First, a bit of history: Whilst the call for a mandatory filter had originally come from some Christian and parent groups, the idea attracted cross factional attention in the ALP when Clive Hamilton from the Australia Insititute brought a broad left view into the debate calling for a mandatory filter, not to mention declaring that it was indeed feasible prior to the 2004 election campaign. This had an impact within the party. Very soon after the 2004 election I was moved out of the IT shadow portfolio by Mark Latham, and federal Labor adopted a policy of filtering, provided it was cost effective and technically feasible.
When the Rudd Labor opposition reaffirmed the policy on a mandatory internet filter prior to the 2007 federal election, it was largely a conceptual policy that sought to protect people who felt vulnerable and exposed to unwanted online content, that in other mediums had some form of censorship applied. The details still had to be developed. It was also contingent on an ISP filter actually being effective and workable.
At the time, I took comfort in the seemingly well-established ‘fact’ that such a filter was not technically feasible and that any reasonable test would establish this ‘fact’ yet again. Certainly at the time of the former Howard Government’s notorious Online Services Bill in 1998, studies showed that such filters were neither cost effective nor technically feasible.
This view of technical non-feasiblility was echoed strongly around the industry in 2007 and since, so the Minister did what a sensible Minister would do pursuant to the policy on the books: test the technology and the industry’s claims along with it.
In the meantime, the debate and discussion about the merits or otherwise of mandatory censorship per se being applied to the internet manifested itself instead in discussion and debate about just what was proposed to be filtered.
To Minister Conroy’s credit, he tackled the issue of defining exactly what was proposed as being filtered: the content that could not be regulated here because it was not on a server in Australia, and was incabable of being classified within our system of classification, hence refused classification, or ‘RC’.
His announcement that it was RC material that was to be subject to the filter was helpful and resolved some concern about the lack of detail of what was to be censored and fuelled conspiracy theories about the loss of freedoms. Material that is deemed RC by a properly skilled entity such as the classification board affords more confidence than the previous methodology, which had given rise to much of the concern about unjustified, unfair or plain wrong blacklisting of web sites based on complaints because there was no transparent system or method of picking the sites.
With the issue of ‘what’ being resolved, the ‘how’ still remained to be resolved by a series of ‘tests’ conducted by industry. For all intents and purposes (and I am aware of the debate about the technical detail and scope) the testers have said that the tests were successful (media release and report).
Did I expect this? Frankly, no. Was Clive Hamilton right? Probably not at the time he said it. But again, for all intents and purposes, the Minister had abided by his commitment to ensure the policy was grounded in evidence that it did what it said it did. The industry’s original claims that the filters were not feasible were proved false.
What Minister Conroy has never said is that the filter will guarantee people will never be exposed to RC content. He can’t say that and he understands why. What he has said all along is that this is one tool in a tool kit of policies to make the internet safer.
This is where a lot of passionate opponents of the filter get very frustrated “well if it doesn’t work 100%, why do it?” The answer is because the Rudd Labor Government is convinced it will encourage concerned people that the internet will be a safer place for themselves and/or their children.
However, people with a deep abiding commitment to a truly open internet, the very idea of introducing a mandatory filter will always be an anathema, no matter the definitional limitations to what is being censored or how accountable/transparent that process is.
Unfortunately, the debate about whether reducing the risks of people being exposed to unwanted online content through mandatory filters outweighs the value people place on the concept of an open and unflitered internet was resolved by the Rudd government before the last election, when the policy was announced. So it is not surprising many people feel they have not had the opportunity to have this debate.
So where to next? With a policy announced and the tests done and the definition of what is to be filtered resolved there is little room to move. Given the principle of openess associated with the internet is for some, irreconcilable with mandatory filtering no matter how it is done, one approach may be to allow ISPs, if they chose, to offer adults an ‘opt out’. The problem with this however will be that many people are unlikely to be comfortable with an opt-out given the inevitable stigma that will be attached to “wanting” access to RC content. It may also lead to interest by the authorities, even though individuals may simply want to ensure they are not having legitimate content filtered.
In many respects this will be the practical effect as it is assumed that the filters will be circumvented, with the defiant justification being defending this principal of openess anyway. However by creating a legitimate mechanism, the strongly held diverse views within our population would be respected while still adhering to the Rudd Labor election commitment of providing a mandatory filter.
My past statements clearly outline my preferred approach of more effective parental education and support, including filters at the desktop and improving confident use of the intenet throughs skills development across a range of community, education and work-based strategies.
So my plan is to advocate within my party an approach which recognises the openess principle that underpins the Internet as I have argued for in the past. This discussion is rightly an internal one, and I have no doubt that the public will be expressing their view as they have already started to do. In this regard I urge constructive and sensible debate. Remember that Minister Conroy is implementing an election commitment determined by the whole Cabinet.
I want to thank people for the respect they have shown me on this issue too, given my previous advocacy and obvious discomfort with the current approach. I am also firm in my belief that this debate does not diminish the exciting work we are doing with the NBN, in Gov 2.0 and other areas of ICT policy. I will always be committed to realising our ICT-related social and economic potential.
Finally, I want to be very clear that ultimately, as a Senator in the Labor Government I will be bound by Labor Caucus’ position on the matter. I remain supportive of Minister Conroy and will work closely with him to reach the best possible outcome. I do believe that the intention of this policy remains noble – to protect our young and vulnerable. I am keenly aware that many mechanisms used by criminal networks will not be stopped through a filtering mechanism, and I believe the complementary strategies being put in place are good, such as increased funding for the AFP to tackle cybercrime and online safety education.
I will follow the online conversations closely as always and look forward to your feedback.
UPDATE: This post was followed up by another post summarising core points from these comments: http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/12/21/further-thoughts-on-the-filter/
427 Comments
Reply | Subscribe
Kate, it is not actually correct that Labor went to the 2007 election with a mandatory filtering policy – what was going to be “mandatory” was that ISPs had to offer filtering, not that every single Australian would be subject to it.
Labor really needs to listen to its own base on this issue, which is dead against this proposal.
Pia and Kate, please note people are attacking the policy stance of the Labour party and how it has fooled the average Australian who lets face it does not read a lot of a party policy papers. This is not a fault of the average Australian as they have mortgages to pay, children to raise etc. I believe the average Australian did not vote Kevin Rudd in but voted John Howard out due to the need for change. However the change that Labour is trying to introduce infringes on not just my freedom of self expression, but my education, work, research and as an uber geek my self identity which is connected to the internet.
My choice is to stand against the filter. As a person with a 9year educational history in Information Technology (systems administration, e-security, web deverlopment) I see it as my duty to be criticl of information technology policies where needed.
I have tried to word five questions below that i belive the Australian people need to know;
1.Stephen Conroy came out on radio and sated that he will be filtering individual urls, which means page by page. please confirm?
2.he has stated that the filter will impact speeds at 70th of the blink of an eye, however this will effect people on low speeds in the bush significantly has and will this be explained them?
3.he also stated that 10,000 is the limit that telstra said that the network could handle without major slow downs… if we are blocking per url then how in the hell are we not going to reach 10,000 within the first week? If we block per page url not domain then what this means is that if each website had 1000 pages each (very very easy for a porn site to do) we can only block 10 without effecting speeds, how will you address this matter?
4.What assurances will Kevin Rudd put in place to ensure that the filter does not reach 10,000 and effect speed defredation as pointed out in the Telstra filter trial?
5.Why does Conroy and Lundy keep on saying that Australia will be like other democracies who have a filter like Italy and Finland however you fail to mention to the public that those countries have an opt in filter not mandatory.
You know me, and you know my life and exsistence is technology, computers, the internet and people
Hence my deep concern on what is being proposed to occur in the country i live, work, study, research and wish to raise my family in. I guess you know me well enough to know that in my heart i am pleeding for an answer to the above five points. I truly can not belive what is being proposed, it makes my 8bit heart die inside :’(
During the last election campaign Labor said there would be an opt-out for the filter. What is being proposed now is NOT the same as what was promised at the election.
I do not believe that the true intention of this policy is noble, the “protect our children” mantra is a typical political smokescreen.
This is about government control of information plain and simple. K Rudd understands the power of the web, having used it to great effect to win power.
Once this technology is in place there is no doubt that subsequent governments will add more and more material to the filter for political purposes.
Whilst I respect that you cannot be seen to oppose the policy, I’m sure you know how flawed it is and I think Labor is underestimating Geeks’ ability to mobilise politically.
Hi James and Paul,
Please read the document that is linked for the policy that Labor ran on. I’ve added it here again for you http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf
It appears that has been the policy since before the 2007 election.
James, if you only see demons, you can’t engage meaningfully. Your concern is one that Kate deals with and is one many people (including myself) have legitimate concerns about for down the track, however I think it would be better to try to balance the actual concerns of both sides of this discussion, rather than assume one side is simply nefarious.
Cheers,
Pia
Office of Senator Kate Lundy
Pia, I’ve just read my copy of the report and it says:
That is why Labor will:
Provide a mandatory ‘clean feed’ internet service for all homes, schools and public computers that are used by Australian children.
My computer is not used by children, Australian or otherwise, and is not public. Why will my connection be censored?
Dear Pia,
Thank you for linking to the Election 07 Fact Sheet, Labor’s Plan for Cyber-safety.
Can you please address a couple of points for me:
On page 2, the document states that Labour intends to:
“Provide a mandatory ‘clean feed’ internet service for all homes, schools and public computers that are used by Australian children.”
OK So the word mandatory is in there, but it is also qualified with “for all homes, schools and public computers that are used by Australian children.” So the mandatory nature of the policy could well be interpreted applying only to those computers being made available to children. What of those of us who live in a child-free household?
On page 5, the document states:
“A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a ‘clean feed’ internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries.”
The word “offers” is used in this case. What’s the first definition for the word “offers” on dictionary.com? Let’s see:
“to present for acceptance or rejection; proffer: He offered me a cigarette.”
Sounds pretty optional to me.
So while the term opt-out was never explicitly used, there is more than enough ambiguity and suggestion within your fact sheet to suggest to anyone reading it that this “clean feed” would be optional, at least within certain circumstances.
Can you comment please?
We are all waiting for your comeback Pia.
Pia
Thanks for replying. I have read the document, and read it at the time it was released along with other announcements and comments about what Labor’s pre-election policy was. Obviously there is a world of difference between a filter which is mandatory for all users, and a filter which it is mandatory for ISPs to offer. The document you link to makes it clear that for ordinary users there was going to be an opt-out, and that it was the latter proposition – that ISPs must OFFER the filter – that would be mandatory.
As such, there is a world of difference between the pre-election policy and the current proposal, even though the language used to describe each might be similar. I doubt many people oppose the notion of helping people control access to the net for kids, but Labor is apparently happy to use the tools of authoritarianism to achieve liberal democratic aims. I really hope that the discussion behind closed doors is more informed and sensible than the public statements of late.
