Conroy remains committed to mandatory filtering

By John Hilvert on Feb 10, 2011 1:20 PM
Filed under Security

Pending Classification review.

Australia's proposed mandatory ISP filter proposal was very much alive, the Minister for Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy said today.

Speaking at a news conference to detail an agreement between the Government and Telstra over the National Broadband Network build, Conroy was asked whether he had "abandoned the filter" after delaying its introduction until after a classification review.

"That's a very big call," Conroy replied. "I didn't know I'd abandoned the filter."

He did, however, acknowledge that the filter's scope was a major issue for the proposal.

"People have made the case the refused classification (RC) basis for the filter was too broad," he said.

A planned review of the RC category had now expanded into a broader review of the Classification standards, he said.

"If people feel that something should be inside or out of the RC category, they can make a submission to the review."

Senator Conroy said he was "very comfortable" about "what's in or out at present." He also stressed that the classification system was not run by the Government.

"It's set up independently," he said. "It makes its judgements independently and this review process is independent of Government."

He said doubted many Australians would regard child pornography or bestiality should come out of the RC category. But he said he accepted there were legitimate arguments about its scope.

"When that process is completed - and whatever the decision is - I'm relaxed," he said.

In the interim he said Telstra, Optus and Primus will introduce a voluntary filter on child pornography in particular.

"They will await the outcome of the classification review before they extend it further," he said. "I would urge other ISPs to join in blocking child pornography."

Conroy remains committed to mandatory filtering

19 comments in this discussion

"No, Tom, most people who criticise Conboy's little censorship scheme are not at all politically motivated, though some of the naysayers on the NBN certainly are. It's not at all clear what you ..."

By anonymous

Tags

conroy, filter, isp, web filtering, censorship, classification review

Conroy abandons mandatory ISP filtering

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

Industry backs 'workable' filter solution

Conroy, Turnbull joust over NBN equity numbers

Breaking Stories

Freedom Cable yanks Australia from subsea rollout

Optus kicks off TD-LTE network

Syrian hackers compromise FT website

Linfox crunches big data to keep trucks on time

Decoding NetSuite's anti-SAP bravado

Readers of this article also read...

