Also, do you really believe that the products and technologies tested were the scope of the filtering technologies in the market? lol. Soz cw, but you are sadly mistaken if you believe that. These tests were trials of products chosen by the ISPs for the trial..." No, I don't think I said that either. Are you asking us to believe that the ISPs picked a filtering product they didn't think was fit for purpose and wouldn't do the job when the government was paying for it? You did know that the department would pay for the ISPs costs of the trials don't you and per the trial "Expressions of Interest"? PS: Sorry for the split posts, this comment system is broken and if you take too long it gives you a "Server Error" and you loose your post.
cw Dec 22, 2009 9:45 AM	@Digger11 "ISP's already block hundreds of dodgy sites - weren't you aware of this ?" They already block dodgy websites? What types of sites are they?
umbria Dec 22, 2009 1:00 PM	Get over it, folks. It is well documented that there is an 80:20 split on controversial issues in the Canberra press gallery, and an OPPOSITE 80:20 split on the same issues in the Australian electorate. This appears to be the case from a few noisy IT commentators and activists, while the public non-media reaction to the successful trial has been predominantly favourable, much to the annoyance of the former. After the successful pilot's baby steps toward delivering the government's promise of blocking illegal content (for that is the precise nature of RC) at ISPs, the technical wowsers warning of a serious Internet slowdown have had their arguments utterly demolished. Now we can concentrate on building a flexible and accountable mechanism for keeping out illegal traffic. Flippant comparisons of modern Australia with murderous regimes are quite charming, but will not change the overwhelming public endorsement of filtering as part of a multi-faceted approach to blocking intrinsically bad content. Oh, and I hope Internode will rein in Mark-Newton-of-Internode-who-speaks-for-himself, since his is increasingly sounding like an official position.
Sams Dec 22, 2009 2:28 PM	umbria: "Get over it, folks." Get over yourself. Lying down and taking it when you see injustice happening if for sheep: any combination of dim-witted, lazy or cowardly - take your pick. umbria: "the public non-media reaction to the successful trial has been predominantly favourable" References? I think you might be referring to the old stats on opt-in filtering amongst parents with kids in a certain age band. In any case, the last poll I saw showed 96%of the public against the filter: http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/results.html (N=24,000) Admittedly, such a poll will be skewed in various ways. It is however consistent with the Galaxy phone poll (N=1,100): "When asked who should have primary responsibility for ensuring that children do not view inappropriate content on the internet, 86 per cent of respondents said parents; five per cent said internet service providers, and four per cent said the government." which is older and perhaps not so much public awareness at that time. Government came last - it is safe to conclude that few people trust them with such a task. Happy to see other poll results of greater veracity. umbria: "Flippant comparisons of modern Australia with murderous regimes are quite charming" It's not so flippant and charming if you have been there. In case you didn't realise it, we are not saying Oz is a murderous regime, we are saying we don't want to provide the government with the tools that could allow it to become one. You are a fool if you think that there aren't people within the wings of the power structure of this country that have the mentality to do such things.
Mark D Dec 22, 2009 2:29 PM	The only fraud here is with the politician. No one wants the filter, it will hopefully be the end of the Labour party next election. I for one will not be voting Labour party again. @ umbria: FACT: RC material is not illegal to own in most of Australia. Pity Conroy is so unprofessional that he trys to manipulate opinion through fear.
Maxxi Dec 22, 2009 2:44 PM	Hello btone. Let's look at that question: "I trust you are not suggesting that people should have access to child pornography". (Conroy to Ludlum) Two questions btone: 1. A provocative question, but no personal attack... Have you implied from the question that it is a personal attack? Is this your interpretation? 2. If it is so interpreted, and a person can choose to feel attacked by many things btone, is the right and mature response to then not only "tit for tat" childishly, but then ramp up the poisonous rhetoric and mount sustained and very personal attacks? The answers to these questions and the examples we have seen clarify the intent of the participants btone, and the way they go about "resolving" issues and people they cannot come to terms with. At the end of the day, continual and more vehement personal attacks on Conroy will only convince the broader Australian public that one side of the discussion are margianalising themselves and gravitating to the radical elements positioning.... Which means Conroy has won already, as Australia is primarily a conservative society and is not impressed by the table thumpers and doomsday cryers... Take two mild examples: Latham and Turnbull... So btone: That statement was typical political chambers fare, and not a personal attack by real criteria. Publishing a webpage under Conroy's own name, with his photo on it, and labelling him a fascist ass on that site is a very personal attack, and was in all reality about as stupid and dumb a move that could be made. Probably gave the folks who made it a temporary testosterone hit, but it came down just as quickly... It reflects very badly on the honest and serious anti-filter campaigners...
