Conroy: Too early to lose hope on ISP filter

 

Wait for RC review and legislation, he says.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy last night refused to back away from his party's controversial internet filtering regime, saying it was too early to speculate about the policy's future.

Appearing on the ABC's Q&A program, Conroy responded to recent criticism that the Government no longer had the numbers in the Senate to see its controversial legislation passed - should the draft laws ever be introduced to parliament.

"When people say it won't be passed, the legislation hasn't been drafted and the review [of Refused Classification guidelines announced before the election] hasn't taken place yet," Conroy said.

"You don't - simply because you get a lot of criticism - simply run away from that policy."

Conroy faced much the same criticisms on the program that he had faced previously, including technical feasibility of the proposal and the cancellation of the Coalition's PC-based filter scheme.

"It will not work," shadow minister for innovation Sophie Mirabella said.

"That's why there is such widespread opposition to it."

Australian Sex Party president Fiona Patten suggested that some of the resources currently allocated to the ISP filter be put towards attempts to cut off child pornography at its source rather than simply trying to block access to it.

And independent MP Rob Oakeshott said he "looked forward" to seeing the filter legislation when it was introduced.

"Let's look at it in detail [then]," Oakeshott said.

Parental supervision

"I think personal responsibility is a big factor in what we're all trying to achieve with this one," Oakeshott told viewers of the program.

"I think the most valuable thing that can be done in every household is the 'shoulder surfing' [by parents watching their kids' internet use]."

Oakeshott suggested that was possible by placing the household computer "in an open space", something Conroy believed was outdated.

"An open space doesn't exist when an iPad [or] iPhone exists," Conroy said.

"This argument that it should be put in the family room or the common room is now technologically bypassed."

Online anonymity

Conroy also weighed into the online privacy debate, following yesterday's unmasking by The Australian newspaper of an "anonymous" political blogger who was a public servant.

"I thought it was really interesting to see News Ltd outing somebody for anonymity when they ran a campaign to protect anonymity about 12 months ago," Conroy said, referring to a backlash against the South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson over moves to outlaw anonymous comments made on blogs during that state's election.

"When the South Australian Attorney-General tried to say that people had to identify themselves on a blog during the SA election campaign, News Ltd ran a campaign saying this was censorship," Conroy said.

Conroy believed Australia needed to "face up to a debate around the tort of privacy".

"We need to have some bounds between the right to know and the tort of privacy," he said.

Copyright © iTnews.com.au . All rights reserved.


Conroy: Too early to lose hope on ISP filter
"@Maxxi2, you seem to be posing a question to a statement that wasn't made. Suggest you read the post from ozandy again. And your reply to X_Selectar about AFP, etc also missed the point being ..."
By anonymous
 
 
 
Comments: 41
wolfpac
Sep 28, 2010 7:55 AM
heres nothing new the government dont care about the people,,,all wants is contral of our life... and tell use what to do male of a stupid female is in power she is the most stupid person to take power in australia that i am ashamed to even call my self an australian.

internet cencership is the PARENTS FAUL NOT THE PEOPLES FAULT if there kids get into trouble not mine or the government to make a cencorship program so WHY must i suffer becouse of stupid parents?????????kids should be seen not heard
wolfpac
Sep 28, 2010 7:58 AM
or lock up parnets for NOT watching there kids government should be charge for pokeing there noses where it is NOT WANTED everytime the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED IT F---S THINGS UP BIG. the internet is NOT broken so stay out of it you stupied ass government before you get burnt

Edited for profanity.

Edited by nate.cochrane: 28/9/2010 02:32:38 PM
Sams
Sep 28, 2010 8:03 AM
"This argument that it should be put in the family room or the common room is now technologically bypassed"

Of rubbish- that's exactly what we have. Don't give your young kids an iPad with enabled web access for a start. Conroy is a liar.
EMwyres
Sep 28, 2010 8:39 AM
The filter legislation hasn't been drafted? For crying out loud, you've been working on this "legislation" for three years! Where the hell is it? This man is a bozo of epic proportions.
Tom Brown
Sep 28, 2010 10:07 AM
Glad to hear the filter is still on the table.
I support the filter!

Wolfpac, you are treating this very personally, there is already filtering and the government has been asked by community representatives (not just politicians) to do something about illegal content on the internet.
Wolfpac I bet you are also highly aggressive about boat refugees they are to you illegal but when it comes to illegal material on the internet you play the opposite. You want something to show your frustrations about and you don't care who gets hurt, just blame the parents.

