Some top posts on the ISP-level Internet Content Filter story

Kev, anyone who 'accidentally' looks at child pornography has some serious explaining to do...

I have used the internet since I was 12, and in the decade since then not once do I remember 'accidentally' stumbling upon anything sinister. I can however, recount countless times when I intentionally encountered this content.

It is simply a smokescreen to cover their true motives. If all they wanted to do was block accidental browsing they could provide an opt-in government run DNS server, instead of mandating every ISP in the country. And yes, an opt-in DNS filter would address your concerns about freedom of speech (which isn't protected in Australia) and performance problems.

Hi all,

I'd suggest you read the EXCELLENT comments by Mark Newton (System Engineer at Internode).

The entire REASON for the supposed need for this "filter" has in fact ALREADY been co-opted to serve purposes OTHER than it's stated aim.

The material it is supposed to block (according to the original stated aim of Senator Conroy) is ILLEGAL material, persons accessing such material (if discovered) face criminal prosocussion and JAIL if found guilty.

What it now appears they plan to block is "RC" material - ie: material that the vast majority of the public MAY find objectionable - but NOT in itself ILLEGAL.

A lot of the material that the "pro filter" advocates hope it is going to block DOESN'T even fall into the "RC" category, it would in fact be in the "X 18+" category (ie: the general category of "Porn")

Frankly, I am tired of listening to the endless whining of the "pro-filter" advocates, who clearly demonstrate every time they open their mouths, that they DON'T understand a single word about the topic they are expousing !

Calvin.

You know somethings wrong when George Pell comes out and speaks for the filter. The Catholic Church would do itself a favour if it stopped embarassing itself by trying to pretend like it has an effect on the lives and the morality of the nation by simply existing. I don't think they quite get it beyond the 'child porn grr' factor. Note how he says pornography, they would rather all of it be banned. Something Pell says is proven to cause disruption. Well preaching discrimination and anti-contraception is FAR more detrimental than pornography I can assure you.

If someone is attracted to children, does child pornography make them worse? Certainly it is horrible that children are exploited. But if they are already attracted to children then what good would banning something that lets you CATCH them before they harm children?

I mean most of the pedophiles will still use P2P so you aren't stopping child pornography. All you are doing is making the dumb ones smarter and harder to catch before they bring their sick fantasies to life.

Not only that there will be no free obtainable list of sites that are banned so how are we to know whether our free speech is going to be infringed upon? They say "Trust us!" but unfortunately this has the potential to go REALLY bad so this is not a situation where we should just clap and play along.

Conroys so desperate he uses the "you must like children" line to those who speak out against his filter. No Mr Conroy, I think we like a transparent process when it comes to what would involve censoring the internet INEFFECTIVELY.

I'm a lefty, but my god I'm not voting Labor ever again unless they realise how stupid this is. They have a habit of getting into power and getting big heads.

I would also like to hear Jeremy Hulse talk about how their technology blocks the TOR network,offer laptopbatery:http://www.top-battery.com.au/

*****Kirby's fear of net censorship******

Retired High Court Justice Michael Kirby tells 2UE's Latika Bourke about his fears of internet censorship in Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/net-censorship-move-a-smokescreen-expert-20091216-kw7d.html?autostart=1
Net censorship move a smokescreen: expert
One of Australia's top communications experts says the Government's internet censorship trials were designed to succeed from the outset, presented no new information and are now being used by the Government to further its political agenda.

His comments came after Communications Minister Stephen Conroy yesterday announced he would introduce legislation before next year's elections forcing ISPs to block a secret blacklist of "refused classification" (RC) websites for all Australian internet users.

Separately, a report into the scope of content that will be caught up in the net filters concluded that the Government's policy might lead to a wide range of innocuous material disappearing from Australians' computer screens.
Commentators in Australia and overseas have interpreted Senator Conroy's policy as pushing the country towards being like repressive regimes such as China and Iran.

University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt said the Government had still failed to address serious issues such as whether the internet filtering scheme would result in any meaningful reduction in harmful content and whether it was worth the effort, given the risk that the scope of blocked content could widen significantly.

"There's no clear definition of refused classification that can be debated in society ... [and] once you put a label such as refused classification in place, that doesn't mean that the meaning cannot be changed," he said in a phone interview.
Landfeldt detailed these issues and many others in an official report presented to the Government in February last year, which concluded that schemes to block inappropriate content such as child pornography were fundamentally flawed.

The report, which also questioned whether Australian children were in fact stumbling across child porn and other nasty content while browsing, was kept secret for many months and was only made public after its existence was detailed in media reports.

Filtering trials designed to succeed

Conroy justified his policy yesterday by presenting a pilot trial report, compiled by Enex Testlabs, which found that blocking a blacklist of sites can be done with 100 per cent accuracy and without slowing down the internet.

"The Government would have known since long before our [2008] report was put out that doing blacklist-based filtering on a large scale is very doable - British Telecom has done it for many years and it is a very big organisation," Landfeldt said in a phone interview.

Write to your MP. Find the contact details on:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-state.asp

The only thing these people understand is losing power. Make it clear they will lose your vote.This is after all still a democracy, as much as despots like Conroy might hate that.

A defence minister resigns because of some slip-up in salary payments, but a re-born Goebbels can openly undermine a basic foundation of our country and stay in power. Power being his operative word. Disgusting.

We need to have a national POWER OFF day where everybody switches off their computers and mobile phones in protest at Conroy's filter. How about 26th January 2010.

Sleepers Awake.....! (Part 1 of 3)

In my former life, I was one of our Australian national Telco's, relatively small band of national Engineering/Technical SMEs responsible for the operation of their national Data Telecommunications networks and hence, I now feel reasonably qualified to speak about the technical aspects at least, of the suitability of our Federal Government's proposed new "Internet Filter".

Now that I am retired and hence 'oficially' free at last, of the considerable constraints of the Commonwealth Telecommunications and Official Secrets Acts, I feel now compelled to put pen to paper with a clear warning, to you all, about our Federal Government's pending implementation of this "'Net Filter" technology, although I must admit, that I have a deep, worrying, and abiding feeling, that I may indeed already, be wasting my time.

The stated aim, of the introduction of this ISP based, Internet Filtering technology by Communications Minister Conroy, is to save all of our little innocent Johnnys and Jannets from 'accidentally' stumbling
across some nasty, explicit and possibly mind warping, pedophile pornography promoting website, despite their own very best 'intentional efforts to actually do so' by means of them rushing home from school and faithfully typing into their parent's PC web-browser, the specific URL that was provided to them for just that very purpose that same day, by that nasty little kid, Freddy, from over on the wrong side of the tracks.

Now whilst this 'publicly stated' concern for the moral welfare of our kids is of course commendable, on the part of our current, Communications Minister, the unfortunate reality is, that it won't work.

I would ask him and the others who want to protect us all from the sites that feature child pornography this question; have you ever tried to find it ? Have you ever just stumbled upon it ? Can you simply find it through Google ?

Pedophiles don't use 'normal' websites to peddle their own particular peculiar perverse predilection for child pornography, they use direct peer to peer file sharing technology and secured mail message boards and they trawl mainstream internet Chat Rooms, as well as My Space, Facebook and Twitter, constantly on the lookout for their next, unguarded moment, of opportunity.

All that the Government's internet filter policy will do is provide a mechanism to hide that, which they, want to remain unseen. There is not a single example of Government censorship in history, that hasn't been turned upon the population.

The 18th century French philosopher Francois-Marie Arouet, also known as Voltaire, is attributed with having penned the words, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it"

(continued in Part 2)