Apparently we are all children in the eyes of Stephen Conroy and the Labor party. There is no way we can be trusted to look after ourselves and our families.

This piece is a little bit exaggerated.

If the filtering was going to go down the path of China or censorship (like penalties for speaking against the Thai royal family) then yes I would be worried.

If it is about blocking stuff that is already illegal in any form - paper or internet - then I cannot see a problem.

Sitting down talking with your children is the biggest and best move any parent makes but it is more than that. It is disingenuous to think that parents are present in their child's every waking moment especially when in other people's homes where there may be no parental presence.

Yes we can all get a home filter - it works to some extent.

But what is the issue if we are blocking stuff that is otherwise illegal such as child porn? Why should the internet be any different?

I am speaking purely from the parental values perspective that this article emphasises and not about the technological difficulties that some will no doubt raise.

It is like saying well I will warn my kid about stranger danger (or about abuse) but because we have talked about it I don't need to lock my front door at night.

We have laws that forbid terrorism so sites that incite terrorism are banned - so what!

Australia is still a democratic country - if the government goes too far they will get voted out. I cannot see any of the two major parties going over the line on censorship or they will get voted out.

The proof is just look at the OTT outrage about sadistic porn or child porn not being available let alone anything that might truly restrict political or personal freedom.

The moral panic about loss of freedoms and censorship is really quite alarming.

Pelican,

The point of the uproar against this net filter is that the majority of what is being blocked is not actually illegal, secondly there is nothing stopping a China like censorship as the blocked list is secret and controlled by a committee with no oversight.

To rub salt in the wounds it can be maneuvered by any 12 year old, and will slow down the net considerably. The new broadband network might end up with dial up type speeds.

SM
I understand the technical arguments but I am purely taking to task the emphasis of this article over the censorship aspect - it is a bit OTT.

There is certainly room for discussion over the criteria for the blocked list and there should be oversight - that I agree.

But the bones of the filtering concept have been made into some sort of evil conspiracy (well some are making it that way). I am not saying the author of this article falls into that crowd and yes...lets have an open discussion with government about what should be and should not be on the list. The banned sites of course should only include illegal content.

If there was any move to include (as has previously been written about) sites that deal with euthanasia or abortion (pro or against) then I would also be jumping up and down.

I am just not willing to join the 'all censorship is bad crew' when sometimes there are valid concerns that are should not be disregarded or immediately thrown into the moral panic basket. Moral panic is a two way street.

Pelican,

The net is a communication system, the nearest comparison would be the mail service. As with postal system, there are existing laws in place as to what the postal system can be used for, and those caught contravening these laws are punished. Opening parcels for censorship was common decades ago, but would not be tolerated today.

The step from regulation to censorship is a huge one, and being only partially censored is like being partially pregnant, once the foot is in the door, the degree of censorship can be ramped up to almost any degree without the knowledge of the public and only the assurances of the bureaucrats that they won't go further.

The saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is especially apt here.

SM
I do understand your point about the risks inherent in censorship and that is why there needs to be oversight and an independent committee with a variety of 'panellists' with representation from a range of groups to ensure the end result is a compromise position rather than pandering to a radical mindset. I would wholeheartedley support an open shop rather than a closed shop on this issue.

The internet is not like the mail system. It is easier to stop illegal activity at the door of the internet, unlike the mail system which would involve every letter and parcel being opened to check for illegal content. Of course it could not be done for reasons of privacy and pragmatism.

I liken the internet more to TV, that we would not allow an R+ rated movie on in the 5pm time slot or not without some scenes cut out in a later time slot, as happens now. We accept that in this medium that adults are not the only people watching but still mindful that some raunchier content is aired late at night when children are asleep with of course parental guidance.

The internet is an open communication network that does not sleep and can be accessed at any time.

I do get the issues but as a parent I feel that more could be done to ban illegal content other than just home filters.

We are a civilised and modern country - it must be possible for illegal content to be banned without betraying those valued principles of democracy.

Ah but that is exactly the nub of the problem.