All the real evidence (not those with political interests) shows that the filter is not a technical problem, many countries have them in different ways with no technical problems, Singapore, China, USA.

Sams: Conroy and Oakshott are only answering questions put by journalist and to say they are lying is rubbish.

The fundamental question is "Do we want illegal material freely available" I say no. The next question is what material should be illegal and whether the government is required to notify the community of such, This requires a change and more work than I have seen so far.

Regards
HubertCumberdale
Sep 28, 2010 10:08 AM
I watched this last night Conroy was just spouting the same tired lines. Nothing new and nothing we haven't heard before, mind you Sophie Mirabella was not much better (actually quite embarrassing) despite opposing the filter the only ones that were talking any sense were Fiona Patten, Mungo MacCallum and to a lesser extent Rob Oakeshott.
HubertCumberdale
Sep 28, 2010 10:12 AM
Tom Brown wrote:
Glad to hear the filter is still on the table.
I support the filter!

It's on the table but will never be passed now. Guess you'll just have to use a PC based filter... wait are you doing that now? if not why not? you need to stop the scams coming through the portal somehow man.
Ace
Sep 28, 2010 10:31 AM
@Tom says "I support the filter!"

...and I believe their is a place in Australia for minorities, even those with slightly outdated ideas. Helps to keep us on our toes.
Blamer ..
Sep 28, 2010 11:03 AM
Conroy's completely disingenuous in saying his filter will "work". It'll be "100% accurate" at doing what it does (read: sharp-shooter fallacy).

It WON'T STOP INTENTIONAL ACCESS to illegal online content (due to p2p, etc).

Any novice on YouTube can find '5 WAYS TO GET AROUND THE FILTER in 2 mins'.

And the blacklist/filter will need to GROW INDEFINATELY to have any hope of blocking "accidental access" to illegal websites. How often does this happen !?

Conroy's goal isn't safety of the next generation, it's appeasing old fogey voters - motivated by religous lobbies - with ideas that ought be shifting as more light is shed on the issue.
anonymous
Sep 28, 2010 11:05 AM

@Ace, yes we should certainly defend the rights of daffy minorities to hold their beliefs. Just as long as they don't try to insist that those beliefs must apply to everybody.

@Hubert, you'll have to do better than that - we need to stop Conboy's scams AND spams from comin' through his portal! After his repeated lies last night, it's clear that the little dodger could never be trusted with the system of secret State censorship he is still trying to impose on us.

RDEFCON1
Sep 28, 2010 11:16 AM
YAWN! Nothing new here. Conroy's a dolt. The legislation is doomed. Boring...

@wolfpac - your irrational diatribe fails to do justice to the anti-filter cause. Better to keep quiet.
Thysce
Sep 28, 2010 11:49 AM
@Tom Brown
"Wolfpac, you are treating this very personally, there is already filtering"

Ummm... There is no "filtering already in place". Maybe where you use the internet, which would be independently controlled by the resident Sys Admin, but beyond that, there is no "active" filtering, especially none currently existing at ISP level.
Tom Brown
Sep 28, 2010 1:38 PM
Thysce
You will find your router has a built in filter, the ISP's routers and cache controllers have built in filter, your browser has a filter, all going at the same time. You may not have any sites restricted but they are running and it can. Microsofts inprivate filter and smartfilter as well, and the Smartfilter is a much more comprehensive system as it compares sites worldwide to a central database in the US. All Security filters do a similar thing.

Our government started filtering traffic looking for terrorists prior to the Atlanta Olympic games 1996. The filter was not to stop the traffic but to monitor and intercept.
Thysce
Sep 28, 2010 2:11 PM
@Tom Brown
"(utter crap)"

Of course all routers have a built-in filter, but it's only built-in. Usage is at the whim of the owner/Sys Admin, ie. Myself, and I have it turned off because I don't need it on. If it needs to be on, I'll do so at my discretion.

As of present, I've never had any need to turn on my router's filter.

And my ISP actively oppose the filter, otherwise I would've left them a long time ago.

You're sounding much like Conroy himself. You speak of "filters already in place" but they are merely just sitting them ready for use, but not actually being used. Your words are what are corrupting discussions to scare people into thinking they're already being filtered by merely saying they're there. What you are _not_ saying is what I've already outlined above.

