Conroy is pushing this censorship campaign to stay onside with his Victorian moral conservative electorate. Rudd, has similar interests which oddly dovetail with his disturbing love of Chinese traditions - of social control.

For public complaints about this Great Leap Backward it is most effective to call Conroy direct. These are the publicly listed phone numbers on Conroy's Parliamentary Website http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/contact that people concerned about creeping censorship can call or fax:

Conroy's Parliamentary office
Suite MG70
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Tel: 02 6277 7480
Fax: 02 6273 4154

Conroy's Ministerial office
Level 4, 4 Treasury Place
Melbourne Vic 3002
Tel: 03 9650 1188
Fax: 03 9650 3251

These contact numbers are provided for us, the public, so we have a right to use them.

I work for a Government agency (Environmental Management) and all I can say is that I have never ceased to be amazed at the utter stupidity and incompetence of the Government. If half the stuff that happened in Government happened in private industry that company would be out of business by the end of a week.

Examples of this stupidity include cutting environmental management workforce numbers to save a little cash when it is needed most, employing internet filtering programs that are the cheapest on the market and only stop the honest (anyone can get around the filter by simply using a proxy not to mention that it also filters out site like Yahoo, Google, Discovery Channel and Enchanted Learning intermittently), failing to provide proper care through centerlink and Medicare services to chronically ill people, etc ad norsium.

Anybody who believes that a filtering system administered by the government is a good thing needs to have their head read, our current system of government couldn't organise a piss up at a brewery if they had 20 alcoholics and the key to the storeroom. The reason, there is NO accountability for stupidity and incompetence. Instead of saying 'You have no idea what you are doing so get lost' they say 'Well we will try better next time'. If the Government disables the net in this country no one will be held accountable, there are no consequences for the actions of either Pollies or Civil Servants when they screw up royal. So I challenge anyone who is in favour of this plan to tell me why we should ever allow it go ahead if we cannot trust the Government to hold up its end of the bargain, to filter only what needs to be filtered and not legitimate sites. How can we trust the Government to do its job if there is no way to hold it accountable for its actions?

The Author forgets that his party are keen on this as well.
Arthur N I also laugh when I hear a public servent go on, reductions in staffing are some of the funniest. I work for a large multi-national my dept went from 125 to 30!! When was the last time the PS was cut that deep.

Kenny, perhaps the PS does need some cuts like that, if you will note I was trying to say that there is lot of dead wood that could do with a prune in the PS.

However I note with even more interest that you did nothign to answer the question that I raised.

The ACMA blacklist was designed to protect children under the Howard government's NetAlert scheme. It was only ever designed to be provided to PC filter vendors. The ACMA hotline was only intended to take calls to deal with complaints at this level. Stephen Conroy did understand this but went on to extrapolate the use of this list as a basis to apply censorship to adults as part of an obsession which appears to be religiously motivated.

The internet mirrors real life. Kids were being nasty to each other when I was at school and there were only a few computers in the world. I remember with great shame a kid at my school who was teased/tormented for not wearing the "right" clothes to the point where her parents had to move her to a different school. The difference is that things move more quickly now. Gossip and rumours can take on a viral life of their own on line and with mobile phones. This can only be handled by real people in real life helping/teaching children to cope with the good and the bad and doing their best with their child. It's difficult in any era to fully monitor adolescent activity. It's secret kidz business to them.

While I agree that there are worse things in life and on the internet than any internet filter can fix, I think a primary paradox that is often missed is that the children involved in the production and distribution of child pornography are real abused children. A draconian internet censorship scheme will do nothing to protect or help abused children. In real life, most children are abused by members of their families, not strangers on line. How many children died in real life last year at the hands of their own families while child protection agencies in most states are starved of resources to handle this. Where is the federal government offering funding and coordination to protect real children? The $128 million estimated cost of this system could surely be more usefully allocated if protection of children is the intention.

The truly bone-chilling aspect of this debacle is that logic counts for absolutely nothing.

The government simply stonewalls any questions on the effectiveness, fairness and suitability of their pet project with sound-bites.

"...the ACMA blacklist includes URLs relating to child sexual abuse, rape, incest, bestiality, sexual violence and detailed instruction in crime"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/19/2520929.htm?section=australia

The implicit postscript is "oppose this, and you must be a paedophile, a rapist, a sexual deviant or a criminal". Despite the fact that the blacklist will inevitably include a whole raft of sites undeserving of the notoriety.