Pia, thanks for your response.
Let me start by saying that I’m a huge admirer of your work, especially for the Linux community in Australia. It pleases me no end that the geek community of Australia has someone who really understands the issues working inside the system.
I am in the ICT industry, and a parent, and I must confess that I agree with James on one crucial point: It’s hard not to see the “protect our children” line as nothing more than a distraction. It’s simply not credible, and the government will have to do better than this and lay out an evidence-based, rational argument for why this is a) necessary, and b) the best option.
The credibility problem is severalfold:
First off, the “you’re with us or with the child pornographers” attitude so beloved by Senator Conroy over the last year gets old really quickly.
Most Australians know by now that most material that is presented for classification and refused is not pornography, child or adult. The cases that we all know about are art movies such as “Salo” and “Ken Park”, and video games that would be rated R18+ if the classification were available. This is in addition to material which was only given a classification on appeal (e.g. “Romance”), and movies which had to be re-edited for an Australian audience. This material is, at the moment, legal for adults to own and privately view in most places in Australia.
Most of the material that Senator Conroy wants you to think he’s talking about, such as child pornography, is not material that any well person seeks out (unless they’re engaging in legitimate research). Additionally, almost none of this material is available on the open web, so is beyond the reach of this type of filter.
Incidentally, the Bill Henson fiasco is still fresh in the minds of everyone I know. Don’t forget that it was the leader of the current government labelled an exhibition by one of our most internationally renowned artists as having no “artistic merit” (a phrase was lifted directly from the classification guidelines). It’s hard not to see this and the proposed mandatory filtering as being related.
Which brings me to my second point, which is that it’s hard not to see this as one generation trying to nanny another generation, or wowsers trying to nanny art aficionados. There is a sense, I think, that policies should be based on the best evidence and submitted for public debate. There has been no public debate on this issue, and it is perceived as a sign of weakness that the government has not taken a leadership role in creating one.
It’s instructive to compare this to the way that the issue of R18+ classifications for computer games is being handled. Senator Conroy and his Department deserve a lot of credit for taking a rational consultative approach.
My third point, and I think this is the key one for the geek community, is that we are all acutely aware of the problem of scope creep.
Petrol taxes were intended to pay for road maintenance, but are now channelled into general revenue. Police powers intended to combat terrorism tend to be used for non-terrorism-related criminal investigation. There is a sense that when you give the government a power for a limited purpose, that purpose will not remain limited for long. There are certainly enough examples from quite recent history that this fear is not completely ridiculous.
My fourth point is that there is a fear of government secrecy. There are no national security issues which apply here. There are no privacy issues which apply here. But still, the blacklist is secret, and to most Australians, this is an abomination.
One of the great strengths of Australia’s classification system is that everything (apart from purely internal matters) is done in the open. If the government were to create a separate, “shadow” database of OFLC rulings which was closed to public view, the Australian people would be understandably upset. But this is exactly what the proposed secret blacklist is.
One final point.
I am a parent, and I am acutely aware of the risks that children face in today’s world. I am essentially unconcerned about what is available on the Internet. We always monitor our childrens’ Internet use. I feel insulted that the government thinks that parents are incapable of parenting.
We can monitor web sites before our children visit them. What we can’t monitor is what our children will be exposed to by marketers and advertisers, on television, in supermarkets and so on. We can screen which web sites they visit, but we can’t screen supermarkets for junk food labelling, or music videos for body image issues. If the government is serious about the well-being of our children, we should be spending money and effort on that which parents can’t control, rather than things that they can, do and do well.
I’ve rambled enough, but I hope you get my semi-coherent points.
The reason you’re seeing a difference there is because Senator Conroy and his department have nothing whatsoever to do with the R18+ classification for computer games issue.
That’s being run by the Attorney General and the Home Affairs Minister.
It’s so, so hard to play the ball rather than the man when it’s obvious that the man is actually a large part of the problem.
– mark
You may be right on the games classification, but Senator Conroy himself is actually pretty clued-up when it comes to most of the high-level issues. Obviously, there will be some “agree to disagree” moments with anybody, but when you consider the NBN, the breakup of Telstra’s wholesale and retail arms, overseeing the move to digital television, continued funding for NICTA… These are things that are easy to get right, perhaps, but he still deserves credit for them.
This is the only decision that I’ve seen in his tenure which is completely, utterly and objectively wrong. If you have some other examples, I’d like to hear them.
Thank you for confirming my recollection that I did not vote for the manditory filtering of all internet.
I do recall voting for the requirement for an ISP to provide a clean feed and that all libraries, schools and houses with children would be required to use it…. of course, I don’t have children so I expect the party will honour the promise it made to me and NOT filter my internet.
The Government has said aprox 15 or so Western democracies have implemented the same filtering plan, but what they fail to mention is that the other countries have made the scheme voluntary for ISPs and the blacklisted content is limited to child pornography.
For example, Italy, Denmark, Finland have opt in not opt out or mandatory.
Pia, hiding behind the defence of it was written on our policy when labour did not sing about it at the election they sung about giving people faster speeds. This is what the Australian people are upset about they feel like Labour has fooled them.
On another note, Freedom fighter, Free speach if you were these things why did you join a party that wants to implment the largest ban and enforcement of Australians suppression of access to information. I have no problem with you supporting the party YOU advice. But please do not claim to be a freedom of speech advocate when you are working on an internet filter regime.
I remember you and Jeff had a very different stance on this issue at bar camp 2008, i am not sure why things changed so fast early last year, as a geek girl it is disapointing to see someone who i felt could make a difference toe the line
“Australia’s proposed regime would uniquely combine a mandatory framework and a much wider scope of content, the first of its kind in the democratic world,”
As a web researcher i will be writting a full document and report for the goverment as well as releasing it to the public to help show people from a technical position the effect this will have on our access to information and the speed of our networks. Pia you grew up in an Australia that had no filter, dont your children and future Australians deserve the right too??
Also Penny Sharpe has stated she will cross the floor, so why can’t Kate? All politicians can, they can in Liberal is there a submission here that party politics of Labour do not let you have freedom of choice it always must be the parties view, that is wrong. Australians voted for you and Kevin Rudd is in power because we voted for him. Why are you requesting us to be so ignorant and go ohh poor Kate she has to do what the man tells her? Not an excuse look into the history of Australian politics crossing the floor is a large part of what makes Australian demmocaracy work!
So there is no excuse only where you stand either for the blocking of information or against it, and when you come to a decision please change your status to information blocker not freedom figther.
Hi Aimee,
I’m hiding behind nothing and I resent your comments, especially given you know my track record. It is frustrating that people will generally assume the absolute worst and I want to make it clear, as I and Kate have through several comments, that all the feedback on this blog will help to build a case against the situation as it currently stands. This is the best possible contribution I can make to this issue, and although I have already and will no doubt continue to cop abuse, I will continue trying to do the right thing, as I always have. My actions have always been influenced by a strong commitment to openness, freedom and equality – and that has not changed.
Please consider there are many ways to skin a cat and if we all stand outside the walls yelling, who will be left inside to open the gates?
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
Aimee,
One last thought, I think your research paper will be a great contribution, and we would really appreciate it if you could post a link here once it’s available.
Thanks,
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
Well, 334 comments compared to the usual 0-3 on Kate’s blog – that should give you some ammo, Pia!
Pia,
I am sorry you see some comments by myself and others as a personal attack. At no time did i set out to do this you are an admirable person i would never say anything different and i know that you are there to make a difference and you do. I was trying to point out that stating it was policy before election as a blanket excuse for someone with your background i felt was out of character, only my oppinon not an attack. Once again very sorry. I have written a request for some information and posted above, i have tried to make it more direct and to the point as well as asking specific questions about the filter policy.
So you support censorship. Disgusting.
What little respect I had left for you has gone right out the window.
Hang your head in shame. This is a loser of a policy, completely indefensible, and you know it.
You have damaged your relationship with the online community; they will no longer be able to trust you.
While I appreciate your efforts and your honesty on this matter and others, I do take issue with your claim that you are “bound by Labor Caucus’ position on the matter”. You are not.
You were not elected to serve the Labor party, or Kevin Rudd, or the ACL, but the people of Australia and in particular the people of the Australian Capital Territory.
You choose to follow the position advanced by the Labor Caucus, and you might be correct to do so, but it is nonetheless a choice. Even if that choice means expulsion.
As I said, though, I appreciate your efforts and knowing that there are people like yourself working for us – even if much of that work has to be behind closed doors – makes me just a little less disillusioned with the current government.
The cop out of all cop outs.
The stated aim of this whole thing is to “protect the children”. Filtering out only “illegal” material does nothing to “protect the children” from perfectly-legal material that parents don’t want their kids seeing. It also blocks a bunch of perfectly-legitimate material that is perfectly legal to possess, just not to distribute — like the Poison Pill Handbook.
Very disappointed Ms Lundy.
Opt ‘IN’ not Opt ‘OUT’. Those who want this can make the choice instead of the other way round.
Opt in solutions already exist (Webshield, OpenDNS, NetAlert etc,) but there’s not all that much demand for them. Therefore it only makes sense that filtering should be forced upon every Australian.
My god. I hope you’re not in government – The forced filtering is exactly what it is – I don’t feel I should have anything forced upon me – this is one policy I disagree with at a most fundamental level – If I am doing no harm, then no harm should be done to me.
I was debating whether to post that or not because going on how absurd the policy is, someone was bound to take me seriously.
That said, this seems to be exactly the thought processes that was involved here. The NetAlert filter was axed (which in my opinion was in itself a completely irresponsible move) years before the government came up with a replacement solution. Now that this new mandatory filter is on the cards, it’s far less effective at protecting kids, and nobody’s even clear what the real motive or benefit behind it actually is (aside being a Christian vote grabber, but that can’t alone drive policy like this can it?)
The whole issue is contentious because the mandatory filter in its current state is going to do effectively nothing but drive up the cost of Internet, whereas to actually rid the Internet of “illegal” (and I use this word with a heavy sense of irony) content would cripple the Australian IT infrastructure as well.
I’m really hoping this policy gets shot down, but it’s just so depressing watching it play out in the mean time while reason flies out the window.
Cozman, I think you are missing the sarcasm. The point being made was that the lack of uptake of filters (in spite of the huge fuss about them during the Howard years) indicates that most Australian’s don’t want a filter solution.
I can understand that you’re in a difficult position here, and for the most part you have (wisely) chosen your words carefully. However, there’s one glaring issue, when you say:
“The industry’s original claims that the filters were not feasible were proved false.”
If you look at how the tests were conducted, they prove nothing of the kind. The proposed filter will clearly not achieve the desired goals of “protecting the children”, particularly when there are so many real, physical dangers facing them.
I appreciate your stance on this, but please, be careful not to lose site of the supposed higher goal.
Brilliant!
I wish I could articulate my concerns this well.