Maxxi Dec 22, 2009 2:52 PM	Mark D: I am afraid that I must shock you and contest your assertion that no-one wants the filter... Incorrect. The ALP will win the next election, hands down, soz mate. Who cares whether RC is legal to own in Australia, the proposed filter is not targeted at what you own mate. It is targeted at restricting online access to a list of RC URLs. What does that have to do with what you own? TRy and apply your arguments to what is actually planned, and leave the bucket of red herrings in the fish shop.... If you wish to see manifold examples of attempts to manipuate opinion through fear, then just look at many of the posts in forums and blogs on this subject... They range from forecasting the end of democracy, free speech, civil liberties, the end of the internet, Australia becomes Chinese and Nazi, the internet slows down by 87%, our telecoms will grind to a halt and cost massively more, folks wont be able to play super duper adult games (real life critical aspect that one... lol), the ACL and other right wing nutjob fundamentalist relio whackos will control everything we see and do, ad infinitum... So if you want to see a fear and FUD campaign, just read on through the blogs Mark, and enjoy!
Sams Dec 22, 2009 3:00 PM	Maxxi: "a very personal attack, and was in all reality about as stupid and dumb a move that could be made." ... "Probably gave the folks who made it a temporary testosterone hit, but it came down just as quickly..." Except it is still up: http://stephen-conroy.com/ Conroy was heard to say: "Look at that - you block one site and it just moves. Jesus Christ, we didn't know that was possible! I must ask the classification board to go through that with a fine toothed comb at the meeting next week." :-) "Australia is primarily a conservative society and is not impressed by the table thumpers and doomsday cryers" More like they dislike those that go around thumping bibles, and telling tall tales of fear and doom about what a terrible place the Internet is, and telling everyone else what to think. As yes, I think that is closer to the picture.
Mark D Dec 22, 2009 3:25 PM	@Maxxi: Welcome to the real world. http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/results.html From that above Poll those against it are equal with those that have no idea. So one can only conclude that you have no idea that you have no idea. Not to mention you are now a minority here. "Who cares whether RC is legal to own in Australia, the proposed filter is not targeted at what you own mate. It is targeted at restricting online access to a list of RC URLs." The fact you cannot connect the two is astounding. Thanks for setting the level of intelligence for those for the new nanny state.
Maxxi Dec 22, 2009 3:57 PM	Soz cw, now back to your questions soon, must do some work... Thanks for the clarification, I am familiar with those docs and the test results. Some folks are still obfuscicating the debate with the 87% number, and some are either mistakenly or knowingly mixing up the results from the mandatory and the dynamic filtering accuracy and performance levels. The blacklist filtering was, as would be expected from a blacklist filter, 100% accurate. The accuracy levels for the dynamic filtering were naturally varied and les than 100%, but far far better than the results from the 2007/2008 tests... The public will have little interest in the methods used cw, agreed, however this is a critical aspect to the debate here. Substantiating proposed models or differentiating from weaker or limited filtering models requires specifying platforms that can deliver those accuracies at the required telco traffic levels, and often require substantiation through reference to existing sites running at those levels. Show the public a couple of telcos or sites running 5 million, 9 million or 20 million users via a centralised URL blacklist filtering system, that can be applied here as well, and show that it works well and does not have the technical issues so often raised as concerns, and they will mostly say "fine, looks like it works...". BTW, I have not read anywhere from the pro-filter or gov side, that they consider folks quoting thye 87% figure from these previous tests are frauds... Not once. However, there are more than enough references from folks today claiming that the currently proposed ISP filtering systems will suffer the same "up to 87%" network delays and latencies, and point to those past tests as validation. That cw, is fraudulent mate. It is sad, as these people make it harder for the serious campaigners to gain credibility... The whole ISP trial process was not scoped or funded in a manner that would accomodate larger scope filtering systems. Watchdog did a great job as a business. They went in an offered their systems FOC/low costed for the trial, provided great install and support, and made it as easy as possible for the ISPs to participate. One ISP had a free filter system in their network from another vendor, and just got the opt-in folks to point their browsers to the box... Another just rekitted their existing networking and server gear, and used their existing list apps to run the test. Is the pattern becoming visible...? The ISPs did not pick systems that would not scale on purpose, they picked systems that they could easily install and run fir the trial, with a minimum in resource requirements in times of business stress for many. It was far easier to have some guy come in, plug in an appliance, change a couple of network addresses and configs etc, get it tested and away you go... Test initially in monitoring mode then switch to operational mode once it is running glitch-free... A couple of ISPs put in quotes higher than the total DBCDE budget for the whole trial... lol. But the gov was never targeting a total scaled up testing, they wanted to kow if blacklist would run at 100% accuracy and what typical "per URL request look-up" times (in ms) would result... And they got that. All else was a bonus. So yep, I was across the EOI and advised one ISP associate on his submission. ** Doesn't that "Server Error" drive you nuts?? My posts are too long as it is, without losing them if I am not careful...
