Censorship to porn is what the GST is to tax dodgers. It doesn't work.

Hi Meredith,

I've never had any experience with Tor, but I had a quick look at the link you provided and yes, it looks very good.

The only problem with bypassing filtering though, is that it can slow your connection down a bit. But that's a sacrifice I'm sure many will be willing to make if it means they can be sure that no legitimate sites are mistakenly blocked in their Google searches.

I've worked with content filtering a lot in my career and I can affirm that false-positives will be a very frequent occurrence - no matter how finely tuned the filter is.

meredith: "What do you think of that Tor thing in the link I put on?"

I am a computer programmer too. Tor works, as in it is impossible to block at the ISP level. You would expect it to. It was developed by the US Department of Defence explicitly as a means of forcing the US ideal of free speech onto countries like China. However, it has its drawbacks. It can be very slow and unreliable. You can get anything you want with Tor, but you have to be persistent.

There are easier ways. If you have a mates with the material, just get them to email it, or send it via a chat room, or put it up on your free web page at google or whatever. If it is large then it will be available via peer to peer (P2P) programs like Lime Wire. You can also use HTTPS encrypted proxies, which are available for free in the US, or download VPN software. If you want performance, then for about AUD$12 per year you can run your very own private proxy in the US.

Each of these solutions can't be easily blocked by the filters. Email and chat rooms can't be blocked at all. Attempts to slow down P2P in the US ("throttle" in internet parlance) brought forth new P2P programs that encrypted everything, making filtering dammed near impossible. Public VPN's and HTTPS proxies might be blocked, but they won't even know about your private one.

China has for all practical purposes given up on the filters like the ones proposed for Australia. Instead they insist everyone hands over their ID before walking into an internet cafe, they put cameras in them, and they discourage private connections and monitor those that exists, and they occasionally shoot people who get caught looking at the wrong thing. Works a treat.

How to filter the internet:
1. Take a glass of water. That is the internet.
2. Add a drop of dye. That is the nasty bits.
3. Cups your hands. That is the filter.
4. Bliss?!?

At first, I was going to dismiss the Australian Sex Party as a rather pointless publicity stunt.

However, after reading this article, I think that perhaps we have need of such a party after all.

Tankard Reist worked for former Senator Brian Harradine a staunch catholic and anti-porn crusader (the Senator Fielding of his day).

She won't put this on her profile though, because she has such an agenda. You'll note the religious nuts (Gibo and runner) were very quick to endorse this message.

Bronwyn, predictably is as foolish and ignorant as always. There are many alternatives already. ISPs already censor feeds for concerned parents, and the Liberal governments proposals also offer tools free if anyone wanted it.

runner: "Don't bother reporting research Melinda."

I'd agree, runner. She doesn't seem to understand what she is reporting, and so it likely to mislead. Indeed she does so here. She reports (correctly) there is a large body of evidence showing that a persons liking for porn is directly related to their propensity for sexual attacks. Pity she didn't go further and try and find the driver for that relationship. She might of learnt something. But I have not yet seen Melinda show any interest in learning something that goes against her cherished prejudices.

Melinda does here what she always does. She finds an easy target (like who is going to support an old man saying "a 71-year-old man wanting innocent looking girls for arousal") and works herself up into a puritanical frenzy about it. Its another example of her not having a clue about finding cause so you can reduce the unwanted effect. The single example tells you almost nothing.

But then, perhaps she never really meant it to. Her method seems to be to titillate prudish older women into a sustained lather. To be fair, it is always remarkably successful. In this piece she managed to avoid directly suggesting the internet should be filtered, so they didn't have to bother their conscience with that particular irritant.

Bronwyn: "I'm still waiting to be shown how society will benefit through turning a blind eye to the current unfettered proliferation of pornographic imagery"

Stop waiting Bronwyn. You were shown, but you ignored it.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8200#128519

You have also been shown here and elsewhere why the proposed solution won't work. You have been shown the proposed solution is open to abuse by those who run it. You have been shown it will make internet access more expensive for all of us, and slow the internet down to boot. You have even been shown it may lead that list of the worst of the worst URL's been leaked to paedophiles and our kids. Yet you ignore all of that too, apparently because it doesn't suit your prejudices. You and Melinda make a great pair.