So the reason I can’t get traction with my @zittrain inspired opportunity cost of breaking the generative nature of open Internet is:
“Unfortunately, the debate about whether reducing the risks of people being exposed to unwanted online content through mandatory filters outweighs the value people place on the concept of an open and unflitered internet was resolved by the Rudd government before the last election”
Well at least I won’t die wondering.
Thanks
p.s. Perhaps you could buy yr senior colleagues a copy of “the future of the Internet (and how to stop it) for Christmas reading
Labor will lose a generation of voters over this misguided attempt to censor free access to information in this country. This is absolutely disgusting and I feel ashamed to be Australian. We are an international embarrassment.
This will not help one child and in will in fact cause more harm due to sweeping the issue under the carpet and directing money away from where it can help.
This is very true. I’ve always voted for the ALP and find almost everything the Liberal party stand for to be antithical to my own views. However, I and most of my gen-X/Y acquaintances find this issue to be important enough that if it is passed, we will vote Liberal.
So true. I can neither vote for labour or liberal anymore – their policies are draconian, medieval and closer to a socialist/communist order than a free thinking society. Little johnny sold us to the world and now Rudds killing small farmers across astralia (youtube Peter Spencer), while Conroy tries to choke the internet from getting free and fair internet – “protect the children” is a lie and a farce – if anyone believes this wonder line, then you deserve the government you’ve got. The writing is on the wall people – when will you stop being “The Sheeple”… sad times for Australia.
Very true. Last election was the first time I voted Labor (previously a Democrats voter.) Even though I loathe some of their policies, next election is looking like a Greens vote.
“as a Senator in the Labor Government I will be bound by Labor Caucus’ position on the matter.”
Which, of course, is just another form of censorship. No independent thinking allowed. Another vote lost here, Kate.
She has the ability to cross the floor when it comes to a vote. Your credibility is on the line Landy
Actually, the ALP doesn’t let MPs cross the floor, if they do they get disendorsed.
Indeed, and one cant risk being turfed off the gravy train over something as piffling as principle!
I applaud your critical thinking on this issue Kate, but even you seem confused by Conroy’s smokescreen on the purpose of the filter.
Is it?:
1) To protect Children from seeing Bad Things?
Hmmm no. This would best be achieved by an opt-in service that filtered out much more than RC content. There is a lot of perfectly legal content that I’m sure most parents would not want their children seeing.
2) To protect Good Adults from seeing Bad Things?
Hmmm no. The type of heinous content that Conroy insists is the only content being targeted is not easy to find. You have to go looking for it. And, if by some incredible coincidence, you did happen to stumble upon it, One would hope that an Adult would be sensible enough to simply navigate away again…
3) To prevent Bad Adults from seeing Bad Things?
Ahah. This almost makes sense – but wait, anyone who actually wants to see this stuff can circumvent the filter quite easily, or more to the point probably doesn’t get it from the web anyway, but rather other internet protocols. For this purpose the questions is not whether the filter can work 100%, but whether it can work AT ALL.
Given that the filter does not seem appropriate for ANY of it’s puported uses, the question of whether it technically filter out a list of urls sucessfully seems rather moot.
Perryn
Where in the policy does it say that the filter will be mandatory for all computer users? It talks about ISPs having to offer a clean feed, but I don’t see where it says that ISPs will forced to only offer a clean feed. Obviously for many people there is a huge difference between a filtered feed being available and they being forced to use it or to even being forced to opt-out rather than opt-in.
Hi Chris,
Look at the original policy from 2007 – http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf and search for “mandatory”.
Cheers,
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
Hi Pia,
The mandatory in that document seems to refer to the ISP’s having to offer the service not that everyone would have to accept the clean feed. eg an opt-in service.
At the time if it was understood that the Labor was intending to filter everyones internet connection there would have been a lot more opposition to the proposal
Chris
It is mandatory Chris. During the election campaign it was said there would be an opt out clause. This is no longer the case. I can assure you. This is mandatory for all Australians.
Thanks for the clarification in community expectations from the time. It does help.
Cheers,
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
Pia, the community’s expectation in 2007 was that Labor’s proposed ‘clean feed’ was going to be mandatory only in terms of being a service provided by ISPs. Nowhere in the proposal is there language which says that users would be subject to mandatory filtering. I certainly would not have voted for Labor (which I did) had there been any such language. I strongly suggest that you and Senator Lundy read it again.
I can absolutely guarantee that if Labor tables the legislation as Senator Conroy has drafted it that Labor will be in for a shellacking in the next election. This is a vote changer.
Pia, I agree with Brian.
My expectation is that Labor would deliver on their promise, which was an optional clean feed.
I voted Labor for the first time in my life at the last federal election. I will not vote Labor again if this filter goes ahead.
Pia I would like to refer you to an ABC news article published Mon Dec 31, 2007 which includes the following quote as further evidence that the filter was pitched to the Australian public as being optional:
“Senator Conroy says anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service.”
I await your reply.
Dear Pia,
Please clarify if I am incorrect, but your response could be interpreted as seeming to suggest that your view is the community reached some erroneous expectation about the government’s policy or interpreted the policy that was floated before the last election incorrectly, but that they did this on their own accord, via no fault of the message the government was pushing at the time, because the government’s stance on the policy has been consistent throughout?
You do not address the wording present in the Election 07 fact sheet you yourself linked us all to, that to any reasonable analysis refers to an optional “clean feed.” A number of people have also brought up an ABC article where the government states that the “clean feed” would be optional.[1]
At least you could acknowledge that the government has not been consistent in communicating its policy, rather than appearing to put the responsibility onto the community for their misunderstanding of the governments mixed signals.
[1] http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/12/17/my-thoughts-on-the-filter/#comment-12579
Not to mention the expectations of sitting members – I had a bit of back and forth on the matter with Anna Bourke when the policy was released and she was convinced at the time the filter would be mandatory but opt-out. I can’t find the conversation, but when I do I’ll email it your office.
There was no mention of a “Mandatory Feed” during the televised political spin of Labor. Matter of fact, it was actually mentioned by Conroy as being an “Opt out” filter. This not only contradicts the paper you linked to, but also brings forth an amazingly large lie on the part of Stephen Conroy to bolster support for Labor votes!
Proof can be read in these articles!
August 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/08/10/1186530595566.html?page=2
Labor’s proposal is far more radical and would require ISPs to filter all internet connections.
“We have an opt-out provision, so for X-rated [content] they can opt out, but for child porn and violent sites, they’re completely blocked, there’s no opt-out,” Senator Conroy said.”
December 2007
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/31/oz_net_filter_plan/
“Under the latest variant of the filtering plan, Australian ISPs would have to provide a “clean feed” option for schools and homes. Individual users would be able to opt-out of the service and receive unfiltered content.”
January 2008 and someone at the Courier Mail has gazed into a crystal ball and seen the future!
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22990520-27197,00.html
“And here’s the really important question: just how long before “opt out” becomes “no option”? It’s only a small step from where we are heading.”
Move ahead to October 2008 and Conroy starts waving the “Hammer & Sickle” Flag
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/technology/family-first-sparks-net-filter-fears/2008/10/27/1224955922160.html?page=fullpage
“Despite his earlier promises that Australians would be able to opt out of any internet filters, Senator Conroy said the first tier would be compulsory for all Australians and would block all “illegal material”, as determined in part by a blacklist administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).”
Ahh, the wonders of the internet. Better enjoy freedom of speech while it lasts!
All i can say is that im disgusted to be an Australian with Kevin Rudd leading this country.
Labor can use all the excuses in the world it wants to justify censorship but nothing justifies taking away freedoms that so many men and women have died to uphold in the past. This is our country Labor, not yours. You work for us, not yourselfs or the interest of some religious whacked lobby group. If anyone in Labor actually has the belief in their party now would be the time to stand up and oppose this.
I really hope you’s that support labor feel ashamed to call yourselfs Australian.
One more vote lost here for your support of this non-sensical filter.
Very disappointing.
Thanks for a thoughtful, as always, post.
A couple of points where I would disagree:
Firstly, as someone who argued strongly that the initially proposed filter was “unworkable”, it surprises me not at all that a blacklist filter of a few thousand URLS – vastly different to the implied content-based filters – is technically feasible. (Particularly when tested on a relatively small sample set).
Secondly, is this statement: “This is where a lot of passionate opponents of the filter get very frustrated `well if it doesn’t work 100%, why do it?’ The answer is because the Rudd Labor Government is convinced it will encourage concerned people that the internet will be a safer place for themselves and/or their children..”
It’s not that it doesn’t work 100%. It’s that it doesn’t work 30%, or even 20%. This will, I would argue, have a negligible effect on the experience of children on the internet. It will, of course “encourage concerned people” because most concerned parents do not understand how limited the filter is. Encouraging an impression that this will help “protect” children actually disempowers parents – it is tantamount to lying to them about the safety of their children, which is downright immoral. Many parents are understandably anxious about their children’s confident wanderings through an online space they themselves navigate very gingerly, if at all. Their sense of powerlessness to protect their children in unfamiliar territory is unquestionably something the filters’ opponents have dismissed too easily, particularly in understanding its potency as a political force. You quite rightly identify that community education; some hands-on training courses for parents in online communication; as well more general parenting help (a desktop filter can be helpful here, as part of an educated framework about what it does, and does not, achieve) is the way to tackle this, and could use some more funding and support. But this filter hampers those efforts, it doesn’t support them. Because it offers this image of a “magic bullet”, that reduces anxiety without changing the problem at all.
Of course, I think lots of critics (and I get the sense you above) think this anxiety is mostly misplaced, and so it doesn’t matter if you offer a false sense of comfort, because the cause of discomfort was non-existent anyway. Certainly, the chances of most kids being bombarded with child porn aren’t great. But an approach that breeds ignorance will always bite you in the bum at some point.
I could point out also, that actually barely over half of the blocked material was RC. So there does remain an issue with the non-transparency of what adults are being denied access to.
directed at Alison – I’m sorry but it is not the fact that the filter is not 100% successful that makes the hair stand up on the oppositions neck but rather the way that the government intends to damage free speech and further hide what it calls an issue rather than educate.
Furthermore it is sickening that people like yourself put a success value on it rather than questioning the validity of its implication.
sorry alison plse discard my previous reply. i reread your post and realized that i had misread it.
Senator,
The simple point of the matter is that it is the work of a moment for a site owner to simply alter the URL being blocked.
For example, if it was deemed that the content on http://example.com/ was refused classification. Then the site owner of example.com could simply require HTTPS (Secure HTTP), and thus change the URL to: https://example.com/ There is also very little (if any) actual cost involved in switching this on for a site.
It requires no effort on the part of a user, and a user generally is not aware that this is actually occurring. These are the same sorts of users that the filter proposes to protect against inadvertant viewing of inappropriate content.
The filters tested and proposed cannot block sites that are secured by HTTPS – it’s the same technology that protects you when using Internet Banking, or making other online purchases.