Maxxi Dec 22, 2009 4:11 PM	Hey MarkD.... Is that a validated poll with certfified "one vote per user", or an online poll that can be easily rigged with web based voting? lol, thanks for the "real world" example Mark, but you will have to do better. Folks on WP were even posting about how easy those polls were to "fix"... But, let's look at your next example oif erudion and objective analysis: "From that above Poll those against it are equal with those that have no idea." rofl! Too good mate. Either you are against the filter or you have no idea.... It is with great concern and sadness that I realise that I am now in the minority here... That was always a good reason for people to give up, correct? hmmmm, not sure about that one Mark, but I will learn to live with the tragic circumstance as best I can... Oh Mark, I can connect the two easily, however the proposed statutes are aimed at restricting further distribution of the RC materials. Let us consider the legal status of those two points of ownership and distribution: 1. Is the filter proposed to filter out the ownership of the RC materials, or to restrict online access to these materials? 2. Is a federal government authorised to enact laws that will support this filyter proposal, once they attain majority votes in both houses of parliament? 3. Can governments change the wording of laws as opposed to changing the wording of the Constitution? Now connect those three points Mark, apply your massive intellectual abilities to the logic and results, have patience with all us poor minority folks with low intelligence and no idea, and see how well you fare against a gov that was voted in by the mnajority of Australians...
Sams Dec 22, 2009 6:02 PM	A little tip: once you've said who you are speaking to, you don't need to repeat it in every sentence --- otherwise it makes you sound like a passive-aggressive, hissing through clenched teeth.
Digger11 Dec 22, 2009 6:34 PM	@Sams Are you a moron? Most of your written comments appear to be moronic trolling babble. My suggestiosn for the New Year: 1. Get a Girlfriend 2. Get a Girlfriend and 3. Get a Grilfirend or Boyfriend if you're that way inclined (and we would all understand if you were .....)
brownbear Dec 22, 2009 7:29 PM	Senator Conroy said: "What we're proposing to mandatorily block is not the ACMA blacklist. We're only blocking material that is illegal in libraries, in news agents, you can't buy it in book stores, you can't buy a DVD of it, you can't watch it on television and you can't watch it on the cinema. And importantly, it is currently illegal to have it on Australian ISPs." The last time I looked the classification criteria for publications, film and the internet were covered under different legislative provisions. Is the government going to change this? Does the Hon Senator understand what he is talking about or is he just a poor communicator? The current situation is that if an Australian site has content that is deemed likely to be classified RC in the opinion of ACMA or has been classified RC by the Censorship Board then ACMA issues a take down notice to the ISP. At no stage in the legislation as far as I can recall is RC content called illegal. Nor is it illegal for RC material to be on a web site. What happens is that ACMA will fine very heavily any ISP who doesn't comply with a take down notice. Once again the Senator has misrepresented the true position.
cw Dec 22, 2009 9:51 PM	@Maxxi "BTW, I have not read anywhere from the pro-filter or gov side, that they consider folks quoting thye 87% figure from these previous tests are frauds... Not once." From transcript, link at bottom of main article if you missed it... Senator Conroy: "But let me be really clear about this: For those people who have tried to claim for the last year that there was an 85 or 87 percent slowing in the net by having a filter they have been exposed as frauds."
Sams Dec 23, 2009 11:53 AM	I see the troll has reached fever pitch.
bengrubb Dec 23, 2009 2:14 PM	Enough with the personal attacks, guys! Play nice.
Maxxi Dec 23, 2009 3:30 PM	Hi Sams, that would be a misconception, but I can understand how some folks would take it that way. "A little tip: once you've said who you are speaking to, you don't need to repeat it in every sentence" I simply want the recipient to be sure that I am addressing them directly on those points, and I am very free of aggression here... I enjoy the thrust and parry of debating these critical issues, even if the frustration I engender is sometimes in pretty colourful terms. Some posts and comments just beg for suitable and pointed responses, whilst making every effort to avoid personal attacks. I will definitely cut down on writing your name often in the comments, as requested.
Maxxi Dec 23, 2009 3:39 PM	@cw: My understanding was that Conroy was referring to, as I was in this case, to the people still using the 87% slowdown number when discussing the current tests and the probable performance parameters going foreward, and some using that 87% number to throw doubt on the accuracy of the ENEX tests. The 87% was for client filter tests worst case, appalling product. ISP filters tested in the recnt trials were nowhere near this, and the blacklist only tests were tested with miniscule latencies. Thus using the 87% slowdown number in refrence to ISP based filter tests has been genuine misinformation, intended misinformation from some folks. In that context Conroy is correct. Some folks are also quoting the optional filtering results as the results from the blacklist filtering from the recent tests. This is also blatant misinformation and often disingenious. The blacklist filters ran at 100% accuracy. Finito and some people simply need to accept that. The performance numkbers for the optional filtering were not the performance numbers for the blacklist filtering. Some people have indeed claimed over the last year that ISP filtering will result in a 87% slowdown of the internet, and that is fraudulent.