Come up with something logical and sensical (and factual) to say, or stop preaching.
Thysce
Sep 28, 2010 2:17 PM
Forgot to add:

"The filter was not to stop the traffic but to monitor and intercept."

A filter is a "filter" to block traffic. By definition, a "filter" doesn't just "monitor" for unwanted traffic, it blocks it. To purely just "monitor" might as well be referred to as a packet version of CCTV or wire-tapping.

Get your definitions right.
Ezy2Confuze
Sep 28, 2010 4:23 PM
"You don't - simply because you get a lot of criticism - simply run away from that policy."

Going from Conjob's previous history and comments, believe what was actually meant is:

"You don't - simply because you've already made up your mind - simply run away from that policy."

I don't trust Conjob at all, as a Politican or a person.

Again, this policy has been in development for three years now and they have nothing to show for it?

I'd like to see Conjob in a televised debate on this, see what the "Worm" has to say about him. As long as the audience is made up of a true cross section of Aussies and not one particular group.
Tom Brown
Sep 28, 2010 4:57 PM
Thysce
The common usage of the term filter in relation to IT is to block but I was not being common, you may as you please. My statement was because so many critics eg wolfpac use the argument that it will break or damage the internet.

If the critics of the filter were not so blatantly personal and could put together a real argument then they may have something to say. At this time their arguments are of no substance and designed for the purpose of stirring the mob just as is the oppositions sponsoring of those arguments. That it does not stop P2P is not an argument, it is a reason to extend the nature of the filter(then you may have a real reason for greater concern).
Tom Brown
Sep 28, 2010 5:01 PM
PS most Australians want the rubbish off the internet! Critics maybe you can come up with a feasable idea.
Thysce
Sep 28, 2010 5:19 PM
@Tom Brown:
"My statement was because so many critics eg wolfpac use the argument that it will break or damage the internet."

But it will break the internet due to the potential high risk of false-positives and barring access to sites that do not fall under the jurisdiction of Australian laws.

"If the critics of the filter were not so blatantly personal and could put together a real argument then they may have something to say."

This can't be helped considering the filter proposal is basically saying it'll impeach on our private lives, so we effectively have no choice. We don't want the government telling us how to live and breathe (okay, there are _some_ exceptions to this, but the filter is not one of them).

"At this time their arguments are of no substance and designed for the purpose of stirring the mob just as is the oppositions sponsoring of those arguments."

So you're willing to illegitimise arguments from industry experts such as Google, Internode and SAGE-AU? Good luck with that, you'll need it.

"That it does not stop P2P is not an argument"

But it doesn't stop P2P. Browsing and P2P activity are 2 different protocols.

"PS most Australians want the rubbish off the internet! Critics maybe you can come up with a feasable idea."

Did you run off that poll that said "93 (or 96) percent of all australians want a filter"? I'd like to see the basis of your facts.
Rhino
Sep 28, 2010 5:20 PM
@ TomBrown "not those with political interests" It's incredibly naive of you to think that anyone who is involved in this is doing it for non political interests.

The ACL who Mr Conroy has consulted with are a prime example of that. We as the Austalian public are the primary stakeholders in this, yet we the public who will be paying for this are being ignored.

if Mr Conroy was certain he was doing this for the people, why not put it to a referendum or something similar, and let people have a say in this.
deteego
Sep 28, 2010 5:29 PM
@TomBrown

You want a Filter so badly? Go download one of the plethora of filtering applications out there. If someone wants a filter, they can get it easily. The major point you are missing is 'mandatory'. No filter should be mandatory, else it will be abused, it always has in history

I can turn off the filter in my router, if I am in Sweden I can call the ISP to remove me from their ISP filter list (which is also a much weaker DNS filter), if I have a filtering program, I can uninstall the filter

If you are still not getting the point, then you shouldn't be commenting
peterniss
Sep 28, 2010 5:51 PM
It still amazes me that there are a few people out there supporting this as it is. A manditory filter with very little oversight. And with a lot of critisism from industry experts including myself. I would like to see certain religions that cause harm and distress to the country, little boys, etc censored but I realise that that isnt fair and everyone is entitled to believe what they want. The government has just made a statement that it will not help in "cyber attacks against business" and that it is up to the private sector to protect the nation from internet based attacks. Yet they are very keen to block the country from a secret list of sites deemed by some unknown persons to be bad with no oversight. Go figure.
Mordd
Sep 28, 2010 6:45 PM
Tell me Minister, how exactly do you plan to get the legislation through a Senate which by the time the RC review is completed will hold 9 Greens holding the balance of power.