As the author points out, the government has put itself firmly into a no-win position.

It cannot release the list to public scrutiny, as it would then be available for all the kiddies to explore.

And they can't keep it secret either, for all the reasons of fairness, equity and simple commercial necessity outlined in the article.

It is a salutary lesson in "democracy", when the public can be treated in this manner with apparent impunity.

The only intelligent answer is to encourage the population to find out for themselves how exposed they might be, and to take the appropriate action. But there's political mileage only in nanny-state control mechanisms, and none at all in sensible solutions that remain the responsibility of the individual.

We really should try to avoid abdication of all our responsibilities to politicians, as they will only ever do what works for politicians. If we hand over the keys to the Internet to the likes of Rudd and Conroy, we theoretically deserve our freedoms to be curtailed in any way they see fit - this is the "well, you elected the bastards" philosophy.

There is of course one major problem with that.

Both major parties support the existence of a blacklist, so under the "thou shalt vote" law, our democratic rights are cut off at the knees.

three cheers for wikileaks.

>> The greatest concern of the blacklist being leaked is that it will provide a road map for those seeking to find these illegal sites.

this is nonsense. the whole point of the list is that the links are then disabled in australia. it doesn't matter much whether you're given a road map if the bridge is out.

>>The blacklist will also provide vital clues to these people in their quest for finding like sites.

the idea that anybody looking for such nasty stuff is short of "vital clues" is just silly.

the arguments against secrecy are obvious and overwhelming. but i truly don't see any argument for it. does anybody? is there any plausible argument whatsoever for the secrecy of this list?

I'm no fan of the proposed filter either, but a lot of disinformation is being disseminated about the current prohibited content list and its impacts.

The criteria for material being prohibited content are clearly specified in the schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/sch7.html

It should be noted that the expression "prohibited content" is just a way of cross-referencing within the legislation. It could just as easily been "XYZ". The appearance of the word "prohibited" has no legal significance.

The main problem is that even content that would be, or is, classified MA15+, is prohibited (subject to certain other criteria) if there's no mechanism in place to prevent access by everyone. This means that even quite innocuous content is deemed prohibited by the legislation. Indeed, even Channel Nine's downloadable Underbelly 2 episodes (which have been broadcast on FTA TV at 8:30pm) escape being prohibited content only by virtue of the fact that they are free (don't ask me why - that's just the way the legislation reads).

It remains unclear, because Conroy won't give a straight answer, whether any mandatory filter would be applying the same rules.

As for getting fined for posting links to prohibited content - there are no such fines. What you can get fined for is failing to act on a link-deletion notice. But before you can fail to act on one, you first have to receive one. Indeed, it's the service providers (those with the hardware) who have to act, rather than those posting the links.

Sylvia.

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction - or at least, convenient hypocrisy - in parts of the blacklist proponent's argument?

First, they argue that illegal material is rampant, and easily stumbled upon, on the Internet, so we must protect our kiddies via an internet blacklist.

Then we are told that publishing the blacklist will make it easier for users to find illegal material.

Which is true? Is illegal material easily found, or is what amounts to a directory of sites needed?

Also, it transpires that the blacklist may have as few as 2395 sites on it. Given that, as of February 2007, the Netcraft web survey found 108,810,358 distinct websites, and estimates of web *pages* range around 30,000,000,000, it would appear that either illegal sites are not as rampant as proponents claim (0.002% or less), or the blacklist is going to be extraordinarily ineffective.

If you count pages as opposed to sites, the numbers are even more miniscule.

So, even if Steven Conroy was able to plump his list out to 10,000 sites, the alleged prohibited material still represents a drop in the ocean.

It would seem that the United States Attorneys General were right when they found that, contrary to perceptions, the internet was actually an extremely safe place for children.

It's a scary area the internet. I read of someone in Australia being charged with pedophilia crimes because they had mock cartoons of Simpsons characters having sex in their posession. I know for a fact that many many people have seen and sent these. Also bestiality porn can you you into serious trouble, and again, many many people have seen such things. On the internet it is very easy to access otherwise perverted (to the extent of being illegal) material, and so many people do. Those accused people won't receive wide public support for their defence because we're all to scared to be branded too.