Maxxi Dec 23, 2009 3:50 PM	Sams, the Australian government alreadyhas the tools to become a murderous regime, and has always had them... "It's not so flippant and charming if you have been there. In case you didn't realise it, we are not saying Oz is a murderous regime, we are saying we don't want to provide the government with the tools that could allow it to become one." Do you truly believe that a blacklist filter of the internet here is more powerful a tool for murder than an armed police force, armed forces, ASIO? Did China and Nth Korea lead an idyllic lifestyle until someone introduced an internet filter? No torture, murder, corruption, military rule etc? Were the mullahs of Iran all peace loving charity workers spreading goodwill and love for mankind until the evil internet filter poison their souls and fill their otherwise innocent natures with a desire to murder and oppress...? Naturally not and I don't believe that you think that. But check the logic mate... There are far more powerful weapons and instruments that all these govs have, and Australians gov has, to become corrupt than an internet filter in a resilient democracy. They have had censorship powers in Australia sine 1917 I believe. How has it not corrupted us to date then? I think a lot of people should be focused on what the real and valid arguments against a gov managed filtering could be, and not these ridiculous red herrings.
Maxxi Dec 23, 2009 4:06 PM	Hi Brownbear: It is worth considering that Conroy is stating what the regulations and process will be going forward, not what it has been in the past. Very simply: The new blacklist that will apply to the mandatory ISP filtering will contain only RC defined webpages, and will have a list inclusion process with classification board oversight. Content classified as RC will be (maybe now already??) illegal to display, distribute, sell or make available for hire under existing Australian law. Also on the internet... Not so hard really.
FreeSpeechForAll Dec 28, 2009 11:37 AM	Questions for the Minister Conroy: 1. What evidence do you have that children in Australia currently look up child porn sites originating overseas? 2. Why cant the blacklist be made public if the filter system supposedly works? Why do you wish to conceal from the public the the exact nature of the material that you consider to be "objectionable"? 3. Why have untold millions been spent on this filtering system so far, supposedly to block Australians from accessing child porn sites, whilst at the same time $2 million has been shaved from the AFP budget allocated to catching paedophiles? Doesn't this suggest that the government is more interested in blocking what it labels "Objectionable Material" whilst at the same time refusing to clearly define what it means by the term?
FreeSpeechForAll Dec 28, 2009 11:56 AM	and some more questions for the minister: 4. What provisions will be put into place so that people whose sites have been wrongfully put onto the blacklist can be informed, appeal and then have them removed from the list? 5. How does the government plan to compensate those innocent people whose sites have been placed on the list in error, two examples from the trial already are the school canteen and the dentist, neither of whom would even have known that they were on that list unless it had been leaked to the public. Let's face it, if you were depending upon your school canteen website for trade and then it suddenly went quiet, would it even occur to you that your site had been secretly added to a government child porn blacklist? Please keep comments to facts and relevant ideas. Avoid responding to Conroy's name-calling in kind as this erodes intelligent and honest debate.
jonathanconway Dec 30, 2009 3:30 AM	The efficacy of the filtering mechanism, the level of impact it has on performance, the strategies for any possible blunders, are all irrelevant. For the government to embark on this project at all is a travesty of individual rights and freedom. Australia, and any other country where the government is allowed to go this far, is firmly headed toward dictatorship.
boltronics Dec 30, 2009 2:03 PM	We were lied to at election. This was supposed to be "opt-in". If the government actually wanted to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't controlling the list, the least it could do is make it "opt-out". Labour won't be able to count on my vote anymore.
Maxxi Dec 30, 2009 2:19 PM	We are already there jonathanconway, we have had censorship for over 90 years. The effects of the Australian "dictatorship" is evident everywhere you look. Just observer everyday how downtrodden and restricted our lives are, how few freedoms we have, how many freedom fighters are regular jail victims, how we have no free press, forums or blogs! (This one is a gov propaganda outlet cunningly disguised as an ITNews site with forums and comments... Shhh, tell no-one!) Yep, we are already 90 years down the road to eternal perdition. sigh, if they had only recognised our doom back in 1917...
jonathanconway Dec 30, 2009 11:35 PM	@Maxxi Your sarcasm lightens up the day. But you have to see the long-range aspect of these issues. Short-term, this plan probably won't seem to change much. We won't lose our internet access, and 99% of people will still be able to access most of the content they need on a daily basis. The subtle and long-term aspect of the change is the increasing control the government has. The government's heightened control of the Internet - a network that is now a vital part of modern commerce - will open the door to either well-meaning blunders or malicious, power-seeking individuals within government. It will give them unprecedented capabilities to mess things up for all of us, in a way that's difficult to reverse. I'm giving you an objectivist viewpoint on the situation. If you're a statist of some kind, or believe government economic intervention is ever warranted, you may find my comments alarmist.
bujo9 Dec 31, 2009 7:55 PM	If this goes ahead, just wait and see how much money this costs. The Australian Government is incapable of doing cost analysis on their ICT projects. These dinosaurs dont know what things costs. So when Joe Blow I.T Consultancy firm quote 1 million dollars for X project, the governments signs it off. Forget that the body of works is really a weeks work, this is how things are done in the Corporate environment. The really concerning thing is that as we move towards a true online-based society you'll see more of these "initiatves" appear and we'll pay for these projects dearly in our taxes.