Either Conroy is betting on Coalition Senators crossing the floor or he is simply off in the clouds oblivous to the current political realities after the last election. Hell will freeze over before the Greens support this legislation, without them or the Coalition then Labor does not have the numbers no matter which way you count them to pass this in the Senate.
thor
Sep 28, 2010 10:50 PM
@Tom Brown
All the real evidence (not those with political interests) shows that the filter is not a technical problem, many countries have them in different ways with no technical problems, Singapore, China, USA

I find it amusing that you use Singapore and China, some of the worlds most repressed states. Sorry but your credibility has just gone out the window.

From a technical point of view, I have worked with filtering programs and if you look at the results, the filter has had a negative impact on all the test, except those that had previous ISP filters on there, some up to 80%. Working at high schools previously with a proxy server/ filtering system, it slows down the speed quite considerly, Now i am only talking a couple of hundred computers, imagine what it would be like for a hundreds of thousand computers. Australia doesnt have the qualities as the US does so you cant compare between the 2.

@deteego
Couldn't agree with you more. :)
pameacs
Sep 29, 2010 9:08 AM
Just going to weigh in here, An error here is that the USA does not have filtering, its generally argued as not allowed under their constitution. They probably have very heavy monitoring by certain organisations to try and identify terrorist traffic, but the information gleaned from that is discarded(officially) if it has no value in the terrorist hunt. Whilst Wikipedia isn't a truly reliable source, its a good starting point to dig deeper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship. For those that want to argue go and have a read and do the research to back up arguments either way and no I don't support mandatory filtering. I have worked in countries that have it and I can say it can be circumvented, of course that could be risky in some places. It is notoriously bad in doing its job unless you spend a lot of resources in maintaining it. Better spent on my roads, education and health than filtering. Hopefully the Coalition will maintain their election stance and say no to filtering.
Sams
Sep 29, 2010 2:04 PM
Tom Brown: "Sams: Conroy and Oakshott are only answering questions put by journalist and to say they are lying is rubbish."

I didn't say anything about Oakeshott for a start. Anyone with the prerequisite IT knowledge knows that Conroy is lying through his teeth.
Tom Brown
Sep 29, 2010 3:47 PM
Sam Thanks for correcting me, I thought you comment was in response to Mr Oakshotts comments in the article under Parental supervision.
And I see no cause to say Conroy is lying in any of his comments reported here, tec prereq or not, if you do please be specific not just name calling.

Oh Thor, when AFACT was the target of a DOS attack Netregistry (AFACTS host) blocked all traffic to their customers from 2 countries. But I suppose that is not a filter, not, And I suppose it effected their performance more than the DDOS, not.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/233678,post-mortem-how-the-ddos-attack-on-afact-misfired.aspx
Tom Brown
Sep 29, 2010 3:58 PM
Rhino, it is a political discourse.
I have a very different perspective from many of the commenter's and wish to put that forward for balance. I believe ordinary people want the filter, but it is the critics who are making all the noise and that is because the ordinary person is not so emotively involved.
PS. I am not involved in any political or religious group and am an Atheist.
deteego
Sep 29, 2010 4:09 PM
Tom Brown wrote:
Sam Thanks for correcting me, I thought you comment was in response to Mr Oakshotts comments in the article under Parental supervision.
And I see no cause to say Conroy is lying in any of his comments reported here, tec prereq or not, if you do please be specific not just name calling.


Conroy did Lie, its even stated on his Wikipedia page (with all the references) where he lied. He for example said that iiNet supported the Filter, when Michael Malone blatantly said that they would not support the Filter, and he twisted figures around to support his claim that it did not slow down the internet (when it did) or did unrealistic lab situations (not real life situations)

You are also ignoring all arguments that the Filter is ineffective and mandatory. Its ineffective because the more it filters, the more it slows down the internet (compounded further on high traffic sites). The only reason its not slowing down the internet in the latest trial is because its only blocking like ~500 websites (hence it being ineffective).

You see the funny thing is, when ordinary people were told and explain why and how the filter was ineffective (and circumvent it) they almost all immediately changed their opinion. The only reason why people originally supported the filter is because they didn't understand it properly, now that (everyone) does, there is literally no support for it.