All a mandatory filter will do, then, is waste taxpayer money better spent on policing.
Plus, ofcourse, that ‘insignificant’ impact upon performance. We can see what happens when the filtering system is required to filter specific pages from highly trafficked sites.
Just look at what happened in the UK when they (inadvertantly!) tried to filter a page on Wikipedia: http://apcmag.com/internet_filter_stuffup_cuts_off_wikipedia.htm
So it’s about protecting the children, is it?
Someone want to tell me how a mandatory filter of websites is going to protect a child from being bullied by a classmate via instant messaging? Or how it’s going to protect a child from being stalked on Facebook?
Amazing to watch a political party sabotaging its relationship with two entire generations of voters.
Yeah, it’s weird. Senator Conroy is actually wedging *his own party*! For what?
Thanks Sen.Lundy for these well balanced thoughts. It is indeed a difficult position to be in, and it’s great to see you expressing your own opinion together with those of the party and government you’re a part of.
We also appear to be in sync about circumvention; although I believe that not only adults would choose to bypass (out of principle, mainly), but in fact any computer-literate child will be capable of this as well. My four year old daughter is already pretty savvy on her EeePC, in a few years changing some DNS settings or even rigging up other tools will not phase her – and I have to say she figures things out herself through exploration, not my guidance. I just keep an eye on things, and I’m continually amazed and how fast kids pick up and truly grasp the concepts that we learnt about only later in life.
With regard to the “declaration of successful outcome” of the trials, my chief concern is this. The report indicates “filtering of innocuous content” of 3.3%. May we translate this to plain language, and call it false positives, i.e. legitimate sites becoming inaccessible because of the filtering.
In spam filtering of email, false positives are the worst; successful catching of spam needs to be above 98%, but it’s a key objective to not incorrectly flag any legitimate email. The reason is obvious, a company does not want to run the risk of losing any client email! In the case of spam though, there are usually quarantine measures in place and thus someone at the company can review the spam basket; nevertheless, a false positive percentage of 3.3% would be regarded as completely unacceptable in this realm.
Taking the analogy to AusPost, we would not find it acceptable to have 3.3% of all envelopes/packages disappear.
Imagine 3.3% of innocuous films and books getting RC and thus not be available in Australia, the public and political outcry (not to mention international outrage) would be immense.
Yet the trial of the Internet filter is still regarded as successful with this high percentage of false positives…. for some reason, www resources are not regarded on the same level as these other media/resources? That I find very troubling.
In the case of the filter, there is no quarantine or public overview of what has been blocked (I appreciate the reasons for this but don’t like it any better), the filter just is and does its thing. And that makes it even more problematic than the above examples, as identification, verification and discussion of possible incorrect classification will be extremely hard, and in some cases legally impossible as the discussion would have to involve noting the URL and if I understand correctly that in itself would be illegal.
This the filter legislation will define taboos, and the discussion of the taboos are taboo also.
“Our pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100 percent accuracy.”
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/162958,government-ignores-enex-warning-on-over-blocking.aspx
“”For those families that wish to have a wider range of material filtered, including possibly X18+ and gambling sites, the Government will establish a grants program to encourage ISPs to offer these services on a commercial and optional basis,” he said.”
So he rather give parents no education on use of home filters or self education.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/162975,filter-pilot-did-not-test-high-speed-internet.aspx
“Enex TestLab did not test ISP-level filtering products on internet connection speeds greater than 8 Mbps, raising questions of possible degradation at ADSL2+ and fibre speeds.”
“Further, none of the nine ISPs who piloted filtering technologies could provide an environment to test Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6), an addressing scheme the internet industry expects will be necessary in the coming years as IPv4 addresses run out.”
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/163020,australias-net-filter-makes-world-headlines.aspx
“In the United States, Fox News ran with the headline: “Joining China and Iran, Australia to filter internet.”"
“The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the The New York Times ran with a moderated version of an Associated Press story which stated that the Australian Government was introducing a filter “despite concerns it will curtail freedoms and won’t completely work.”"
“Agence France Press described the Government’s scheme as a “mandatory China-style plan to filter the Internet” that the Government will pursue “despite widespread criticism that it will strangle free speech and is doomed to fail.”"
“BBC News and USA Today played the same story with a straighter bat, the former simply reporting that Australia “intends to introduce filters which will ban access to websites containing criminal content” and the latter running with the headline, “Australia to introduce mandatory internet filter.”"
I suggest Kate Lundy who I thought to be respected (and now I don’t) for lining her self up with religious nuts (who are really behind this filtering nonsense).
To fight this stupid scheme.
I for one do not support this scheme at all, plenty of solutions already available.
Policy = EPIC FAIL
The very people that voted for Kevin Rudd due to him being more hip and chic then John Howard (i.e. appearing on Rove, using Twitter etc…) are also the very people that will also be against this policy. In one fell swoop, people labour will loose a large number of the internet connected voters.
Thoughts for the public to consider
1) Any tunnelling traffic mechanism will bypass this protection
2) Sites like YouTube cannot be controlled as they have too much traffic and each video would need to be separately controlled.
3) The telcos have all said that their is a FINITE amount of URLs that can be blocked before the filters start to slow down your access speeds.
4) Australia already has some of the highest costing broadband (and slowest too – hence the need for the NBN) in the world, and the costs of the filtering will be passed on to the user base
5) The test was based on current internet speeds, not the NBN speeds. As networks get faster, routers get more expensive to just SWITCH packets, not actually check them and drop them…
6) How much Carbon Footprint will the extra hardware impose on the Australian CO2 emissions? The hardware required will need electricity.
7) This opens up a very difficult area for the courts. Currently Australia lacks an R18+ classification for computer games (unlike the movies). Anything that cannot be classified as MA15+ MUST be Refused Classification and is therefore on the list. It also gives the defence of “I did not bypass the filters, but they allowed me to download it. It is therefore not my fault that I download illegal child porn – the government failed to protect me”.
Australia is fast becoming a nanny state. Children of the age of 16 went to two world wars, yet Kevin and Co believe adults cannot supervise their children or make informed decisions.
I have allways thought you where the bright light in the ALP on technical matters. However I do note that you took comfort in the thought that filtering was impossable.
I have to say I agreed with you then. Our complacency in wallowing in facts and technology ment we where sidelined by political reality of pandering for votes in the “Family Values” electorate.
Warning: my blog HFUA uses fruty language as I write in the voice of a “Chopper Reid” character, but I do agree you need to keep causcus solidarity. You just need to sway caucus to go with the side of angels and not for the Feilding pandering to the scared parents.
The Australian Christian Lobby is calling for the scope of the censorship to be expanded to include X18 + and R18+ material. Is the ALP strong enough to resist the temptation to give in to them?
Even if it is, given that the classification rules for what is ‘RC’ are pretty broad, so broad that they include a great deal of material that is not actually illegal to possess, there is definite potential for legitimate freedoms to be curtailed. Any material that promotes or gives instruction in illegal activity is potentially RC. That includes plenty of very nasty activities. But it also includes advocating civil disobedience or euthanasia or maybe even polygamy. Are we to suppress these?
This is a ridiculous and dangerous plan. The only way to ensure the transparency needed to avoid abuses of power is through Senate oversight – or independent review, so long as it is on the public record and open to public submissions. But this would turn a slow process into a virtually motionless one. And in the face of a medium where millions of new pages are generated every day, this is utterly absurd.
As the author of a technical book on web programming, I can assure you that what will happen here is that the filter will be trivial to circumvent. People’s understanding of the way to bypass it and other internet access controls will be improved by the very act of implementing the filter. Finally substantial resources that have already been wasted on the trial, and ongoing resources to maintain the filter are being diverted from useful activities, most notably education of end users.
So I can only conclude that the proposed legislation will be worse than useless, and is a waste of taxpayer funds. This should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of technical literacy.
Disappointing Kate, very disappointing.
Your acknowledging you support a waste of millions of dollars in taxpayer money because you will tow the line with whatever the party decides. How very undemocratic and a show of the lack of freedoms we have. You were elected to represent your electorate. Well conduct a poll on the issue, if less than 85% are against Internet Censorship then I’d be surprised.
The question you need to ask yourself is this. Is this really for the children? Conroy says it is. That being the case make it OPTIONAL for people who chose to use the system. This will never happen, you know why? Because Conroy knows that 148 million dollars wil be spent on a service that will be taken up by about 1% or less of the population and when those figures get published under FOI requests that will be very embarrasing for your government indeed.
In a nutshell Kate this is not about protecting the children. This was never going to do that. Mr Conroy is now responsible for – through misinformation about what this filter will do – making parents even more complacent with supervising their children. He has just made them even more vulnerable because parents now think that everything is red roses and cute little rabbits on the Internet. Well done.
And to finish – how dare the government suggest to me that I cannot parent effectively enough without government intervention – as useless as this intervention will be.
Show some individual thought Kate – like Penny Sharpe. There is a person my hat goes off to and who I now have nothing but the upmost respect for.
Clive Hamilton writing/influencing Labor policy? Scary.
Nice words, Senator, but this is pandering of the worst sort and reading between the lines, I think you know it. The filter won’t work, it will slow down connections, it is censorhip, and it flies in the face of your governments other commitments on our broadband future such NBN.
What’s more, Senator Conroy from the outset sought to label anyone who disagreed with this move as somehow in favour of child porn, perhaps the most offensive statement ever made by a member of a government. His insults speak eloquently of the lack of real argument to support this draconian response.
Hate to say it, but shame on all of you.
I’m 25 and been spending alot of time on the internet since i was 14.
I do agree that for young users with a basic knowledge of the internet that the filtering will reduce the risk of them viewing certain materials, but anyone who knows a child who has grown up with computers knows that most children around the age of 15 will easily be able to bypass these measures, rendering the filter pointless.
An op-out option is in my opinion stupid, many legit websites from overseas(such as forums and such) are not rated by their local governments and therefore would not be able to be accessed.
I fully support setting up the filtering in the ISP’s as long as it becomes an opt-in option that parents can call up and have it activated on their account, this will keep computer ignorant parents happy and should satisfy most of the religious groups that support the filtering.
A lot of people have been concerned that an opt-in option may not be effective because parents may not know about it or know who to call, this can be solved simply by sending a letter to the household advising them what to do. And to the obvious argument of cost and environmental impact that mailing out all those letters would cause, tell that to centerlink who mail you out 3 peices of paper every fortnight to tell you that you have been paid, this is alot of paper use from a government body that was taking steps to developing a paperless system.
If the filter will be circumvented by anyone with the ability and the will do do so, then what on earth is the point of making it compulsory? This is going to cost Labor an extraordinary amount of goodwill, even amongst the families that they are trying to ‘protect’.
There are plenty of options for parents wishing to censor the internet for the children and themselves, including the one that none of the filter proponents seem to want to discuss – that of actually supervising children. This has the added advantage of protecting children against harmful situations in instant messaging and chat applications as well as social networking sites like twitter, myspace and facebook – something that the internet filter will do absolutely nothing about.