Comments: 19

meski Feb 10, 2011 2:08 PM	Give in, Conroy. You're never going to get it passed in the upper house, or even the lower house. And stop making it look like opposition to the mandatory filter is equivalent to support for child pornography.
anonymous Feb 10, 2011 2:26 PM	It seems Conboy is too thick to know that his filter won't do a damn thing to control the flow of child porn. Or else he knows it very well, and is lying about the effect so that he can impose his secret government censorship.
Thysce Feb 10, 2011 2:27 PM	Stubborn as always...
Mitch Feb 10, 2011 3:07 PM	Face it Conroy won't ever give up [edited for ..being juvenile] Edited by brettwinterford: 10/2/2011 03:37:14 PM
cootified Feb 10, 2011 3:32 PM	I hope he knows, having a net filter will reduce the ability of the national broadband network.
tritty Feb 10, 2011 3:33 PM	Why do we need an RC classification category at all? Content should either be illegal, or available to adults who want it.
brownbear Feb 10, 2011 3:44 PM	"He said doubted many Australians would regard child pornography or bestiality should come out of the RC category." Well may be Australians would be a little surprised that they could currently be prosecuted for downloading child porn because the actress, in a perfectly legal (in the USA) porn film, looked under 18 years of age and that is despite having an age verification certificate on the film stating that she was over 18. I don't think I need to say anything about teenagers "sexting". Lets put our kids on the sex offenders register for doing what kids have done for ever! I think we need to be looking really hard at the Australian definition of child pornography and exclude "look a likes", "cartoons" and kids being kids playing the old I'll show you mine if you show me yours games. Want to reconsider Senator Conroy?
tallybud Feb 10, 2011 10:07 PM	the man is a fool and hell bent on self destruction. Any politician worried about his longevity would have dropped this policy a long time ago. His arrogance is breathtaking. BUT his day will come and that day I will savour for a long time. In fact I would love to be there to make sure the door doesn't hit him on the ass on the way out. It's just a pity this waste of space is able to do so much damage along the way.
developerchris Feb 11, 2011 10:03 AM	Conroy is playing games and everyone is falling for it. while he distracts with his patter the illusion is being performed. Gilroy is building a single network to centralise control. Once the NBN is in place he won't need or probably even try to get ISP's on board he will just tell NBNco to do it. then the choice is gone. One NBN to rule them all, One NBN to find them, One NBN to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
Corsair Feb 11, 2011 12:25 PM	Ah Telstra. Thanks for introducing your own mandatory filter. Tesltra - making it easier for you ...to decided to leave and go with someone else.
mad1k5 Feb 12, 2011 2:11 AM	Stop playing with fire, developerchris! You don't know what your talking about. ISP Filtering Requires Legislation to PASS. Telstra and co are voluntary putting in Filters. NBN and ISP Filtering are separate polices by the same minster. And yes while he is a tosser, which we know fully well, the NBNCo is doing good job so far. Luckily the NBNCo run by it's own staff. NBNCo is a layer 2 bitstream provider, so in order to provide filtering, it will require NBNCo to enter Layer 3 (IP Routing and so on), or higher, In otherwords, an RSP. So in future people, read up a little eh? Or if you don't want to read at all, don't bother making silly comments like NBN and ISP Filtering goes together, when it doesn't work like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_network_protocols http://www.webopedia.com/quick_ref/OSI_Layers.asp http://www.nbnco.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/1c18dc00439fe2a58b63ffc5166da634/NBN001_concept_paper_final.pdf?MOD=AJPERES (Page 11) Physical (Layer 1) Data Link (Layer 2) Network (Layer 3) Transport (Layer 4) session (Layer 5) Presentation (Layer 6) Application (Layer 7) I'm tired of replying to people who are trying to destroy a good project, sigh.
gazza_gazza Feb 12, 2011 6:31 PM	Don't criticise others, Mad1k5 for expressing their opinions or misgivings. You seem in favour of the NBN but you are ignorant of one important fact: The CEO Mike Kaiser was appointed by Conroy to the position without putting the position to the usual merit selection process, i.e. by advertising and interviewing applicants for the position. Check this article from the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-to-get-a-450000-job-no-ads-required--just-a-nice-word-from-the-minister-20100209-no66.html. Makes your comment " Luckily the NBNCo run by it's own staff" seem a little lame now, doesn't it? Kaiser and Conroy are personal friends and it would seem that Conroy could easily use this relationship to ensure the NBN a vehicle for such things as the Internet Filter and future government control. Don't be blinded by the fact that the NBN is a great idea and accuse others of trying to "destroy a good project" because they have good reasons to be very suspicious. Perhaps you want "superfast internet" via the NBN but you should regard people like Conroy and the powerful right wing religious lobby which backs him, the ACL; the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) "which has remained firm on its support for the proposed Internet filter despite numerous protests and campaigns held against the clean-feed". See article: http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/349618/acl_anti-filter_movement_doesn_t_faze_us/ as well as his appointee to the position of Head of NBN, Mike Kaiser and his own very dubious background (read the earlier SMH article for details). In conclusion, Mad1K5, follow your own advice: "So in future people, read up a little eh?" Cheers, gazza_gazza
tritty Feb 12, 2011 11:15 PM	Can you tell me mad1k5, or anyone, whats stopping the NBNco from adding a clause into it's contracts with ISPs, that as a condition of using the NBN's infrastructure, they need to employ the filter? Would be a simple way to ensure that any ISP who uses the NBN has to comply with the filter. Throw a NDA into the mix and noone will be sure whats behind it.