Maxxi Jan 2, 2010 2:58 AM	@jonathanconway... tnx jc, you know it was not aimed at you personally... Interesting aspect on percentages. I recently read that the planned 10,000 URLs represent about 1/4 of a bees eylid of a squillionth of the internet URLs, most of which apparently only exist for 1 hour or less, which means that approx 99.9999999999999999999999999% of people (or internet requests) will still be able to access most of the content they need on a daily basis. lol I know, exaggerated numbers. Here is and has always been one of the main reasons I go into my resounding litanies on this excellent forum: The government has been able to exercise this control over all communication, broadcasting, print and entertainment mediums since around 1917. Television was just as exciting and revolutionary in 1956 as the internet is to us today, as an example. It is all a matter of relativity. However, if they have not used these sweeping powers in the last 90 years to corrupt the system, creep the scope, be subservient to the hard right, control the masses, be soft as butter for Wallace the Nutter, fan the fires of the fundamentalists, pump $billions into the bank accts of bloodsucking fundy seeking censorware vendors (I just love the descriptives for vendors - sweet stuff...), subjugate freedom of speech and launch us into the bottomless pits of totalitarianism, then why pray tell now???? 90 years to screw the country and blot out all freedoms, and nary a scrtach on the national psyche to show for it all...? Still one of if not the most free country on ze planete?? As a wise IT dude said, or so it sort of goes "The internet routes around damage. Or as the Aussie dude with the six pack said: "Vote out the bastards!" Both options eventually fix the issues... We cannot have it both ways jc. There are far more violent and brutal instruments for a malicious gov to use to repress Australians than the internet... They could, as an example, allow Abbott to be PM... Yikes! I take it back, too scary, too brutal... ! Sadly I am not a highly paid statist here.... That would be nice. It would be an interesting debate around what govs should and should not do in total, but that is for another forum and another time. It is OK and right to debate how measures and powers could viably be misused, however if an Australian government goes down that path of malicious intent jc, we will have far bigger problems than internet filtering, censorship and controls. Just ask the human rights activist wallowing deep within a stinking dungeon cell in Iran, who will probably never see the light oif day again....
Desk Jan 4, 2010 3:47 PM	"However, if they have not used these sweeping powers in the last 90 years to corrupt the system, creep the scope, be subservient to the hard right, control the masses, be soft as butter for Wallace the Nutter, fan the fires of the fundamentalists, pump $billions into the bank accts of bloodsucking fundy seeking censorware vendors (I just love the descriptives for vendors - sweet stuff...), subjugate freedom of speech and launch us into the bottomless pits of totalitarianism, then why pray tell now???? 90 years to screw the country and blot out all freedoms, and nary a scrtach on the national psyche to show for it all...? Still one of if not the most free country on ze planete??" But i can go online and get a list of every book / movie or game that is RC, if i was recently in another country and had read / watched / played said game and deemed that it should be appropriate i could then appeal the listing and it would get re-evaluated. All if which is fine by (judging from the last 90 years) pretty much everyone. The real issue here Maxxi is that this internet filter (unlike any other western nation as far as i am aware) has a secret list which has no public oversight to ensure that either A> nothing gets mistakenly added to it and B> if something is gets removed.
Maxxi Jan 5, 2010 4:17 AM	The Classification Board and it's predecessors have been managing this area and the oversight of censorship for that 90 years Desk, with a minute number of "controversies" for the number of decisions that they have made. They are respected by the vast majority and have managed their independance well for decades. They have the oversight for this RC filtering system going forward. There are various areas of government related information which is not accessible to the public, yet are well managed and secured by reputable and often independant oversight entities. Again, here, the CB. It is so weasy, and an old tactic, to demand something you know the other side will not provide, and claim secrecy and something to hide.... Not speaking of you yourself, but many are trying to use this angle on this issue. We do not need public oversight of this list, we need a reputable and proven entity to facilitate this, and this is the CB. They have a review process and a record of excellence over a very long period...
Maxxi Jan 5, 2010 4:18 AM	lol.... easy, not 'weasy'....
Sams Jan 5, 2010 10:52 AM	"Do you truly believe that a blacklist filter of the internet here is more powerful a tool for murder than an armed police force, armed forces, ASIO?" Yes, of course. I expect you've heard the expression The pen is mightier than the sword? You can't easily use an armed police force until you have sufficiently undermined democracy.
netizen Jan 5, 2010 3:32 PM	Yes, it's predecessors have been managing this area and the oversight of censorship for that 90 years, but I would have to say the current board looks more reminiscent of a takeover by a government then an example of our communities representative viewpoint. I don’t think I am very keen on any of them having the final say on what I would should see, read or comment on. Now they what tell what I am allowed to play!