As far as I can see, the filter does precisely one thing – it convinces those who don’t know any better, or who choose to believe the rhetoric coming from the filter supporters, that ’something’ is being done. It’s a crying shame that not only a lot of money has to be spent, but that the already backwards Australian internet system has to suffer (and yes, despite the spin put on the report it *will* suffer) in order for Labor to be ’seen’ to be doing something.
Most of us know better, Ms Lundy, and not only are we not convinced, but we’re very very angry.
I have mixed feeling re Internet filtering. When I was at CSIRO, I prepared a report for the Government to indicate that ISP censorship could easily be circumvented – and it still can. I guess the point is that most kids will (hopefully) not be able to figure out the work-arounds too easily, and so hopefully most will be protected most of the time. The work-arounds will be promulgated on bulletin boards, of course, but then someone can hopefully block the work-around – and a chase-your-tail situation will invariably arise.
The other issue was whether filtering at the packet level, which is the most effective way of doing it, would slow down high traffic media services – video and voice. I would like to know the extent to which overall performance will be affected.
Let’s face it, there is a lot of vile stuff on the net. As a father of 2 eleven year olds, I am concerned about what they look at and listen to. Perhaps it’s my advancing years; perhaps it’s the reality of fatherhood coming to the fore. But I’m at the stage where I’m erring in favour of RC censorship…
I have a feeling my views may be contrary to most aficionados of this site…
Phil,
Your comments are valid and you should definitely have the opportunnity to filter out RC material if you choose.
However you should be able to see that what is good for you is not good for everone else.
At the very least this proposed filter should be optional, like the last one.
Now what was the take up rate of that one again….
*Finally, I want to be very clear that ultimately, as a Senator in the Labor Government I will be bound by Labor Caucus’ position on the matter.*
Democracy hard at work, eh?
If this issue isn’t important enough to justify crossing the floor I don’t know what is. Perhaps we need a constitutional bill of rights?
Sorry Phil – dropped that in the wrong window, meant for OP.
You outline the possible option of an ‘opt out’ system where those who do not want the filter (for whatever reason) do not have to suffer it and also list the disadvantages of this (stigma, fear etc). Why then should the filter not be made ‘opt in’ instead?
Doing so would still achieve all the governments stated goals, but does not come with any of the disadvantages. I also suspect it would go a long way to quieting the wall of opposition this proposal is currently facing.
Censorship = Child Abuse
Censorship/filter increases child abuse.
Why?
1) Parents will get a false sense of security and not look after their kids.
Predators will still have access to their kids… (no parents are watching like they would in real life)
Kids will still have access to porn…
Thus, put the PC in the family room people, its not hard!
2) Creates a wall between child abuse and the public allowing child abuse to go unnoticed and therefore cant report child abuse to police: the people that really solve these problems.
(It is the same as if you see a child being abducted in the middle of the street, you will cover my ears and look away instead of reporting it or your windows have been boarded up by the government while this is happening.)
Dear Senator Lundy,
As is pointed out by many in the IT industry, this was a fundamentally flawed trial. For you to say that the trials were successful is just not correct as (as least some of) these filters were never under an excessive load. Lets also take into account that the speeds tested did not exceed 8 megabits and I have 15 at my home. What about the NBN promising speeds of 100? What will happen then? It is the question of scale that has not been adequately addressed.
As has been reported, one of the participating ISPs was Nelson Bay Online which had 15 customers opt into the trial. This is hardly an accurate indication of what mandatory filtering will do. I could also setup a filter for 15 users and my graphs would look fantastic.
This aside, I also have plenty of other objections to this filter. One is that you will essentially drive people underground with this policy. Unless you are willing to block VPN technology it will always be defeated. The effect of doing so on traveling business people to this country would be enormous and I suspect that this will never happen. Even China don’t do this. VPN technology is also encrypted meaning you will have little chance of monitoring suspects that use it. At least with open internet, suspects can be watched.
This filter will also be easily bypassed by any 14 year old. You must know that. You can’t lock down the internet from the technically competent and I can assure you that most 14 years old kids are far more so than their parents. All you will do is lull parents into a false sense of security. This is dangerous.
I could go on forever but basically this is BAD policy on so many levels. I can’t believe your government is seriously going to attempt it.
Thanks,
Stuart
This is really dissapointing. I expected a little more moxie from you, Kate. Supporting the party over your own common sense and the will of the people that you represent- where’s the democratic value in that?
Hi kate, considering that there is a dwindling number of resources with respect to ICT skills, why would the government be interested in making the internet safe for the majority of the population, yet not provide alternative incentives for the reseller / channel community to be able to leverage on this massive revenue generation mechanism? If the Internet is filtered at ISP level, what happens to companies who already provide these services to their clients, in education, government and corporate streams of segmentation?
Additionally, where in our current laws is it written that I, as an individual of 38 years old, requires to be monitored and shaped by the Australian Government for the purposes of keeping me safe on the internet? I would have thought that this was a fundamental breach of the rights of an individual, and a big privacy issue. How will the internet be monitored? will the individuals actively be followed and protected by the government?
I understand that this is required at some levels to protect children, and other vulnerable members of our society, but in the case of Children, It is not your responsibility to ensure the safeguarding of the internet for kids, it is Mine, as their parent. If i am remiss in doing so, I should be held accountable. But there must be clarity regarding the people in charge of safeguarding kids. You cannot safeguard my children. I can.
The prior government talked about providing a netnanny type software package to each household for free. the implementation cost is far less than filtration at an ISP, and allows the individuals of legal age to make their own informed choices as to where they go and what they see.
One other thing to consider, if I accidentally log onto a suspect site, I exit it. will there be a trace tag that shows I went there, and what ramifications would there be if the authorities decide that it was a purposeful visit?
Too much like a nanny country. the ones you are trying to stop will find workarounds, the ones that have done nothing to deserve blocking will suffer.
I hope everyone understands that the kind of filtering Conroy is now proposing (after spending nearly a year trying to work out what to block and how to block it) is a basic URL filter.
That means the Wikipedia entry on child abuse can be blocked but a live streaming video of a real child being abused can’t be.
I usually vote Labor. I did in the last election. Next time around, I’ll be voting for whoever is opposed to the filter. There is no place for it in a free and democratic country.
This filter could stop un-intentional viewing of child porn, but I have to say that in all my years of surfing I have never seen any child porn, on the Internet or otherwise.
It’s widely acknowledged that even with ISP level filtering Anyone seeking child porn will still be able to find it. If anything, child porn outlets will be pushed further underground and be harder to track than ever.
So, what then is the effect of ISP level filtering? Well, as this system will be run by humans, there will naturally be mistakes. Sites will get misclassified, its virtually impossible to be right 100% of the time. So given the previous points, the only noticeable effect of mandatory ISP level filtering will be that legitimate Internet users, will get blocked from legitimate Internet sites. And these users will be the users who don’t know how to get around the filter.
In my opinion this filter is the wrong way to fight the battle, and is a slippery slope to places we don’t want to go. Minister Conroy is clear about the intentions for the filter today, but what will the next Government do, and the next? Monitoring of public surfing trends? Watching as we surf without a warrant? Blocking of material that denounces the Government?
Kate, please stick to your guns and push hard within the party to quash this policy and get support for the wholly more worthwhile process of educating Internet users.
I am truly disheartened to hear that you are supporting this crazy legislation.
As a father of two young children, I implore you to oppose this legislation, and instead:
1. Reinstate the provision of free net filtering software so that families with children can choose to filter out the net nasties locally.
2. Redirect the millions of dollars that are going to be wasted on a filter that can be bypassed by any 14 year old into funding an increased “anti-bad-stuff-on-the-web” police presence. I’d much rather know that the AFP are hunting down and prosecuting the vile and evil purveyors of child porn, rather than pointlessly trying to filter it (which won’t work anyway, because they all use P2P/HTTPS/IM to transfer their files).
Thanks,
Andrew.
Andrew, im guessing you used to write comics in the 60s either that or Bushs war on terror speech’s. perhaps next time you talk about vile evil doers being apprehended by the police you add a POW or even a KABLAM
This is wrong on so many levels. While I appreciate that you are in a difficult position I can only hope that you are doing all you can to fix this mess internally.
A quick example for just one of the wrong bits. The trial.
The ACMA list is somewhere over 1000 URLs. Much of that is rated below RC. A trial of modest scale on a small list was declared a success.
When is the phase two trial where Labor test a blacklist of several million URLs against a couple of million customers who aren’t permitted to opt out?
Is the ACB up to reviewing millions of URLs in a rapidly changing environment? Does the ACMA have enough staff to continually review millions of URLs to see when one of them might have dropped below RC?
While Conroy likes to point out some bits of RC he neglects to acknowledge things like the Peaceful Pill and fetish material. He claims RC content is not acceptable in any civil society. We have a real issue on our hands that will be a vote changer.
It’s surprising how rarely this issue of scalability has been brought up in the debate this last week. I would have thought it’d be the _most_ important thing to test.
Pushing the line that ISPs with already minimal load (both users and blocklist) were ‘negligibly’ affected in some of the tests is pure spin.
I just hate that mums and dads are thinking this is a wonderful idea, without thinking it through logically. This plan has absolutely zero to offer over already available opt-in, family-friendly browsers/isps/dns. Only bottlenecks, security/privacy questions and the potential for the restriction of freedoms.
That said, I’m all for making it easier/streamlined for parents to get information and/or their own individual protection. I’m sure any ISP would be happy to help out if asked.
“I am keenly aware that many mechanisms used by criminal networks will not be stopped through a filtering mechanism, and I believe the complementary strategies being put in place are good, such as increased funding for the AFP to tackle cybercrime and online safety education.”
Good to hear. Curious to know then just what value you see this censorship adding? Bonus points for justifying the cost. Don’t worry, it’s a rhetorical question.
We need some people in power who understand the Internet. If you know any who can stomach a life of politics, please urge them to get involved.
The past year of Internet news in Australia makes me want to move.
One good thing about this censorship going ahead is that eventually, even the slowest of the herd will realise it’s worthless misrepresented waste of money, and we can work on liberating ourselves from censorship (for the Nth time throughout history) and finish up with a big ol’ party!
Censored wins 1000 internets for the funniest post so far.
If we’re going to hold up the pre-election policy and say “we told you we were going to do this”, well then we should examine it. I quote:
“A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a ‘clean feed’ internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries.”
Fantastic, but what part of “offer” a clean feed indicates that such a feed will be mandatory? Additionally, what about homes and spaces that are INaccessible to children?
The pre election policy document states that its aim is to “prevent Australian children from accessing any content that has been identified as prohibited by ACMA, including sites such as those containing child pornography and X-rated material.”
Fantastic, but I’m an Australian adult. What about the right of Australian adults to freedom of speech and association, and a free press?
