Watchful eye better than Web filters

the most bizarre comment ever

Well firstly you spelt the word assertion wrong. "It is one of many measures that will assist to curb the delivery of RC/illegal/prohibited content to Australian web users..." Really mate? That’s great! So why mix a mandatory internet filter with it then? Why? When we have "many measures” we can use. Why then violate, Article 19 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights: <strong>"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."</strong>

<strong>"Who ever, ever actually claimed, apart from the online blogs and forum activists, that we can all forget everything else as precautions when a content filter is in place"</strong>
That is quite a claim to make. I don't think if you looked at the record the "online blogs and forum activists" claimed that. They claimed quite the contrary that we will still need to take other precautions anyway. Just look on whirlpool.

"Who ever, ever actually claimed, apart from the online blogs and forum activists, that we can all forget everything else as precautions when a content filter is in place? No-one except those opposing the filter... " That is the most bizzarre claim ever!

yeah, balderdash

It's not Tony Hill who is pedantically consumed with the idea that The Filter will do what Stephen Conroy and the ACL have been claiming as part of their respective agendas.

Jim Wallace from the ACL was right about one aspect when he said of the Internet that some of his people are "bewildered by the thing". Such technical ignorance means they are susceptible to political spin saying that the government can, or will, remove "inappropriate" content. They can't, because the filter won't work, particularly against the already illegal material that advocates are using as a Trojan horse to sneak in much wider secret censorship.

It may not be "disingenious" (sic - try disingenuous) to point out that the filter will make no difference whatever to parents' responsibility for monitoring their kids online. Even people from the ACL who are "bewildered by the thing" can see what's on a screen in front of their kids.

Sending pedophiles to jail for life will do more to keep kids safe than all the vote-buying from Conroy and co.

(No subject)

If filtering works for you, then good for you thats great but why do you think imposing a filter on people who are not even children but adult voters in a democratic system, is worth it to simply protect children. Its about a lot more.

"The State must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

Adolf Hitler,
“Mein Kampf”

y mandatory and not voluntary

mandatory isp filtering is not the way to go, but how about voluntary? just to keep everyone happy......

Looking forward to some common sense & logic

It's true that children need protecting from the darker corners of the internet. However, the proposed mandatory filter will not provide any substantial protection against these things, because:
1. The filter will not prevent online bullying, abuse or grooming because it won't filter instant messages, email or social networking sites - which are 3 of the most common uses of the internet by children.
2. The filter won't touch P2P / torrent traffic, which young teens use frequently.
3. Many primary school children are already well versed in filter circumvention. If they want to find naughty things online, they will. A mandatory filter is just as easily bypassed as those used by schools.

Ultimately, the proposed mandatory filter is doomed to be an expensive waste of time. It's been shown to be vastly ineffective, akin to building half a pool fence. Supervision of children is just as essential when using the internet as it is when children are playing beside the pool.

Finally, why does the filter need to be mandatory? Those who want a "clean feed" can easily obtain one by changed to an ISP that provides it, or install filtering software to achieve the desired result. There are plenty of households and businesses where a filtered internet connection is entirely unnecessary and a needless impost to speed and cost. Why is the internet so "different" to other media that everyone needs to have a PG feed?