Maxxi Jan 5, 2010 4:01 PM	Sams, You do not use the pen to subjugate peoples, you use the sword. I would suggest at this time that the murder and torture, imprisonment, control and abuse of peoples around our globe is being facilitated via the police, security and armed services. Not the control and censorship of the internet. They have comprehensive controls over those countries and/or regions where they exercise their power. That includes most channels of communications, broadcasting, entertainment and information. Most of them had it long before the internet became the communications and broadcasting tool it is today, and the internet was certainly NOT the tool that allowed them to come to their position of power and control. Not once, nowhere, not at all, has not happenned, is not a reality. The phrases of wisdom may sound great, and they are often valid, however it is a matter of context. The controls of the internet do not have the slightest possibility or a reality based scenario where they could be used to subjugate the freedoms of Australians as long as we have a functioning and resilient democracy. The same applies to armed forces, however they are the tool that is used to execute the undermining, not the internet. The scenario that a PM or military leader threatens parliament or the nation with shutting down the internet, as opposed to ordering out the armed troops with live ammo and orders to shoot protesters etc, are worlds apart and represent the difference between a speculated option that would achieve little in gaining power, and one that happens on a regular basis in countries or regions, and has happened for centuries. The internet is great, but it is NOT democracy, and it is NOT the backbone of democracy. Democracies have been around for thousands of years, the internet has been around for about 1000 weeks. The gov could have implemented these feared controls on all current communications at any time over the past 90 years, as they do in other countries, ONCE they have that required level of physical military/police control. Again, the facts prove that every single tyrannical regime on this planet that has controls over the internet, was corrupt and/or tyrannical already, and then corrupted the use of the internet in their countries. None, zero, zilch, null, rien de tout did it the other way round. They all undermined the internet in their egions AFTER they had become corrupted, and certainly none of them used internet filtering or censorship as a tool to come to non-democratic power... Good luck with suggesting that this current government is non-democratic and tyrannical. That is guaranteed not to be accepted by the vast majority of Australians and would a very far fetched proposal.
Maxxi Jan 5, 2010 5:10 PM	Hi netizen. Proposing that the government has railroaded and taken over the classification board, thus negating it's independance, will be a tough proposition to table and get supported. The Opposition would have been all over that, as would the Greens, the media etc. The majority of the Board are Liberal Party appointments, and still include the Director, Deputy Director and Senior Classifier. (Top three board members) The newer appointments are younger to middle age people of diversified backgrounds and a pretty broad horizon group. I cannot see an ALP staffer there, however you may have some background on that. Actually they do not tell anyone what they can read, they will decide on what qualifies as being against our federal laws. These decisions will ultimately lead to some content not being available in Australia, however only in accordance with Australian federal laws and legislation passed by our democratically elected parliament and senate... Many of those laws passed long before Conroy was a minister or in government... They will though now continue to make these decisions, as they have done for over 90 years, and now will do for RC in this context. Not what they like or do not like, but what qualifies as RC. And they do it well. The number of genuinely contested decisions that have proven to be CB errors are few, and many content providers have been able to call for a review and argue thier case for reclassification, which has also often ensued. Where that implies government takeover I am not certain? Governments of the day will always be able to table new bills in Canberra, and succeed with many, and make changes to consorship laws. However there has been zero proof that they have ever misused these powers to oppress or negate political opposition. Lots of speculation and assertions, but that is the daily grind of politics and the media, and proves to be 99% incorrect. We have a democracy that does not look like it is going anywhere else in a hurry. Heck, even Tony Abbott could end up PM, and Rudd beat Howard, how much democracy does one people need above that! >;)) Cheers
Sams Jan 5, 2010 6:17 PM	"Sams, You do not use the pen to subjugate peoples, you use the sword." You have the cart before the horse again. I'll repeat what I said: "You can't easily use an armed police force until you have sufficiently undermined democracy." But you keep hammering your square pegs of rationalisation into the round holes of reality if it makes you feel happier.
Maxxi Jan 5, 2010 8:09 PM	The reality is that a blacklist filter on the internet is not going to undermine an Australian democracy. Not now, not ever. Filters on the internet in no other country has undermined democracies. Not now, not then. The horses here Sams are the regimes that undermined the democracies long before they started trying to do anything with internet controls. That is the irrevocable reality of dozens of tyrannical regimes we have in our world today. That is not a rationalisation, that is a fact supported by every single example we have on the planet. Cold hard facts. What actually happened. No square pegs of rationalisation at all, just the facts of how it happened, and how it happens today. List them all off if you like, be it China, Nth Korea, Iran, Iraq, a dozen African traversties, Cuba, wherever. The undermining of the democracy was not facilitated in a single case in the history of mankind via a blacklist filter on the internet implemented by an otherwise democratic government, or otherwise in fact. But, many already corrupt and/or dictatorial regimes have used or attempted to use censorship to further their goals and controls, just as they use and corrput many other otherwise normal and positive facilities to further their aims. This has repeated itself hundreds of times in the history of mankind. Every normal and positive, neutral or otherwise flavoured governance and law enforcement method or practice is open to corruption once you have a corrupt regime, and history proves this Sams. Good tools become tols of oppression. But the tools does not maketh the oppressor corrupt, the oppressor maketh the use of the tool corrupt. Anyone that really believes that a 10,000, or even 20,000 or 100,000 URL blacklist filter on our Australian internet is a method of undermining/negating democracy here, underestimates both the power of the internet and the health of our democracy, our Constitution and the heirachy model of our armed forces... And I also not hold much reality in the thought that Australian soldiers and officers would be swayed by whatever is on the internet, or not on the internet, to break their vows of loyalty to country and Constitution and allow anyone to assume dictatorial power. Again, 90 years of clear and real experience shows us that censorship in Australia has not brought us even 1 millimeter closer to having our democracy undermined...