@balkandishlex
Firstly thanks for taking the time to clarify your position in public and doing so in an open manner (enabling comments). This should be an example for other Members of Parliament/Senate.
—————————
If the intentions of Sen. Conroy are indeed noble as you say:
Why has all of this so-called ‘testing’ be done in secrecy ? Nobody (with any credibility) in the tech-community believes that this technology will achieve anything. ISP’s are being forced into this and all they will comment is that it will ‘not significantly impact’ speeds.
If these ‘tests’ show the feasibility of such a filter, why is the criteria for this not available for scrutiny by experts ? Feasible for what ?
We are all for child protection and cyber safety. But the way this is done smells much more like dirty backroom deals rather than noble intentions to achieve such an outcome.
And the wider implications of this are not being discussed at all there are no clear limits that this technology will be limited to the aims of ‘child protection and cyber safety’. Who will set and police this ? To most interested/informed observers this seems the first step to a Chinese style ‘we know what is good for our citizens’ police state under the pretense of ‘we just want to look after our kids’. Noble ? I don’t think so.
This will very much diminish other work on NBN & #bbfuture. This development is the exact opposite of what you have been trying to preach in these forums. Innovation and OPEN INTERNET.
First of all, it’s laughable that Clive Hamilton should be considered part of the “broad left”. He’s further Right, and has less trust in people, than Senators Joyce or Minchin.
Secondly, this plan is futile. There are plenty of guides on how to get around Internet censorship – such as the one at http://bit.ly/beatcensorship . These guides will be spread as far as possible by those who, like me, oppose government censorship of the Internet.
Thirdly, in the last 48 hours, the technical claims of the censorship trial have been shown to be laughable. The trial did nothing to test censorship of high-speed internet, and the more accurate the censorship got, the more Internet speeds slowed down. No doubt Senator Conroy will ignore these details in public, but the technically knowledgeable will make sure every policymaker knows he is being dishonest.
This censorship plan is a bad idea, and shows contempt for the Australian people. I hope it fails.
“The industry’s original claims that the filters were not feasible were proved false.”
Incorrect. Dynamic web filtering was not even tested.
This is a particularly sneaky aspect of the report, and the subsequent reporting.
To genuinely block all prohibited content would require dynamic real-time filtering, which would slow our internet down drastically. To block a static list was well known to be feasible prior to the testing – and they only tested blocking a static list. So the result was, of course, a foregone conclusion. The testing was charade, creating the appearance of objectivity and fact-finding.
What will happen after the static blocking of the pages on the list is introduced? It cannot effectively block the actual content, which will be continually moved to new sites. The same people who have pushed this idea will then push for dynamic filtering, which is fraught with technical, political and economic implications.
(“Static” means the filter blocks one particular web address with prohibited content on it; “dynamic” means that the filter actively seeks and blocks that content wherever it is on the web in real time.)
Thanks for that Pam, it is a really interesting point.
Cheers,
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
This is where the secret “blacklist” is pretty scary. Conroy first went to the Australian Christian Lobby to show the results. The same people who are pushing for this filter to be increased. Why is the ALP pandering to fundamentalist nutjobs?
Good question why the ALP is pandering to nutjobs. The Victorian Branch of the ALP preferenced Fielding in 2004, that’s how he got elected. Now Fielding is being used as a smokescreen to justify introducing this legislation. Conroy really wants this, it is not a tactic. Is there some preference deal we haven’t been told about?
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/163063,commentary-why-we-dont-need-a-filter.aspx
Please stop lumping illegal material in with RC. They are two completely separate things. Read the above.
My main problem with all of this – the pure waste of money.
The test wasn’t a “success” – it was a shallow attempt. Telstra already acknowledged this in their report – circumvention was not tested. The trial also only tested web traffic on port 80. You can get so much more – one example – via usenet newsgroups. Look it up. Old school sure, but available via Google Groups. Will this be filtered? A child can easily go to Google Groups and see far more than I would allow a child of my own to view.
Speeds above 8mbits per second were not tested. The proposed NBN is 100mbits per second, never mind the fact that I already get 18mbits per second at home.
The filter is EXTREMELY easy to circumvent. It doesn’t require an IT degree (which I have incidentally, along with 20 years in the business) to get around it. Simply go to http://www.anonymizer.com and you will be able to circumvent. So it won’t stop people getting to RC material if they want to. I’m seeing a great use of millions of dollars so far. Top work. Other sites already wrap content. Go to Bing and search for videos. You can watch a video and it looks like it is coming from Bing. The video is fed from somewhere else, but it will be impossible to add all of these URL’s to the filter. It will cost millions more to maintain to achieve nothing.
VPN is another technology. Many large businesses in Australia would already have an encrypted tunnel back to the US (say). Their users in Australia would in fact be getting their Internet from the US, outside of the filter already. Is the company an ISP by definition here? Telstra seems to be talking home users. My office is connected to the Telstra back bone. Will my firm be an ISP for my 20 staff? Do I have to spend money on implementing this as well? If a user in Australia views RC material via the business link, will the business be held accountable? So this means this business must also apply the filter. How much will this cost to implement?
I don’t have children, I’m a big boy, so if I inadvertently end up at RC material I am sure I will cope. People with children are already able to apply local filters that will filter far more material and appropriately so.
The other issue is that the web is changing. Latency, ie the time between the user clicking on something and getting a response is critical. If the proxy servers need to check a database etc, this only increases latency. I write business applications whereby users do their accounting, document management etc using web applications. There is already about 200ms due to the little restriction of the speed of light for data to get from them to me and back again. Now add in my server processing time. To whack an additional layer for ineffective censorship on top and users will get very frustrated.
Conclusion – don’t waste the money. Spend it on health, the environment, education, free filters for home users, whatever. Everyone in the industry knows this. It really makes me wonder how much more money is wasted in the quest for headlines and back room deals.
I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how ALL the filters blocked 100% of the ACMA blacklist, but NONE managed to block 100% of their additional lists test, and additionally, the Enex tests from tasmania, showed that NONE of the products tested thern (presumably at least some are the same across trials) managed to block 100% of a similar size list as the blacklist.
also no speeds above 8Mbps were tested, and bottlenecks did occur in the filter at the upper end it appears, well i have 20Mbps connection, soon to go to 30Mbps, and I refuse to pay for that privilege if the Great Barrier Sieve cuts that by more than 2%. Will Conroy pay me the % of my bill that my speed is cut? I feel sorry for the people in Melb, Syd and Brisbnae who are or soon will be experiencing 100Mbps connections. The test showed up to 10% speed decrease. that’s 10Mbps, which is more than the trial even tested!
There is no reason for this filter. no one accidentally comes across child porn, and those that are looking for it, will still be able to access it, so how does this do any good besides spend my tax money pointlessly. I would rather see the 44m go to the hungry or something. or you know scientific research into disease.
Ms. Lundy, you have sold out to the party room. You are not bound by the caucus, you are bound by your desire to not be put to the sword and you have sacrificed your previously stated principles to do it.
To use the word “backflip” would be to imply a level of grace that just doesn’t exist here. You do not agree and yet will not stand up when it actually counts. You should be ‘bound’ by the desires of your electorate, and the Australian people in general. Or, failing that, bound by your conscience.
This is the wrong plan, it won’t stop a single child from being molested, it will not stop pedos from abusing children and sharing their sick snapshots with each other. It’ll pull the wool over our eyes and pretend that everything is alright. It’ll deceive parents in to believing they can leave their children unsupervised on the net, safe in the arms of Labor when you acknowledge and know in your heart that there is no guarantee of ’safety’…
It seems that the need for this filter and the action of the Labour Party is a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’.
This filter is not for the people familiar with ICT, Twitter, web developers, it’s for everyone else who will place trust in this network to be safe, who hardly uses the Internet now but will find it become such a major part of their life as we continue developing those ideas evident at #bbfuture.
Like turning on TV at night, we know that we will not be confronted with graphic images & that trust needs to be developed with the average person for the Internet network.
There is so much work going on to get the most out of this network, to improve our way of living, to fundamentally reconnect in a way never seen before. It would be a shame for it to be tarnished by some media backlash, for that trust to be lost, for ’society’ to become misguided and lose sight in all the good work that is possible if repeat incidents of obscene material being accessed by those vulnerable.
It seems to me, after asking a few questions online, that people are scared of what government may do down the track, of, our freedom of expression being repressed, of political dissenters being blocked.
Therefore my only suggestion is opening the ‘blacklist’ to a group in the community who can ‘moderate’. This group can come from a variety of sources, backgrounds and experience who are perhaps trusted key-influencers. This will ensure that the blacklist is in the best interest of society not the government in control at the time. You may already be doing this but its not clear, I can’t see the group, what I can see is a group set up by ‘government’ and not free of it. At arms length but still ‘easily influenced’ Not saying this is the case but this is how it appears.
Just let me make clear that I wish we did not need this filter, do fundamentally believe that I don’t need it, that I can protect myself. But this isn’t about me, this is about all those who will come to use this network and expect that they are protected from obscene material so they can get on with getting the most out of it.
BTW: I find the # #nocleanfeed a little ironic, but thats just me
Michelle Williams
@mia_will
“This filter is not for the people familiar with ICT, Twitter, web developers, it’s for everyone else who will place trust in this network to be safe, who hardly uses the Internet now but will find it become such a major part of their life as we continue developing those ideas evident at #bbfuture.
But this isn’t about me, this is about all those who will come to use this network and expect that they are protected from obscene material so they can get on with getting the most out of it.”
Sorry Michelle, but you’ve missed the point.
This filter will not protect anyone from all the nasties on the web. Even the illustrious Senator admits that in her blog post. And that is one of the greatest dangers of this filter. That parents will become complacent and believe that “the government is protecting my children, now I can let them use the Internet at will, knowing that they will never see anything nasty”.
Thanks for pointing that out. I totally agree that that this filter will not block all nasties out just as you can’t stop a kid from accessing material if they still want to.
And that is why I cant undersatnd what the big deal is. If we want to access these blacklisted sites we still can. This filter proposed seems to simply be a basic level of protection that must be provided when implementing an infrastructure of the magnitude that Australia is about to. This infrastructure also needs education of parents, at school and the public in general.
Again, I wish we did not need the filter, have been following intently and agreed with many of the arguments, opinions & beliefs of people online vehemently opposed to this filter. agree that those I have discussed with don’t need it & it should be openly available to them, if they want to get around it they will. Am all for openess of government, business, people in general.
I get why people dont want it, I dont want it myself. Maybe its my optimistic nature that believes this Filter is being implemented with the best intentions. Hence my suggestion for opening up control of the blacklist to the people, perhaps even craeting a group voted by the people, who can monitor what is being blocked, to ensure no groups have influence.