Ace Feb 12, 2011 11:57 PM	Of course it's questionable whether the current Labor government will even be in office when the NBN is complete, and the filter will probably too hot a topic to have on the agenda for the next election. It was too hot for the last election, and the next one would seem even tougher for Labor. The problem for Conroy is that if it is purposely off the agenda for the next election, it will be obvious the Labor government think the whole idea is a tough sell, and it will be difficult to get it back on the agenda. At least for Conroy. If Tony gets the big job, I wouldn't be suprised to see him endorse a filter as a priority, given he sees himself as a moral policeman.
Maxxi2 Feb 14, 2011 9:11 AM	@gazza_gazza: I don't see mad1k5 criticising people for expressing their opinions or misgivings. I do see him though criticising people for writing unsubstantiated hypotheses that amount to little more than fear mongering on a subject that is critical, and presenting that as a given fact... People writing that if the govt tried this or that on it would be an unmitigated disaster is one thing, but writing today that these scenarios are already a fait accompli, already a done deal and part of the current planning, is simply bulldust and gross misinformation... It looks like the old credo that if you repeat it often enough people will start believing it... Look, anyone who is convinced that the filter will be crap can and should write that and protest. We have a free and open democracy to do that. Protest and actively oppose to the limit, that is our right. Defeat it when and wherever possible. The same goes for the NBN... But not on the basis of falsifications and some ideas of what might happen, conspiracy theories or some paranoia about govt total control here in Australia. The reality is that the ends do not justify the means, and citing the misdeeds of others to justify our own misdeeds and misinformation is just taking us down below where we claim the others are operating... @tritty: NBNco cannot politically do that without appropriate legislation to back it up and the govt would not get that through parliament/senate at this time in any case. It is then a mute point when the legislation is one day passed, as it would apply to all ISPs in any case. Why would Quigley do that in any case? Why would a Conroy even try that on? The NBN was a major, if not the major factor in the ALP winning the last election and one of the few things they have going for them. It swung Windsor over to them... Election won on that vote... Do you really have any substantiation, much less even really think they are going to throw away that election winner by tying the filter to it?? Let's get real here. The NBNco is not interested in Conroy's filter and the platform is not architected for it.
developerchris Feb 16, 2011 4:31 PM	@mad1k5 Are you serious? Look up layer 2 packet filtering. Do you think that just because somewhere in some document its says layer 2 is normally reserved for just bitstream data that it can't be used for other purposes. For government purposes it is an ideal point to implement filtering. So before you jump on your ra ra ra NBN you make an adjustment in your thinking. Its not what technology does, its what it can do. Also I am pretty sure you would be aware that the entire ISP filtering proposal REQUIRES the current TIA legislation to be rewritten. Therefore they can implement what they like where they like. We have to hope the opposition is strong enough to protect us from the more draconian changes. Under the current TIA (in my reading of it) it is actually illegal for anyone including the government to implement filtering including "trial services", unless the end users (both ends) accept it, or a court order is sought. which means under the current TIA you must advise the customer AND every single host they can possibly connect to. I never said they would do it, or even whether they would get the legislation up. I just pointed out the NBN is a single point of control. But hey if the gov of the day turned around and said don't worry mister ISP we won't force you to install filters we will do it ourselves the ISP's will breathe a collective sigh of financial relief. @Maxxi2 How do you know what the NBN is 'Architected' for? I stand by my original 'jibe'
developerchris Mar 25, 2011 3:04 PM	@mad1k5 && @Maxxi2 Just an update, Conroy has successfully had the layer 2 restrictions some parties wanted for the NBN quashed. Its now official (passed in the senate) NBN is not restricted to layer 2. Therefore even your thin claims they couldn't do it are gone. http://www.itnews.com.au/News/252338,conroy-wins-nbn-bill-changes-in-senate.aspx
Tom Brown Mar 26, 2011 5:39 PM	I am happy the NBN and he proposed filter are going ahead. Filter critics who so often are NBN critics (thus showing their political motivation for comments)will end up displeased if they think the Coalition will change anything, they are happy these tasks are being addressed by Conroy as they are too gutless to take any heat! For the filter to be enforceable it will have to cover much more scope than the NBN. But the law as it stands today requires the addressing (removal) of this material from this distribution system. As with the IINET AFACT case if ISP's and content providers are deemed to be allowing or promoting the carriage of RC material and inappropriate carriage of some classified material then they may find themselves in court and not necessarily against the government. Current laws protecting these organisations are basically the same as those protecting, questionably, IINET.
anonymous Mar 29, 2011 5:19 PM	No, Tom, most people who criticise Conboy's little censorship scheme are not at all politically motivated, though some of the naysayers on the NBN certainly are. It's not at all clear what you mean by "For the filter to be enforceable it will have to cover much more scope than the NBN." One of those is valuable national infrastructure, and the other is a waste of money with some nasty political fishhooks embedded in it. I'm sure you will know which is which ;-)