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

Your views on the Federal Government’s controversial ISP-level Internet content filter plan

The comments came quick, fast and furiously last week after the Federal Government decided it would go ahead with its much-criticised ISP-level Internet content filter. There wasn’t a news site that didn’t receive a rush of posts – most highly charged and negative on the plan. Here are a few we thought worth of a second mention:

the.odd.byte on Greens, EFA critical of ISP filtering plans

What is there to say? We know that this filter will not protect our kids as the dangers they face on the internet are in areas not filtered such as chat rooms, peer-to-peer downloads & instant messaging. The chances of children accidentally web-surfing to any of the sites this filter will block is absolutely zero! We know that the filter will be easily circumvented by anyone who still wishes to access prohibited content, and we know that the use of circumvention techniques will make law enforcement's job of catching paedophiles, etc much harder. Finally, we know that the black list will be leaked, making it easier for those who want this material to know exactly where to get it. The Government is seeking to spend a lot of money on an ineffective, perhaps even counter-productive, solution to a problem that does not exist. What is their real agenda?

Highly Concerned on ISP-level filter trial vendor happy with results

"On the question of technically competent users being able to circumvent the filter, Hulse was adamant the technology could be configured to prevent this." technically competent users? My mum knows how to change the proxy used by internet explorer and find a list of anonymous internet proxy's using Google... all proxys outside AU will bypass the filter inc search engines outside Australia. I would also like to hear Jeremy Hulse talk about how their technology blocks the TOR network, Even China's firewall hasn't been able to completely let alone partially block it from being used for long. The question needs to be asked why they want this $100m filter when its easily bypassed and can not be adequately enforced? Wouldn't the $100m be better spent on police and have better effect on crime than on technology that gives a false sense of filtering, allows criminals to easily bypass it and do nothing more than cause connectivity issues and other problems for users who are blocked from accessing sites unknown without any status codes to identify the filter as the cause and ways website operators can identify when the filter is blocking another site on their host that's also affecting them? The way I see it, the technology doesn't stop anyone accessing RC material from continuing to access it and will only serve to make it harder to identify these individuals because it will teach them how to operate encrypted communications which police forces are unable to decrypt and analyze, all while causing issues for legitimate material and people having to deal with Government Censors who impose their view of the world on their content and every Australian "for the sake of Children". Wake up Australia, The government is really saying Adults are children who need their internet filtered...

Simon Shaw on Internode: ISP-level filter goals still not clear

In a few years the government in Australia will mandate that all children born must be wrapped in cotton wool as soon as feasible. This is to be kept on until you're buried.

Ralph on Internode: ISP-level filter goals still not clear

What scalability test were done? They've already said sites like youtube would suffer. What if, instead of 1000 clueless users, there were millions? Or if the block list was extended to a relatively useful level? I know I'm preaching to the choir, but this should have always been a per-household voluntary scheme, like it already was back before they instigated all this nonsense..

Anonymous on ISP-level filter bad for industry

It's too strong a word to consider the Enex testing as "results". They do not disclose sample sizes. The samples are inherently skewed. In the end, the report has no solid facts on which to base any conclusions. No peer review would pass it. I doubt it would pass as a highschool project. On the other hand, Enex admits freely that the filters were inaccurate. In short, I can't see how Conroy can stand up and claim this report supports him. As I see it, it totally demolishes his position. Why does Conroy persist in this deception?

More posts next…

Join the newsletter!


Sign up to gain exclusive access to email subscriptions, event invitations, competitions, giveaways, and much more.

Membership is free, and your security and privacy remain protected. View our privacy policy before signing up.

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags internet content filteringSenator Stephen ConroyMandatory ISP filtering

More about EFAetworkGoogleInternode

Show Comments