Mycroft Jan 6, 2010 12:12 AM	Maxxi wrote: Filters on the internet in no other country has undermined democracies. Not now, not then. Cold hard facts. What actually happened. No square pegs of rationalisation at all, just the facts of how it happened, and how it happens today.. How can you use examples of dictatorships filtering the internet to support your conclusion that a democracy using filtering will have no adverse effect? Your cold hard facts are completely irrelevant. The other countries had no democracy to undermine! Australia's blazing the trail on this
Sams Jan 6, 2010 12:46 AM	Maxxi: "The reality is that a blacklist filter on the internet is not going to undermine an Australian democracy. Not now, not ever. Filters on the internet in no other country has undermined democracies. Not now, not then." That's just ridiculous. You're not living in the real world. Not now. Not ever.
Maxxi Jan 6, 2010 5:07 AM	Fine Sams, just give us the real examples where the blacklist filter had actually undermined the democracy? Not where it was a "factor" after the democracy was already undermined. Not where it has been used as a tool by an already currupted, non-democratic regime. Examples where a democratic government has been changed to non-democratic, totalitarian regime through implementing and using a blacklist filter... Thanks Sams.
Maxxi Jan 6, 2010 5:19 AM	Ah Mycroft, thank you for confirming exactly what I have been articulating all along. The context has been claims that the use of blacklist internet filters compares Australia now with China, Iran, Nth Korea etc, and that we will now become like them. My position is that this is unsubstantiated, as those named countries were already non-democratic before they startedusing internet filters. Which you confirm. Furthermore the cold hard facts are very relevant, as there are no examples of democracies that have been corrupted by the implementation of internet filters. Which you have just confirmed, thanks. Next, I have actually never, ever stated that there will be no adverse effects. Please keep to the facts. My conclusion is that the Australian democracy will not be diverted by the implementation of the filter to be non-democratic, it will not become like China or Iran or Nth Korea due to this proposed filter being implemented. Australia is blazing a trail alright, but not out of democracy. Any assertion that we are leaving democracy is pure and unsubstantiated speculation, based on zero living examples or precedence.
Desk Jan 6, 2010 8:57 AM	@Maxxi "as there are no examples of democracies that have been corrupted by the implementation of internet filters." It would be interesting to see if you changed internet blacklist to censorship in general (as previous to very recently there was no internet to censor) if one could indeed bring up data that would bring up examples of democracies becoming corrupted? (TBH I really don't have the spare time to do the leg work) I like what you said about... "But the tools does not maketh the oppressor corrupt, the oppressor maketh the use of the tool corrupt." That statement is a reason why there are many opposed to this filter, we are giving the people in power a very powerful tool. I personally do not trust any politician and further than i can throw them. Look at this current government, they got elected on the promise of an opt in filter (can anyone say scope creep). My history is not the best so pull me up if i get something wrong but the impression i have about Nazi German was that they were elected promising all these good things and how much better off they would be... Just some food for thought?
Sams Jan 6, 2010 9:22 AM	Maxxi: "Examples where a democratic government has been changed to non-democratic, totalitarian regime through implementing and using a blacklist filter..." As a person with personal ongoing experience in a repressed regime (Ethiopia) and a daughter who was born there, I find your disingenuous argument offensive. Ethiopia is a country that actively blacklists sites that criticise the government. The government channels all Internet and other electronic communications through a state-owned infrastructure, and also controls other media such as TV news. In fact, they shut off the entire SMS system when it was being used by the opposition for political campaigning, and it never came back on. The government is officially classified as a 'democracy', but with the vastly rural public kept in the dark, they have had the same government for decades, despite various atrocities and injustices. Your statements are nonsensical for a number of reasons: (a) you are playing semantics (as usual) with the word "undermining", presumably redefining it to mean it only happens once at the start, which is wrong (ask any river bank); (b) you are presenting a false dichotomy in saying that undermining communications and using violence to topple democracy can't happen at the same time: which is wrong; there are many methods that can be used simultaneously - but invariably one of the first controlling the information sources and generating propaganda; (c) you know very well that the Internet has not been a serious democratic tool for long enough to present the examples that you demand. Continual arguments over pointless semantics and straw-man arguments are just further evidence that people whose logic is warped by religion are more than happy to trample the truth in the rush to raise their own version of the "facts" as preached by their cult leaders. Such people take these "facts" as a fixed points that constrain their thought processes, which has been the root of a vast amount of suffering and evil for hundreds of years. Such people make junk statements like "90 years of clear and real experience shows us that censorship in Australia has not brought us even 1 millimeter closer to having our democracy undermined" out of thin air to try to rationise their prejudices. The same people are seen in government making moronic 'policy on the run' decisions because they are so arrogantly certain that they must be right. If you think democracy in Australia is perfect and has not already been undermined, you are incredibly naive. Hopefully you at least realise by now that democracy is not just about being able to vote.
