Part III
Opt-out second level filter (activated by default), intended for children (children can't opt out)
WebShield customer testimonials show parents are willing to leave their children unsupervised on the net if a filter is present:
David from South Australia
I would like to say that; I am so happy using Webshield because I don't have to worry about what the children are doing, passwords or anything. I was constantly keeping tabs on things before, but now I know Webshield is doing it for me.

Angie from South Australia
Before I used Webshield, I would constantly be checking my children on the internet, worried and anxious about what they might 'accidently' find. But now with Webshield, I can leave them to their homework, etc and not stress."
http://webshield.com.au/htm3/contents_feedback_comments.htm

Filtering cannot protect against conversation - the method used by child groomers to lure children. Even if a filter does block email and chat, these are the exact kind of services any normal child would try to bypass the filter for, so they can chat with their friends. Deviance is not required for this form of disobedience.

* Child groomers do not have to discuss sex or anything lurid to lure a child, they are only trying to gain their trust and secure a meeting, so an obscenity filter can't cover this. An email & chat blocker may help, but the Government is only proposing a content filter not a service filter. Do you accept that it is beyond reasonable doubt that an unsupervised child is more likely to fall prey to child groomers (all other things being equal)? If not, why not?
* Do you accept that an unsupervised child will be able to circumvent a filter more easily to gain access to any blocked services if they have mischievous intent? If not, why not?
* Before telling parents that an obscenity filter will make the Internet safer for children, what education should be given to parents about the dangers of child grooming, the ease of filter circumvention and the importance of supervision (none has been detailed so far).

Part IV

* Should a filter that claims to "make the Internet safer for children" be allowed to go ahead without this education, given the increased risk of child grooming?
* Filtering based on keywords around obscenity. will undoubtedly block some content in the following categories:
+Sex education
+Education on how to avoid rape and sexual abuse
+Support groups for children who are in a situation of sexual abuse
How do you propose to mitigate the harm caused by blocking these services, especially since there is no appeals process for blocked content?

Concerning Online Child Safety Policy in general.
* The Rudd government has stripped $2.8million in proposed funding from the AFP's online child safety strike team, delayed the addition of 90 personnel to the squad by 1-2 years and discontinued the free, supported, PC based Internet filter without making an alternative available. Senator Conroy has routinely dodged questions about what the filtering would actually entail (we're not talking about whether it's a good idea, he's dodged questions as to what would even be implemented). Further, despite the child endangerment caused by the filtering proposal (as detailed above) Senator Conroy has equated filter opponents with child pornography proponents. Why do you trust this government to implement an effective online safety policy for children?
* Filtering will have a cost to users as well, in terms of slower Internet and increased access costs (ISPs will have to pay around $80M towards filtering). The slower Internet and increased costs of service will have an negative affect on the economy and result in less productivity, which means less money for the government. Why is it better to have this loss, instead of scrapping filtering and investing the money that would have been lost in policing, education and opt-in filters?

Thanks for taking the time to read these issues and I look forward to your response.

Ben Sands

Just want to say thank you for your excellent summary of all the issues and concerns about the government's proposed filtering legislation.

Most aspects you mention of the proposed legislation I knew already, but others I didn't know - e.g. the government's intention to keep the names of 'filtered' sites a secret. This particularly indicates to me that the real endgame in this 'debate' is political censorship, not stress minimisation for parents.

One bright spot I notice is that young people themselves are speaking out against this proposed legislation. For example, my teenage sons and a large group of their friends, who are otherwise non-political, attended a rally against Internet censorship in Brisbane's city centre a few weeks ago.

I do think that young people should be at the centre of this debate. After all, isn't it their 'protection' that is being used as the justification?