People want a filter, they do not want mandatory censorship and they want a filter that is effective and doesn't slow down the internet. Conroys filter does non of that, and it never has

Edited by deteego: 29/9/2010 04:09:57 PM
Thysce
Sep 29, 2010 5:03 PM
@Tom Brown:
"I believe ordinary people want the filter, but it is the critics who are making all the noise and that is because the ordinary person is not so emotively involved."

That's because _ordinary people_ have no logical clue as to what's going on and as to what will happen, or simply don't care.

_WE_ are making the noise because _WE_ know exactly what's going to happen, and _WE_ are trying to inform the uninformed _ordinary people_ accordingly.
anonymous
Sep 29, 2010 5:09 PM

@Tom B, Conboy has lied repeatedly, and appears to have forgotten nothing and learnt nothing. He is said to be a grubby little branch-stacking faction boss, and clearly seems to be well out of his depth.

On TV he claimed his censorship "was 100% accurate. 100% ACCURATE!" when anyone with a basic knowledge of Net architecture knows that is impossible, even in theory. In practice, the claim is technically silly and just ridiculous.

@deteego has said it perfectly - people want a filter [on their PC which they can set to suit their needs], they do not want mandatory censorship imposed on them by somebody who seems to make car dealers look responsible.
DarrenCrockett
Oct 1, 2010 5:55 PM
Could someone please explain to me if there is a better way to filter this illegal content? I myself am currently opposed to the filter because the few news stories I have heard have all informed me of several reasons that the filter will not work or restrict content that I myself find acceptable (or at least content that should be available to people who choose to view it). Is it NBN feesable? Will it slow my internet connection down so much that I will notice when I play video games online? can p2p programs be filtered as well/instead? will I have to pay for this apparently useless filter that is going to restrict my access to websites and ruin my video game experience? If someone could answer a few of these questions that would be great.
deteego
Oct 1, 2010 10:32 PM
DarrenCrockett wrote:
Could someone please explain to me if there is a better way to filter this illegal content? I myself am currently opposed to the filter because the few news stories I have heard have all informed me of several reasons that the filter will not work or restrict content that I myself find acceptable (or at least content that should be available to people who choose to view it). Is it NBN feesable? Will it slow my internet connection down so much that I will notice when I play video games online? can p2p programs be filtered as well/instead? will I have to pay for this apparently useless filter that is going to restrict my access to websites and ruin my video game experience? If someone could answer a few of these questions that would be great.


Well you can easily purchase one of the various filtering programs on the market, which actually do a better job of filtering (because they can disallow all requests sent to a certain address on the actual computer and have filtering lists that update regularly). Then there is the issue of P2P, and well filtering P2P aint going to happen because the only way to (properly) filter P2P is to to check every file as it finishes downloading to see if it has unsuitable content, and that really ain't possible. You can say the same thing for standard HTTP filtering as well, except that its easier to find if a certain website has heaps of unsuitable content (then finding out if every possible file could be unsuitable).

You need to realize, that the design of the internet makes an "effective" filter (I guess depending on your definition of effective) impossible (especially with the advent of P2P). There are fairly effective filters for standard web browsing but with the sharing of just files thats a completely different story (and practically not feasible).

Edited by deteego: 1/10/2010 10:32:59 PM
epimetheus
Oct 10, 2010 4:44 PM
Oh come on! Conroy is a politician so that makes him an idiot. Further, he is a Labor politician which makes him a total idiot. He is obviously too stupid, or too dogmatic, to see that his so-called "filter" is a load of unworkable crap...like most things that emanate from a group of "no-hoper" ex union hacks.....ie the current Labor government. Don't blame me....I was not stupid enough to be a Labor supporter, nor did I vote!
Slatts
Oct 10, 2010 5:50 PM
epimetheus wrote:
Don't blame me....I was not stupid enough to be a Labor supporter, nor did I vote!


If you didn't even vote then your opinion is worth nothing.

you're just another voiceless whinger.

X_Selectar
Oct 10, 2010 10:21 PM
Forget the Filter, get the Australian Federal Police on the job seeking out the scum who imprison children, and woman and inflict some of the most horrible abuse imaginable, video it, on put it online.

I find it disgusting that no one has put their hand up that this is an issue, rather than we don't want to see "Porn"! The Porn will take care of itself, (you look, or you don't ! Too easy ! Your choice.)
Brutalising children, and women are what we should be actively tracking and tracing the sources of, to completely stop and remove such practices from the World.
I don't get "The Filter", it makes no sense. If you cannot surf the Web without coming across "Porn" you need to go back to school and learn the basics of Computer use, and how to be safe online.
Catching the monsters who network human abuse as entertainment is so much more important ! Why no one is asking these questions really distresses me.
Maxxi2
Oct 11, 2010 8:57 AM
So let us know X_Selectar, just what do the AFP do in this regard, how much and withhow much effort already?