The internet is in no way like TV. In TV and radio, the selection of material is in the hands of the producers, and this can easily be controlled.

The internet is more difficult to filter even than the mail, as encryption, bit torrents and mirror sites can not only mask the packages , but also where they come from. Also site like Wikipedia and face book have content that is user driven, and constantly changing.

A filter at best can only filter out some of the presently known sites from those that are technically illiterate.

So essentially only those not actually looking for the information will be partially protected from bumping into it, those that want to bypass the system can do so in a heartbeat.

Too right Michael- I also take issue to the fact that the authorities that decide what we can and can't watch have some incredibly odd views about what is appropriate viewing.
For TV- nudity, the F-word and the one-finger salute are so damaging they are actually considered controversial- yet it's ok to market a drugged up pop-star dressed provocatively and straddling every object or person in the room, directly TO kids. And of course, the nudity and salute are suddenly ok if a blurry box is placed over the specific offending appendages, and the F-word is no big deal if there is a beep over the vowel?

In short, I'm not even touching the notion of how much higher authorities have right to regulate what we can and can't watch until there are even people amongst them remotely qualified to do it- ones that aren't shallow, short-sighted wowsers but actually balanced people with a grasp on reality.

Anyway, Pelican- there are only TWO things that actually do warrant censoring on the net- child pornography, and gratuitous torture/murder footage lacking importance to the public- which require a very careful scope to define either.
Extremist political literature must absolutely NOT be blocked- if some jihad group makes a call of arms it is MY right to know about it from the primary source. I'd rather people could see it and hopefully gain an understanding of the minds behind them than taking Piers Akerman's or Miranda Devine's version as fact.

I don't support the filter because aside from a notable lack of singling out precisely what will be blocked AND the invisible blacklist, is because I have absolutely no trust in the honesty of either major party both with a very strong record of corruption and abuse of powers- to not also abuse a net filter- say, take bribes from the Brethren to block things they don't like as part of the policy.
Block anything of any actual public interest and we as a society WILL regress back to the horribly socially ignorant days of the 90s where information came from one source.

Hazza
I don't have much faith in political parties these days either but it is for me a choice between two evils and the extent that that evil might manifest. ie. is the effects of child porn on the net more harmful than the effects of some minor censorship on content that is already illegal?

Again, I am talking purely about illegal content - that which you have outlined yourself above.

The problem is Pelican that this issue simply can't be classified as a priority of blocking child pornography and snuff or allowing it- because the government haven't explicitly stated they would limit the scope of such a filter to these things in particular (despite how often they mention them to gain support), nor set a precedent to implement legal restraints on their ability to go beyond these things- nor even public transparency on what they will block and being open to being altered and interfered with on a political whim or lobbyist request.

And thus it should be treated precisely as the open-ended dubious slippery-slope that opponents are making it out to be.

And again it's WHOSE standards decree what material is not to be permitted to the public- and beyond a consensus on banning child and snuff material- everything else as far as our classification boards go lacks a lot of credibility to impose on the internet.
Similar deal with our own laws.

On the note of democracy- if Australia were even the faintest skeleton of an actual democracy the public would be allowed a vote in a referendum- or to initiate a referendum to override his policy.
Simply expecting a cooperate nation-wide movement of ensuring everybody compromise their vote just to put the Mad Monk's Liberal party in power (assuming they will NOT pursue another filter of their own) is unacceptable. (putting aside our rather watered-down, unequal and indirect voting methods)
Although I could go on and on about what democratic processes most leading western countries have been using for decades and we have no trace of here for ages elsewhere- as I could go on about Australia's lousy legal system.

Contrariwise, pelican, I think the comparison with mail is an instructive one.

>>The internet is not like the mail system. It is easier to stop illegal activity at the door of the internet, unlike the mail system which would involve every letter and parcel being opened to check for illegal content. Of course it could not be done for reasons of privacy and pragmatism.<<

If you wish to prevent illegal material reaching its destination, why would you not consider opening every letter and parcel?

It would, I agree, be impractical anywhere except in a tightly-controlled police state. Or in time of war.