It's difficult reconciling the internet domain with the otherwise heavily regulated and heavily censored version of the public media which we are used to. The internet reflects a more raw uncensored version of our existence in which quite perverse subjects are given air time. That's not to say we've all changed for it, but we just didn't have the wired outlet for those subjects previously. The government needs to realise this and cut the internet some slack, they don't come into my house and tell me which subjects are ripe for discussion, they also shouldn't invade my private corner of the internet and do the same.

I agree with all posters .

I wish something could be done however to get rid of some of the porn .

I believe everyone will with maturity agree that everything has to be regulated , no exceptions .

I have 5 kids all very "up" on the internet , they know how to get around all the Net Nannies etc , they even know how to get around passwords , unlock mobile phones etc .
I don't think they are looking to find out anything specific it's just another challenge .

I can't believe that the juvenile porn is harmless , something needs to be done .
I notice no one has made any suggestions that might help Conroy in his quest .
Please remember that Conroy is a member of a "Govt of Grand Gestures" and is bound to be impulsive .

The really scary thing about the internet filtering proposal is that in spite of all its obvious flaws, it hasn't been put out of its misery.

The only logical explanation is that the filtering is a censorship tool that the gov wishes to use to censor all undesirable comment.

I would guess that the next sites to be added to the black list would be that of the liberal party and anyone that thinks Conroy is a pr*ck. Oops there goes OLO.

The article: "The greatest concern of the blacklist being leaked is that it will provide a road map for those seeking to find these illegal sites. The blacklist will also provide vital clues to these people in their quest for finding like sites."

It reminds me the firebugs being blamed for the recent deaths in Victoria. Obviously there were the primary cause. But we all know the firebugs will be with us regardless of the law or retribution handed out. So if you know that firebugs will light disastrous fires, yet you still then go ahead build communities that will be decimated by the fires they light who is ultimately to blame?

Similarly, it was utterly predictable the ACMA blacklist would leak if widely disseminated. And disseminated it was - onto every PC that downloaded one of those free government filters. So it was handed out to man+god thousands and thousands of times, as it turns out.

So who is responsible for the harm caused by the leaking of the blacklist? Is it the people who leaked it, or the government who insisted on collecting it despite that fact they knew it would be leaked?

The ALP will now and forever, be seen by many Australians as the nation's key Fascist Movement. Next we'll be banning books and using bonfires to kill pagans to appease the fanatical, Christian Lobby Group.

I'm not sure why the ALP thinks it's a vote winner.

Rudd turned out to be more of a god-botherer than most of us expected, but this is ridiculous.

Considering none of his cabinet ministers will get out of bed without a poll and focus group telling them which side, it's a worry that they've crunched the numbers and somehow concluded that the majority of Australians want this.

Sancho: "I'm not sure why the ALP thinks it's a vote winner."

They can't possibly think that. The polls are very clear. I don't have a clue as to why they are perusing this, but it isn't that.

Then I can only guess it's out of a desire to appear firm on their policies, or an old-fashioned moral crusade.

If this is the way they think they'll reel in the Howardites, it's way off-track.

I see moral cowardice and hypocrisy here. Australia is a democratic country; ultimately, successive governments are there to do the electorate's bidding, not the over way round.

The country as a whole has been content for over a hundred years with a constitution that does not include a Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of expression, and there has been no popular momentum for the comparatively (relative to other Western jurisdictions) censorious Broadcasting Services Act to be changed, since it was enacted back in 1992.

It would seem that Australians want, or are at least not bothered, to have such a regime in place - so long as in private, at home, they can resort to the Web to access the same kind of porn that almost everyone else around the world can. And now Conroy proposes closing that loophole, making Web access consistent with all other mass media. I am tempted to say "Why are you so dismayed? You never previously saw anything wrong with the BSA, enacted by a democratically elected government acting on your behalf! You never previously felt that freedom of expression should be protected in law!"

Its painfully clear that much of the indignant hot air from male posters is motivated by the prospect of private access to the hard (but still consensual and legal in the US where it is produced) porn that they like and have become accustomed to, being taken away. But Aussie Blokes couldn't actually ADMIT as much, could they? No, indeed, we have to pretend that we are terribly concerned about slowing down broadband speed, that it won't work on technical grounds, ANYTHING but admit we want to see the porn.

