Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has pushed ahead with the controversial national content filtering scheme with a $125.8 million budget allocation announced this week.
The plan has provoked criticism from Senators, Internet Service Providers, IT managers, the Electronic Frontiers Australia, and privacy groups who previously attacked the scheme when it was announced in January, dubbing it a technically impossible token gesture.
Conroy said ISP content filtering will be part of a wider plan to fight child pornography, including $49 million to aid Australian Federal Police law enforcement.
Electronic Frontiers Association chair Dale Clapperton said the government should do more research into the feasibility of content filtering before allocating funds.
"We are disappointed that the appropriation of money seems to prejudge the question of whether it is feasible to implement content filtering," Clapperton said.
NSW Council of Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy said the scheme is a token gesture and will do more damage to freedoms than restrict child pornography.
"This is the way China goes about stopping its people reading illicit material and by substance of the proposal, Senator Conroy is the same," Murphy said.
"Parents need to take more responsibility for what their children view.
"There is no proper classification process for this kind of content blocking. The technology is not up to it, whether it is linguistic-based or Web site-based."
What do you think?
Is Internet content filtering feasible?
Will it be used for the purpose Senator Conroy claims it will be used for, or will it do more to damage freedoms than restrict child pornography?
Should the onus be on parents, or ISPs to block what children can view online?
Are we following in China's footsteps?
Tell us what you think....
Computerworld Member Login
Beyond Virtualisation - The Roadmap to 2012
CIO Breakfast Briefing
8:30am - 10:30am
Brisbane | 22 July | Sofitel Brisbane
Sydney | 23 July | Four Seasons Hotel
Canberra | 24 July | The Hyatt
Attend and discover:
- What happens after virtualisation
- The benefits automation drives
- When automated infrastructures will emerge
- What the roadmap to 2012 looks like
- How to deliver an automated architecture
- How to maximise your investment in virtualisation
- +
Computerworld Live Podcast #96: Security at the Edge 11/06/2008 09:22:22
CW Live speaks with Amol Mitra, HP ProCurve Director of Marketing for Asia Pacific and Japan. Today's topic: how enterprises are starting to shift away from simply controlling security via server logins, firewalls and moving to more adaptive security frameworks. - +
Data Management Edition #10: Multi-Petascale Systems 02/05/2008 09:12:33
This week we look at sustainability and the development of multicore technologies to build multi-petascale systems. - +
IT Security Edition #11: How to poison the Storm botnet 01/05/2008 08:51:55
This week CW Live presents a case study on how to poison the notorious Storm botnet . Plus we take a look at Cisco's plans for Ironport. - +
IT Security Edition #10: Cyber-battles fought and won 24/04/2008 11:09:47
Vendors bow to end user pressure to improve product security, and we take a look at the latest concepts shaping the cyber-battlefield of the future. - +
Data Management Edition #9: Data centre makeover 24/04/2008 07:43:06
This week CW Live looks at the death of the old style data centre which is undergoing its first makeover in more than 30 years.
Ballarat Grammar Improves Student Access to Computer Based Learning with HP ProCurve 2008-07-04 16:49:00+10
Media release: 40 Per Cent of Australian Businesses Do Not Validate Their Data 2008-07-04 10:29:00+10
Kaseya helps turbo charge BlueFire’s service delivery model 2008-07-03 17:23:00+10
Computershare Selects Symantec for Data Loss Prevention Globally 2008-07-03 14:52:00+10
DST International moves to new Shanghai office 2008-07-03 13:21:00+10
Outsourcing the Mainframe
Today's CIOs are operating in a highly competitive environment. Discover how to drive down spending on maintenance and operations to free up capital for discretionary IT-business projects.
Comments
"no need to bring china into
"no need to bring china into the equation - there aren't enough people in Australia that fully understand what goes on over there to make legitimate comment."
we can all read the news reports, and unless there is a global conspiracy by every major western news agency then Im pretty sure China has amongst the most severe and strict regulations on what its citizens can access and discuss on the Web....there are plenty of examples of Chinese dissidents being imprisoned for dissent - that is a fact, and doesnt take much understanding to comment on...
"Internet content filtering"...otherwise known as CENSORSHIP.
Is Internet content filtering feasible?
Probably not, definitely not 100% (look at the success rate for spam and virus control attempts).
Will it be used for the purpose Senator Conroy claims it will be used for, or will it do more to damage freedoms than restrict child pornography?
Once it starts when/where will it stop?
Should the onus be on parents, or ISPs to block what children can view online?
Parents should be in charge of their children not ISP's or the Government.
Are we following in China's footsteps?
Not yet, but we're eying their shoes up for size!
Censorship isn't the answer
The Internet is just a communication method. I don't see them trying to launch a phone filtering system to stop child pornography. Neither does Australia Post open your letters to check them for content. Why should the Internet be any different?
We already have laws to deal with the illegal activities they're trying to stop. This is just them trying to get themselves in the news.
educate the parents
agree, use the $125.8 million to stop the crime at it's source.
educate the parents
the parents should be responsible for filtering what their children are looking at online.
this debacle over censorship is much like the case of kids recording the raping of some woman in the UK then posting it on youtube.
dont shoot the messenger. do something about the sickos who are actually putting the child pornography up on the net in the first place. use the internet to trace them down and throw them behind bars!
footsteps?
no need to bring china into the equation - there aren't enough people in Australia that fully understand what goes on over there to make legitimate comment.
Aren't there any other examples of social systems more like our own that we can compare to????
what a wonderful euphemism
"Internet content filtering"...otherwise known as CENSORSHIP.
I agree that doing more to block child pornpgraphy is essential, and ISP level filtering *may* have its place with regards to that abhorrent subject. However, it seems no one can give a solid answer on whether the technologies behind the filtering works, so unless it is 100% faultless, 100% of the time, then we MUST say no to content filtering.
In the words of benjamin; those who would give up essential liberties to purchase a little TEMPORARY safety deserve neither... Unless the technology is proven to be faultless by all sides of the debate, I dont want my civil liberties curtailed or what I do on the Internet monitored just because of the small percentage of horrible people that facilitate child pornography...................................... Its like saying we should all wear ankle bracelets so that when the tiny percentage of us commit a grave crime the perpetrators can be caught, even though its at the expense of everyone else's liberties
The Reds are out from under the bed
Too much in the wrong direction
I think defining what is appropriate or inappropriate to block is the biggest problem behind this form of censorship. And once the filtering system is in place it is far simpler for that definition to be changed.
How do we stop a future government from using such a mechanism to silence opposition or a politically vocal group from silencing people who think differently to them? Child pornography is detestable, but when we use filtering to silence it aren't we just putting in place a mechanism, that when abused will ultimately silence ourselves?
Too much too soon
Surely we should define inappropriate content for the broader community before we end up blocking everything? Will this include propaganda, political resources etc?
I can't help but think that we're firing before determining where the enemy is.