But doesn't that suggest the internet is being targetted simply because it is, as you say, easier to do?

Superficially, at least.

Censorship at the state level never succeeds. Information always gets through - even in censored letters, even in wartime.

The only realistic response is to encourage individual responsibility. Just as the best way to influence your child's behaviour with drugs, or table manners, or with the opposite sex, the key to establishing the groundrules on porn is through parental conversations.

And the least effective way is to make it a technological challenge.

Pericles I don't agree that your analogy is pertinent.

The analogy with postal mail would be email and of course I would not suggest we lose the privacy inherently expected in our personal communications, and which is protected by law. (Although many government departments monitor staff email and monitor what websites are being accessed much to my chagrin - not so much the websites but email should be personal IMO).

Websites are not private they are put up to provide information. There is no expectation of privacy. Email is of course different.

Nevertheless I agree with Hazza to the extent that in it's current form I would not vote for the filter purely because it should be a transparent process and only include illegal content.

If this is not guaranteed or protected via legislation and oversight then it is not in our best interests.

My argument is that we can have the best of both worlds - a free internet but without the illegal content that is not acceptable in any other sphere (other than illicit).

That is the discussion government should be having with interested parties.

Excellent riposte to Pericles, Pelican.

While I abhor limitations to freedom of speech, that doesn't mean giving free rein to the production child abuse, snuff porn sites.

I agree with both yours and KH's points.

I am very concerned at the current restrictions proposed by the Federal government as going too far and being about as transparent as the skies over Europe right now.

The best way is to provide the software for parents and free upgrades as with virus detection coupled with zero tolerance action on producers and purveyors of such types of porn. I never thought I would say I was in favour of zero tolerance on anything - but children are being harmed either by direct exploitation or psychological effects by inadvertent viewing of such content.

"The big advantage of freedom of speech is that it lets you identify the assholes".
Banning child porn isn't going to make it go away, nor will it cure the sickos who are interested in it. It simply means they will use encrypted peer to peer, emails and other means, making them almost impossible to catch.
It must be the hardest thing in the world to feel sympathy for predators so abhorrent, yet most, if not all of these people are victims themselves, in one way or another.
I have to say, I'm getting really sick of 'ratbag rules'. More and more laws are being created to catch that one ratbag in 10,000, regardless of how much it inconveniences the vast majority of the population.

Of course what is so flawed in the government argument is that for the filter to effectively work it requires matching against a "banned" url or "http://..." address.

If those addresses are already known to government then a $2.50 telephone call to the FBI or similar policing authority would set in chain a "take down" notice and likely arrest of the site owner/producers. Goodbye child pornography!

No need for tens of millions of dollars worth of investment in technology that as mosts posts have identified, is easily bypassed.

If it is not to be purely url based then every access, search and packet of data will need to be inspected by said filter with profound performance implications. Corporate users have been restricted for many years by products such as Surf Control and other high end filters.

These products are expensive and to be effective require constant updating...they have significant impact on performance even in the small scale implications within a company so a similar technology will have to scale massively to provide the same levels of function across a country.

As an IT provider of these systems we know they are partially effective but the jury is out as to how much content they actually block and the overall efficacy; of course a company does not have to worry about "false" positives as they can block anything whereas a country wide government filter MUST be more discerning.

Unfortunately this policy is ideology based not on logic!

The big question is,how will we know what they are censoring? History shows us that we cannot trust our Govts much less the corporates.

Money buys silence and submission.It is every Govts dreams to have total control, just like corporates wanting to exclude all competition.

Pelican's argument is "that we can have the best of both worlds - a free internet but without the illegal content that is not acceptable in any other sphere (other than illicit)."

While this thread has largely focused on the philosophical aspect of the filtering, the technical aspect has been glossed over.

Pelican's utopia is unfortunately far from reality, as the filter only blocks known sites. The distributors of the noxious content are masters of shifting the IP addresses of their sites, so any list is only valid for a short time, and the users with a modicum of knowledge can bypass the filter using either bit torrent, encryption or external intermediary sites that hide IP addresses.