Do you know at all? How many officers, how much time and with which resources? Are they already seeking out the scum, or not?

Have you spoken with them, in order to qualify your demand that Australia should "get the Australian Federal Police on the job seeking out the scum"...?

According to their statements of activity, they have a taskforce doing just this already, and have made arrests in this activity, and work continuously with overseas police orgs.

You might want to be a bit better informed about that...

ozandy
Oct 11, 2010 12:18 PM
Filtering won't harm me much....but who do we trust with a secret list that controls *all* our information access?
No-one that who! Power corrupts.
That this is deeply unpopular appears irrelevant, which means democracy is not understood by the churchy authoritarians who are proposing it.
What these folks don't get is that we *will not* accept their authority. Like "the war on drugs" the "war on freedom of information* will never be won. Freedom is in human's make-up and cannot be traded away for dubious safety.
X_Selectar
Oct 11, 2010 11:57 PM
@Maxxi2; Maybe you misunderstood, as I didn't clearly say the AFP, FBI, plus many International policing agaencies already are seaking out these scum, I took it for granted everyone was aware.

Point being invest resources from this proposed "Filter", to tracking Scum who practice these horrendous crimes, then multiply that sum by 100 !
That is what is important !

Forget some politicians agenda and misconceptions, and parents lazy (un educated)attitude to their children's internet use. There are greater concerns !

Maxxi2 says:
"According to their statements of activity, they have a taskforce doing just this already, and have made arrests in this activity, and work continuously with overseas police orgs."
That is correct, and it is great, but too little, too slow. I want it as a No.1 Priority, I'm sure we all do !

What are you doing about it Maxxi2 ?

Maxxi2 said:
"You might want to be a bit better informed about that..."

As a volunteer/Expert in this area, and Malware in general yes I am very well informed.
There are many MVP's ( Microsoft Most Valued Professionals: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/) working as volunteers, training people to fight alongside law enforcement online, as volunteers.

Channelling energies were they are needed, using the Internet as a powerful tool, in just a few hours a day fighting Malware, learning about it, helping ongoing investigations and things would move along a little faster.

We must all volunteer to help stressed policing services, in personally suitable ways.
Just reading at trusted sites from sources I've linked to in this post can help.

Not everyone is a genius, although the criminals online most certainly are very well educated in how to find exploits and holes to hack into.

More very important Info Here:
ASAP - http://asap.maddoktor2.com/
UNITE - http://www.uniteagainstmalware.com/
Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Secunia find and notify Microsoft of Security vulnrerabilities, and third party Software vendors.
It is in everyone's best interest to run a scan of your System for outdated, exploitable Software !
All sites are 100% respected reputable world leaders in managing your online security, for no profit, donations accepted.
I have no personal affiliation with any of these sites, and organisations, other than being a volunteer helper.
I do believe we all owe it to each other to be proactive in keeping our Computers safe (unInfected) online, as to not cause a threat to others, and invite hackers in.
It is most “experts” opinion that by wiping out exploits and vulnerabilities online from criminals, that such a proposed filter as suggested by Senator Conroy would not be necessary.
Maxxi2
Oct 12, 2010 9:16 AM
@ozandy, ISPs have had a complete record of all your access information since you ever started to use the internet, are you claiming that our associates and friends, all the owners and engineers in the ISP industry are corrupt?
anonymous
Oct 12, 2010 4:42 PM

@Maxxi2, you seem to be posing a question to a statement that wasn't made. Suggest you read the post from ozandy again.

And your reply to X_Selectar about AFP, etc also missed the point being made, which was that the tens of millions that will be wasted on Conboy's stupid filter would be much better allocated to provide additional AFP resources for detecting examples of abuse.
Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Australian miners send drones to work
In-depth: Unmanned aerial vehicles in the resources sector.
 
The New Zealand telco problem
Opinion: Could Telstra save Kiwi telcos?
 
IT price probe to 'name and shame' gougers
Industry ducking the issue, committee claims.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Should the Government enact new legislation to protect copyright holders in the digital age?

   |   View results
Yes
  20%
 
No
  80%
TOTAL VOTES: 507

Vote