So my view is: I dont need the filter, you dont need, many people now don’t need the filter. People accessing the Net now are fearful of what will be classifies RC so let that be decided by the people . But as an infrastructure provided by a government, in the same way we expect to be safe catching a train or watching TV, there needs to be some safe guard, a certain sense of trust that what is provided by government can be trusted to be safe. Thats all.
Hi Michelle,
I would like to hope that the Government has best intentions too … but unfortunately the common perception is that the Government has been quite devious in the way the clean feed policy has evolved over the last couple of years from something quite innocuous through to the mandatory filtering system now being deployed.
If the Government were to even entertain the idea of a community-moderated blacklist that would almost certainly help address this bad publicity that has accumulated but I can guarantee you this won’t even be an option.
There is a lot of literature about the web and the significance of it to society. It’s more than just an online dictionary or a way of easily sending out birthday party invites … and any talk of censorship or limiting the freedom of the web should be taken very seriously. The Internet is still very young, people haven’t realised the potential of the web. But for many people it’s the one place left where they have a voice. Society dictates how people should live their lives, in a nice little suburban house with a partner and kids, go to work at 9 every day (earlier if you want extra brownie points), how to conduct yourself in the office, even how to dress … the sheep-herding won’t last forever. People won’t stand for it. The web is an outlet, a new nation, a new culture of freedom and expression which exist at the very heart of the concept and thus any talk of anything that threatens to suppress freedom and expression is a terrible threat – like national security to a physical country.
No one trusts this filter. Sure, block the illegal content. Make it black and white the criteria for blocking a site. You think the web lacks credibility now? What about when the filter proves unreliable and blocks good sites like Wikipedia (as happened with filtering in the UK) and lets bad sites through? To have your trust in security betrayed like that will result in a worse situation and will not diminish the responsibilities of parents to be vigilant about their kids accidentally stumbling on these illegal sites … if accidentally stumbling on them is even possible – I’ve never heard of it happening.
Better to be safe than sorry. Get it right the first time, rather than in five years time regretting we stood by and did nothing while they confiscated one of the greatest and most important tools ever invented by humanity that had the power to end war, end poverty, end cultural differences. Yes I really do believe the web is capable as a platform of effecting changes of that magnitude. As a communication, collaboration and marketing channel it has already achieved much for rallying the support of people for great causes … like this one, ensuring that if we are going to have mandatory filtering in Australia that it’s done right for the right lawful reasons and nothing more.
Good points and its why I raised them.
I also totally agree in the power that the ‘greatest network the human race has ever known’ can achieve, a global consciouness of sorts where the great minds can connect & work together on solving climate change, social justice etc etc and I also totally agree that our society is stuck in a broken model at the moment which can be kick started in a more ‘connected’ positive way. (check out my blog if you don’t believe me).
As for Australia’s NBN. I think that everyone has forgotton that Australia is leading the world in devloping this infrastructure, we are pioneers in building such a high speed, far-reaching infrastructure and as such it seems the penalty is some steps that are going to hurt, that are going to push buttons on points regarding the democratic ideals we hold so dear. Possibly we are also the first to have to take such steps.
Do I totally trust what Department of Broadband has presented as an option? NO. Do I hope that this debate we are currently involved in will push for openness, will ensure that technically it is the most viable option, that we dont rush into something for the sake of it? YES
Again, as I keep reiterating, I am an agent of Change, I love it, I love choice, I love freedom of expression , I love and appreciate how damn lucky I am to be living in this country, to be a part of this society that can express itself so passionately. But let the people drink alcohol freely and they drive home drunk or they start a fight or they fall over & sue the government. I wish it wasn’t like this but I am being realistic, unfortunately it is.
So, I cant wait to see the change we can make thanks this National Broadband Network. In the meantime I look forward to a more open plan & technically viable solution being shown to the people before it becomes Policy.
Michelle Williams said -
“Thanks for pointing that out. I totally agree that that this filter will not block all nasties out just as you can’t stop a kid from accessing material if they still want to.
And that is why I cant undersatnd what the big deal is. ”
The big deal is that:
* It will lead parents into thinking that the net is now a safe place and they can let their kids access it without any parental control. This is a very dangerous idea. There are several child protection advocacy groups who are completely against the filter for this very reason
* No matter what the rigged “trial” say, this thing WILL slow down our internet. And we all know that it is slow enough already.
* This filter will block material that is NOT illegal. Refused Classification does not equate to illegal. I don’t need some Christian extremist pushing his or her views down my throat. I am a grown adult and I can decide what I do and don’t want to see/access.
“Maybe its my optimistic nature that believes this Filter is being implemented with the best intentions. Hence my suggestion for opening up control of the blacklist to the people, perhaps even craeting a group voted by the people, who can monitor what is being blocked, to ensure no groups have influence.”
And this is where second, even more villanous part of the equation comes into play.
Conroy has state repeatedly (and this won’t change) that the blacklist will never be made public. So in theory nobody will ever know what is on the list. There are reports that the head of the Australia Christian League has been personally briefed by Conroy on the results of the “trial” and yet nobody else, especially any opponents have been afforded the same luxury.
This filter is the thin edge of the wedge. What happens when the ACL get the ACMA to start blacklisting pro-abortion, safe-injection and sex education websites? Or the government decides that a site discussing their policies and trying to organise resistance is deemed to be “against the best interests of the population”.
Then we have an Orwellian big brother with oversight.
Which scares the beejesus out of me.
The ENEX report is flawed.
It fails to mention sample sizes for all of it’s statistics. From memory, some of the participants only had around nine people testing the filter. No wonder it shows no speed issues.
Also, the tests never went above speeds of 8mbps. My last connection was 22mbps. The NBN is proposing 100mbps! The ENEX report is worthless.
Also, you say it’s better to do something rather than nothing.
Given that:
The filter will be dead easy to circumvent.
You don’t “stumble” across RC material on the net anyway.
Then who exactly is this filter aimed at? Wouldn’t the money be better spent going to the Federal Police?
Scope creep is a huge issue. We already have the ACL calling for the list of material to be blocked expanded. Conroy still hasn’t officially ruled out ‘prohibited content’ whatever that is.
If this becomes law, I’m never voting Labor again.
I voted labour because I didn’t want to vote for aristocratic conservatives. Um… I also didn’t vote for a totalitarian dictatorship. The entire planet is comparing us to Iran, China, North Korea now. I am ashamed to have voted Labor. Ashamed to be Australian. If Australian citizens are ever allowed another vote of government, it certainly won’t be for Labor.. I’m 28.. So… If I live to see even 80, thats 52 more years where Labor will not get a vote from me, nor anyone else I can demonstrate to, that this is a party which stands for Fascism.
Any doubt that the announced censorship is grossly unpopular has been laid to rest by various polls – for example the SMH poll which showed 95% opposition.
Realising that, has our current government given consideration to the consequences of imposing broadly unpopular legislation?
The result will be seen as a violation of trust.
A government that loses the trust of the people will never gain control of the senate.
James comment is a good one.
We supply staff with VPN access to our office, the internet can be routed in from our USA office.
Staff can then VPN in at their HOMES and access unfiltered internet, children could then see all those so so naughty RC pages. Filter=Busted.
You would be better off making the filter OPTIONAL, or bring back the home based filter or just give the AFP the money!
It will lead parents into a false sense of security and that is not good for their kids.
Thanks for your comments kate, and given the system you are constrained by (the caucus) I can appreciate your frustration. Latham did some good things but removing you from the shadow ministry was not one of them.
However as has been clearly demonstrated, every aspect of this horrendous folly is flawed and MUST be rejected by ALL intelligent Australians with a shred of IT knowledge. No amount of spin can turn what has, within 48 hours, been universally scorned. For heavens sake, do you really want to be on the side of legislation that has been rubbished by Fox News!? That is exactly how alarming this is.
Australia is proposing a measure that no other liberal western democracy is. Enough spin and politicospeak. Convince your caucus colleagues that Conroy is leading them down a path no thinking ALP member could ever contemplate and that has already made us an international technological laughing stock.
Its that important, its that simple and its that terrifying.
Good Luck, and have a chat with your colleague Penny from Sydney, she knows how to stand up to the machine clowns and stand for the true believers.
Here is a question that needs answering:
For those who are stuck with congested exchanges,
What about those who are stuck with slow speed already (i.e. 5mbit and lower?)
And what about those people who play Massive Multiplayer Online Gaming?
Such as WoW, Eve Online, Everquest and so on?
How will this filter effect Online gaming in general?
Online gaming is a dynamic environment that changes as people come along and talk to each other, complete quests, etc.
As such, it will not be filtered.
Currently, it isn’t even regulated and the only thing the OFLC can do is say “Gaming experience may change with online play” (which is kinda obvious and the whole point of many games like World of Warcraft).
Since it can’t be accurately classified, guess what will get filtered out next…
“Since it can’t be accurately classified, guess what will get filtered out next…”
Under the proposed legislation, it is feasible that access to the WoW servers, for instance, could be blocked by the filter after a member of the public submits a complaint because they were subjected to “innapropriate” content through world chat.
Alex, actually I am not talking about it being blocked/filtered or not.
But overall, Speeds/latency effected by the filter (since it has to check every connection and every URL) it may effect Online Gaming, and since both smoothness and latency is required for MMO’s and games in general, I wonder how much it would upset the gaming community?
MMO’s generally do not have local servers here either.
Latency won’t mean much at all if the game’s servers are blocked.
The filter CURRENTLY being discussed probably won’t have much effect at all because it completely ignores the ~60% of the internet that isn’t the web (making it useless from start) but once the PRINCIPLE of state censorship is accepted, then all bets are off and your WoW servers will get blocked because somebody complained about an abusive player on a server in California.
As a former Justice of the High Court of Australia said this morning, this filter is the “thin end of the wedge”.
Alex, again it’s not a matter if the servers are blocked or not, all traffic will go through the filter, thus will be effected, regardless if a site or game is blocked.
Kate, you state, “adhering to the Rudd Labor election commitment of providing a mandatory filter.”
That was NEVER your election platform though was it. The comment on filtering was released FIVE days before the election.
It mentioned filtering for children and so on. It did NOT say mandatory and it excluded businesses. So please don’t tell us we voted for this, because:
a) A release buried 5 days before the election
b) A policy that does not equal what was released at that time
a+b Mandate from the public.
Kate,
I don’t understand how you can be supportive of a secret blacklist of sites that Australian adults aren’t allowed to view.
This surprises me, particularly after having heard you advocate government openness and transparency at the Pearcey awards last month. This is another example of unnecessary restrictive (and not to mention offensive) policy that encourages the ‘brain drain’ of young technology entrepreneurs to California.
How can anybody who respects democracy defend (or be a part of) a government intent on the regulation (read: control) of information available to its citizens?
I was pleased to read about your move to the DBCDE. As mentioned by previous posters, it’s disappointing to read that you’ve sacrificed your beliefs in order to gain it.