anonymous Jan 6, 2010 9:28 AM	@Maxxi, "you do not use the pen to subjugate people, you use the sword." There may be a few people who disagree with such naivety, particularly among those who have lived under Big Lie fascist or socialist regimes. Your many verbose posts ardently advocating censorship are as long as those of all other contributors put together. This raises the issue of what could impel a person to seem so obsessed with a point of view, and perhaps you could ask yourself that question. Supporters of Internet censorship seem to be unaware or unwilling to accept that it: Won't do what is claimed; Will create a technical bottleneck; Will be administered in secret by the govt or govt appointed nominees; Could be used by a future govt to block opposing views; Is not limited to RC material, so is not comparable with film and TV censorship; and Is simply a comms pipeline like telephone and postal services. There would rightly be outrage if the govt tried to censor all phone calls or letter contents, and in this respect the Net is no different.
Mycroft Jan 6, 2010 10:41 AM	Maxxi wrote: Furthermore the cold hard facts are very relevant, as there are no examples of democracies that have been corrupted by the implementation of internet filters. Which you have just confirmed, thanks. No-ones impressed by you being willfully obtuse. If you want to play that game, there are no examples of democracies that haven't been corrupted by the implementation of internet filters Give us examples of other democracies implementing internet filters. Quote: Next, I have actually never, ever stated that there will be no adverse effects. Please keep to the facts. Don't play a game of semantics. "Averse effects" obviously refers to undermining democracy. What other adverse effects do you envisage? Quote: My conclusion is that the Australian democracy will not be diverted by the implementation of the filter to be non-democratic, it will not become like China or Iran or Nth Korea due to this proposed filter being implemented. Australia is blazing a trail alright, but not out of democracy. Any assertion that we are leaving democracy is pure and unsubstantiated speculation, based on zero living examples or precedence. [/quote] Did I say Australias blazing a trail out of democracy? No.. Australias blazing a trail by being the first democracy to implement a filter. There are no precendents to base your opinions on, only your personal biases. Further, undermining doesn't mean destroying. You've created the false dilemma of either the filter having no effect or Australia turning into Iran
PeteA Jan 6, 2010 12:01 PM	I am sorry to everyone involved in the debate above. I haven't been able to read all 50 comments (I did read a good portion of the first half though). However in that list, I saw only fleeting reference to the real issues as I see it. This filter will not affect anyone. If there is some content I am going to want to access that is filtered, I will circumvent it. Any kid in a school with a tech savvy parent, will be able to teach their friends how to circumvent the filter. Therefore I predict that very quickly, every child in the country will be able to circumvent it at their leisure. The child pornographers will not be affected. (They will continue to use P2P and other technologies to do what they always have). The only people that will be "affected" are those that want to be affected. I don't really care about my 3% speed reduction. It is inconvenient, it is annoying but it isn't the problem with the proposed system. The problem is it is a waste of money. Plain and simple. It will not actually address any problems it has been implied it is intended to address. It will not protect anyone from anything it apparently seeks to protect people from. Indeed it will only have negative consequences. Reduced parental oversight due to increased complacency, potential speed reductions (even of the order of 3% is a negative, albeit a minor one), potential "mis-hits". Given that the benefits don't exist, all I can see are negatives. Why pay for something that only has down-sides? I just don't get it!
Desk Jan 6, 2010 2:11 PM	@PeteA We are dealing with politics here... The benefits of this filter is that the government gets more votes from those who believe that this filter is needed to protect themselves (i deliberately left out the children as they already know how to bypass it, and if you don't think they do you are kidding yourself, i know because it was not too long ago i was one of those people bypassing the school filters) and from "stumbling" across all the nasty things on the internet!
btone Jan 6, 2010 6:35 PM	@Maxxi A belated aplology for my assertion of a possible connection between you and the dig. I doubt either of us would delve into the areas of sexist, pointless rubbish like: " My suggestiosn for the New Year: 1. Get a Girlfriend 2. Get a Girlfriend and 3. Get a Grilfirend or Boyfriend if you're that way inclined (and we would all understand if you were .....) My levels of comprehension must be very compromised, I don't understand that mindset at all... A belated happy new year to all the posters, irrespective of their socio-political IT positions, (excepting the occasional low level 'digging').
Digger11 Jan 7, 2010 1:47 PM	I wish all a Happy New Year (even BTONE). I am not racist nor biased but Pro-Aussie and support our current country and values. My views are similar (yet not as far right) to Andrew Bolt, who I am guessing from your posts that 50% of you adore and 50% despise.