You get what you deserve.

rubberneck, i agree fully with your condemnation with the history of australians' lethargy (when not wowsery promotion) on issues of censorship. and you may be right that some of the opposition to conroy's fascism is less than honest.

but, i'm not sure that matters hugely, nor that it was ever much different. even in countries such as america, which are culturally and legally strong on free speech. i think tom lehrer's "smut" tells it pretty well.

i'm also not sure how or why or who you're aiming at amongst posters here. the hypocrisy (is that really what you mean?) and moral cowardice is not so obvious to me.

rubberneck: "the indignant hot air from male posters is motivated by the prospect of private access to the hard porn that they like and have become accustomed to"

I should let this go. As bushbasher says anyone looking at the comments here would be scratching their heads after reading the above.

That aside, it is unlikely to be true for other reasons. The current legislation doesn't just blacklist stuff that is illegal to distribute in Australia - that is stuff "Refused Classification" in the jargon. MA15+ stuff can be blacklisted too. MA15+ can be legally viewed by anybody in Australia, child or adult. They can see it in a Movie theatre, on a DVD or on TV. Just not on the internet. That may not worry you Rubberneck, but it is understandable it would worry others - even male posters of a certain age.

Rubberneck,

It is painfully clear that the majority of the people that support the censorship of the net are blue rinsed dowagers with almost no knowledge of the internet and who feel that their age and bitterness gives them the right to control others lives.

What is obvious is that
The net filtering can easily be bypassed, so those that want the porn etc can get it anyway,
The filtering will slow down the system drastically so that the broadband I have paid for will revert to dial up speeds I had years ago.
Finally, the gov has been caught out filtering stuff that has more to do with their revenue from taxes, such as gambling, which shows that the "protection from child porn" is nothing more than a facade used to rally gullible pinheads and tar those against the plan as closet paedophiles.

I wasn't exclusively referring to posters in this particular forum, in my accusation of hypocrisy and political apathy. Wherever you see the topic raised across the Web, there is a conspicuous absence of the obvious argument that in a modern secular state, adults should not be restrained by a government from viewing sexually explicit material so long as it is consensual and legal, most particularly not involving minors or other species.

"It is painfully clear that the majority of the people that support the censorship of the net are blue rinsed dowagers with almost no knowledge of the internet and who feel that their age and bitterness gives them the right to control others lives."

? Maybe they are blue rinsed dowagers, although that seems a tendentiously cartoonish caricature. Personally I'm no supporter of "clean feeding" the net - two of my favourite sites are StraightHell and Bound Gods, both of which will almost certainly get blocked because Conroy et al. won't bother making distinctions between consensual mock-violent role-play and real sexual violence. Fortunately, I'm just a student from overseas and might well be gone again by the time Conroy gets his wicked way with your net access. In a way I hope he does, because it might just be a learning experience for rank and file Australians; legal entrenchment of freedom of expression isn't just a wet liberal preoccupation that could only be of benefit to those pesky minority groups.

"In the all-important war against pictures of boobies on the Internet, the government of Australia has spared no expense. In 2006, after conducting a study which determined that ISP-level filtering was not feasible, the nation spent $116 million to develop Internet filtering software that parents could install on computers. When this software was easily circumvented by children, the government decided to try again with an $89 million ISP-level filtering scheme based on a blacklist devised by the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA).

The ambitious filtering plan, which was announced in 2007 at an event hosted by the Australian Christian Lobby and televised live to 700 churches across the country, looked like a costly way to appease conservative voters rather than a practical approach to shielding children from seeing unclad naughty bits.

The filtering scheme is designed to have two tiers, a mandatory level of filtering that blocks "illegal" content and an optional (opt-out) level of filtering that blocks content which ACMA has determined is only suitable for an adult audience. Concerns about the scope of filtering were raised last year following a call by Australia's conservative Family First party to expand the mandatory tier so that it encompasses legal content."

When the gov controls what you think, see or do, you no longer live in a democracy.

And as for the separation of state and church ...

May be banana republic is a better description ... another power outage hit Sydney's CBD yesterday afternoon ... from about 16:45 to close to 20:30 ...

Why is the gov spending money on insubanksters, a seat on the UN Security Council, a war in the Middle East or internet filters when power, water, transport, education, justice and health can all do with more?