Looks like I'm going to have to start contact labor MPs.

So i guess that means web proxies won't work but if i go to https://www.pornsite.com then it will? [Assuming they've got a SSL installed].. interesting.

Anyway i've sent an email to the minister who wants it to happen. If enough people do it he may just get annoyed and take some notice. Either that or nothing will happen.

Thin end of the wedge, but then, what do you expect from the Rudd government?
I knew that as soon as they took over, many things would change, and not for the better.
I know, my bias is showing !

This is communism. Parents if you don't like the idea of letting your children watch porn on the net, supervise them. If I should ever get sad and lonely in my old age and need to find solace in online porn, why do I need permission from the government to do that?

This is exactly what the Chinese do, decide what citizens can and cant access on the internet.

I am already sick of the puritan Mr Kevin 07; bring on the double dissolution.

What the government fail to realise is the best form of filtering is parents. Parents should make sure kids are supervised when using the internet. Use parental locks or passwords on windows machines to prevent access to the entire system when they are not around.

As a long time worker in the ISP world, I can clearly state this will fall on it's arse every which way from Sunday (or any other day you like).

Kevin 07 = Filter 08?

Screw that. Governments need to put responsibility back to the parents, not the providers.

I'm sending the letter below. They legally have to respond don't they?

Senator Conroy,
I have serious concerns about your internet filtering policy. During the Olympics there has been much criticism of the Chinese internet blocking. This seems to be in a very similar vein to me. Don't get me wrong, I understand the issue and this is NOT the same thing. But, who decides what is appropriate or not? Politicians? Right wing Christian groups? Teachers? Parents? It should be the latter. What is appropriate for me may not be appropriate for a child. Understood. But is it not the parents place to implements a user level filter if they have small children? To communicate with their children and understand what they are doing on the internet.

This sounds like nothing more than populist policy. Having an internet filter that will slow the internet, when your Government is also trying to implement 'high speed broadband' is ludicrous. You will never be able to successfully filter the entire internet. But mark my words, this will cause you more headaches that it is worth.

Sincerely,
Andy Taylor
Collingwood Victoria

If it's not a press release or photo shoot, it won't get done. These clowns can't even build a website to compare petrol prices. You think they're going to manage filtering the tubes before the next round of electioneering begins in twelve months time?

great article

if the government decide to do this, i think ISPs should implement invisible proxies (like TPG use currently)

this would allow the filter to be on by default, but still allow people full speed access to the non filtered internet via another supplied proxy (possibly via a username and password system)

my school uses several proxies to block things like myspace. Switching between them in firefox is easy! (i go to a laptop school, some people think it is funny to flood a proxy with traffic and watch the people around them say "is your internet working?")

this would also allow blockage on a computer to computer basis.


Mattydee

Welcome to the United Australian Emirates...I mean Saudi Australia...I mean People's Republic of Australia...I mean the Democratic People's Republic of Australia...I mean...oh, bollox.

I know what I mean...the UAE, Saudi, China and North Korea all filter their internet for political purposes. While I'm all for opt-out/opt-in filtering (surely router firmware can decide who's who and who can see what), doing it 'Great Firewall of Australia'-stylee is pretty steep and unworkable.

We're fast becoming the nanny state. I mean, there's stuff out there I shouldn't be looking at on religious/moral/ethical/taste grounds so I just have to learn to stop myself rather than expect someone else do it for me. Kids need parents to take responsibility for their internet usage as I will with my son when he learns about the stuff he either needs guidance about or just shouldn't see in the first place, religious or not.

I'll take the howling about being 'religious' as read, but I object to this sort of filtering because it not only gives 'false positives' but it also leads to anti-sedition style legislation that will remove our freedom of expression (which, by the way, is implied rather than actually in the Constitution)(just so you know). We're already losing our freedom of opinion to howling, recreational complaining masses (just look at the PC mob mowing down anyone who doesn't agree with them) so what's to stop this from happening? Not much.

Having said all of that, my contact at ACMA reckons it'll fall over when the ISPs refuse to pay and the Greens block it in the Senate if Conroy tries to legislate. ;-)

Since when have governments ever done what their people wanted?

That's about the most ignorant thing said in this thread so far.

Seeing as the previous government wanted to do this as well, the Greens wouldn't have anywhere near enough votes to be able to block it. Unless the opposition votes against it for the sake of voting against it, of course.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate don't they?

Edit: I think with a couple of independent Senators.

I don't have kids, so this is especially annoying for me. Why do I have to get caught up with this crap?

I'm 14 and I strongly object to what they are doing. I know what's in-appropriate online, and I don't look at it. But, most of the non-porn in-appropriate stuff is funny. And what if these filters get worse and mistake so many sites? Then they will start scanning emails for swearing, then we are all fucked.

I have always believed that parenting should start and stay at home. By censoring the whole internet for everybody the government is acting as a proxy parent for every child in Australia - something a government can not and should not do.

This is another excuse for parents not to have to deal with bringing up their children responsibly by imparting to them good values that create healthy minded and well balanced individuals that can make their own decisions and not have the government do it for them.

This move will merely shroud sensitive subjects in mystery which is a magnet to a young and curious mind and make them only more eager to find those things which they perceive the adults are deliberately hiding from them. Instead of protecting children it will actually leave those children who tend to be more vulnerable exposed by denying them the power to know things for themselves - leaving them susceptible to those who would seek to deceive them in areas of knowledge which they have little or no understanding.

Parents should always speak to their children about sex, death and the imperfections of the world we live in. It is their responsibility to arm them with knowledge to deal with what life may throw at them. Having a great big internet filter won't make the problem of harm coming to their children go away, it will merely lull them into a false sense of security that will see the rates of teen pregnancy, runaways and children wandering into the wrong path skyrocket through the roof.

Needless to say I am disappointed that the Rudd government is even considering this, it seems so unenlightened for a government who started so promisingly with ratifying the Kyoto protocol, saying sorry to the stolen generation and bringing in carbon trading to the fore.


/rant