Even so, I’m glad you and Pia were able to make an impression upon Penny Sharpe with respect to your Public Sphere initiative. I’m glad to see that Penny has not since relinquished the freedom of expression principles that encouraged her to establish a similar system in NSW.
Sydney Morning Herald poll on the filter, 20345 respondents. 96% against the filter should tell you something.
“as a Senator in the Labor Government I will be bound by Labor Caucus’ position on the matter”
Which is another way of saying that you arent a representative of the people, the voters, because the sacred cow of ‘party unity’ is more important.
Pathetic.
Further to my last comment, I’d like to respond to what you’ve said in the following paragraph:
“This is where a lot of passionate opponents of the filter get very frustrated “well if it doesn’t work 100%, why do it?” The answer is because the Rudd Labor Government is convinced it will encourage concerned people that the internet will be a safer place for themselves and/or their children.”
It’s never a good idea to encourage people to feel safer than they are. What you’ve told me here is that the Rudd Labor Government is implementing a system that will work 0% of the time (to address its stated objectives) simply to convince people that they have made the internet safer.
THIS IS A CON. You’ve acknowledged that the Rudd Government is trying to cheat those concerned about cyber-safety into thinking the internet has been made safer.
Please, do yourself a favour and break free from Labor’s saddle. Run as an independant and act to do some real good for your constituents and for the wider Australian community.
“a properly skilled entity such as the classification board…”
I’d like to point out that the decisions of the classification board can be capricious and inconsistent and far from “skilled”. The latest example being the banning of the erotic film Matinee from the Melbourne Underground Film Festival, while at the same time giving the sexually violent and explicit film Antichrist an R rating. Even the film Pirates was banned because it had an animated scene where two skeletons were fighting.
It’s time Australia had a frank discussion about the way it treats sexual speech and the rather draconian laws dictating exactly what sexual activities are considered “obscene” and therefore RC. The board defines female ejaculation – a normal aspect of female sexuality – as a “fetish” and therefore any films depicting this are off limits. The same goes for fisting which is a regular sexual activity for lesbians. Anything BDSM is also RC, even though this is a legal and legitimate sexual activity for consensual adults.
Banning RC-rated erotic films and sites means that the government is declaring consensual sexual activities to be obscene. It’s legislating morality without making reference to REAL community standards in 2009. It’s also making assumptions about “harm” without relying on any kind of peer-reviewed empirical research into the topic.
It’s going unsaid but one of the reasons so many people are against this filter is because it means applying our out-of-date censorship laws about sex onto the internet and into the privacy of our own homes. If the content causes no harm, the government has no business deciding what adults can see or hear.
Where, then, is the evidence of harm that would necessitate this filter against RC content?
Dear Kate, I’m sorry to say that this is a deal-breaker for me and (I believe) many other progressive Internet users. It’s a fraud to pretend that this is nothing but wedge politics, with the Labor Government happy to discard Internet freedom of expression as collateral damage.
Australia does not need the tools of a police state. I don’t trust this Government to run a secret blacklist, let alone future Governments.
I have been a Labor member and voter for 35 years. I have handed out how-to-vote cards in elections for Labor and supported it through many ups and down.
No more. I’ve joined the Greens and will be campaigning for them.
I’m in the same camp. I’d suggest preferencing the Liberals over Labor. Become a swinging voter. You will feel much less impotent that way.
Grass roots activism defeated the ETS because it split the Liberals. Labor needs to be split over this. But this time they can’t blame the Tories – this is Conroy’s idea! He is wedging his own party… way to go
I’m in the same camp. I’d suggest preferencing the Liberals over Labor. Become a swinging voter. You will feel much less impotent that way.
Grass roots activism defeated the ETS because it split the Liberals. Labor needs to be split over this. Disunity is freedom.
But this time they can’t blame the Tories – this is Conroy’s idea! He is wedging his own party… way to go
In the policy document it says
“A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a ‘clean feed’ internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries.”
Offer doesn’t sound much like impose. Or is Labor saying we’re offering you a choice. The offer is that it’s filtered and your choice is to not use the Internet if you don’t like that.
Also from your quoted text it sound’s like if you don’t have children in your house you should be able to say “no thanks”
“This is where a lot of passionate opponents of the filter get very frustrated “well if it doesn’t work 100%, why do it?””
What opponents get frustrated about is that this is being brought in using felicious arguments about pretecting children where as anyone with some knowledge about the internet can tell you the gains will be negligible. So we all know it isn’t going to work 100%, but we wonder whether it will even work 1%. Will it have any positive affect at all?
The trial should have been as follows:
Step 1: State the aims of the policy (be it protecting children from accessing dodgy content or whatever)
Step 2: Test with a trial whether the proposed madatory filter will address these policy goals and at what cost.
If the affect of this policy is negligable (or if it actually makes things worse) then the technical capabilites are a moot point.
It makes me wonder how stupid the ALP thinks Australians are.
It’s easy for me to say “Screw the Caucus, I’d risk my job to do the right thing”, but I’m not in your position so it’s easier said than done. I do sympathise with you, to a point, because in the end if you cave, you’re not part of the solution, it makes you part of the problem.
The release of the Enex report and subsequent announcement of success has been a clear tactic to dissuade the focus from the argument of “Should it be done” and skip that right to the “It’s possible to do”. This irritates the hell out of me. If the Australian people were given all the information and then be made part of the discussion and decision making process this policy would fail faster then Senator Conroy as Minister for BCDE.
Putting aside the fact that the filter should not be implemented in the first place (but not forgetting this as seems to be the intent of Senator Conroy) there are a few simple but glaring omissions and circumstances that Conroy should be held accountable for, especially since there was an in excess of $800,000 price tag on the reporting process.
First there was no Pass or Fail criteria set before the trial commenced. This meant that what ever the results, they could be spun as acceptable. And they have been. 10% Speed degradation is acceptable? If Senator Conroy had announced this before the trial began he would have been forced by the Industry and Internet users to drop the acceptable % of speed degradation. 10% is simple too high, even on an 8mbit connection, and what happens when this is applied to the future NBN with much higher speeds?
Second, no where in the report could I see any testing done to push the filters to their point of failure. If we don’t know their limits how can they be accurately deployed? This is even more relevant when an insignificant sample size, like during this very Trial is going to be used as “evidence” for a filter that would be applied to every singe Internet Connection in the country! How well will the filters hold up then?
The Enex report created more questions than answers and has only strengthens the feeling that the filter is not designed to protect children and for what ever reason no matter what the ALP want to censor the Internet.
For too long have the Industry bodies been too scared to outright speak out against this policy for fear of losing Government funding and the DBCDE have done nothing but spin, time announcement so they get buried by other news/issues, sit on or manufacture reports or just outright lie about this policy. Senator Conroy should be held accountable for all of this and there should be an enquiry or even some actual damned public consultation outside of filter vendors and the ACL on this issue.
Our Grandfathers and Great Grandfathers did not die for Australia only to have it slowly stolen from the people by an oppressive and deceitful Government.
Kate, good luck to you and I hope you can find the strength to do the right thing.
I’ve been a huge fan until now. I’ve been generally very impressed with your work on helping to enlighten the Parliament and Government about the virtues of an open internet.
It makes me profoundly sad to feel as though we (the people) have lost such a strong, reasoned voice emanating from within Government; Unfortunately reason seems to have been abandoned and, to some extent, double speak and spin embraced. I really thought you felt more strongly about this.
This post categorically invalidates your blog’s tagline – Taking Australia forward with openness and vision – I hope you’ll be changing it.
Kate,
You are being disingenuous, the Rudd government does not have a mandate. “Mandatory” was only applied after the election, I would never have voted for the ALP had I known the policy would be changed.
Our classification scheme can not effectively regulate internet content. The scope of ‘RC’ is far too broad and lumps child abuse material in with controversial topics which have every right to be discussed and debated within a free, confident and civil democracy – topics such as euthanasia, abortion, religious extremism and safe drug use to name just a few.
Do you not see what a can of worms this will be? What about a website which gives information on illicit drug use while also combining political content calling for an end to prohibition. What will the government’s answer be when it starts blocking this type of political content?
Would you care to explain how blocking approximately 10,000 websites out of approximately one trillion (and growing at a rate of roughly one billion a day) will make the least bit of difference?
This filter will block the proverbial drop in ocean. Bring back NetAlert, it actually works and gives choice back to the people. Conroy dumped NetAlert over a year ago, thereby taking away an effective method for Australian families to protect their children from objectionable content, while at the same time, proclaiming the ALP are “thinking of the children”.
Kate, you know this policy is deeply flawed and has no place in our society.
Regards,
Matt
Ms Lundy
You do realise that scope-creep is inevitable? RC is far more than the cheerypicked spiel from Senator Contoy. Are you aware that this year ACMA banned anti-abortion pics on the internet that were “RC”. Even links to those pics, not the pictures themeslves, atrract fines of 11000 dollars a day.
You are also aware of the extraordinary revelations this year in a senate committee hearing? They included claims that paedophiles bring their victims through Australian airports. Please spend my taxpayers’ money on an international effort to tackle such a root cause, rather than wasting time and money on a leaky bucket that can be circumvented.
“Unfortunately, the debate about whether reducing the risks of people being exposed to unwanted online content through mandatory filters outweighs the value people place on the concept of an open and unflitered internet was resolved by the Rudd government before the last election, when the policy was announced. So it is not surprising many people feel they have not had the opportunity to have this debate.”
Weasel words, Senator. You left out the words “that will not work” after “mandatory filters”. You know it as well as the rest of us do and probably better than any of your fellow parliamentarians.
“This discussion is rightly an internal one” – no, it’s rightly a public one. You were elected on a platform of voluntary filtering; you’re about to impose mandatory filtering. I assume *that* was an internal discussion. You represent us – you have an obligation to tell us where you stand and to have the discussion in public – with us as full participants.
By the way – where are you when Senator Conroy labels those of us who oppose this plan, including Save the Children and the National Children’s & Youth Law Centre, as “paedophiles”. Do you tell him how desperate and outrageous that sounds? Do you tell him that he’s insulting the 95% of Australians who oppose this plan?
I had hopes for you, Senator. I still suspect that you don’t agree with this lunacy, but clearly the party system prevents you from representing the people who elected you. Perhaps you might think about whether it’s time to become something in which you can use your knowledge and experience to the benefit of Australia: an independent.
Your party carried our hopes for a more honest, open and compassionate society into the last election. We will neither forgive nor forget what it’s done to those hopes.
I’ve written and spoken publicly a number of times on this issue in the past couple of years. It’s all available on my blog and clearly points out the various issues with the policy. I’m hardly the most eloquent on the matter, but here you go – http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22clean+feed%22+site:acidlabs.org
As for the history of the issue, here’s what I remember from 2007 before the release of the policy Pia links to:
- the Labor opposition had a policy that required ISPs to offer a non-mandatory clean feed so that subscribers who wanted it could have it
- this was to be supported by education programs and free filtering software
Imperfect, flawed, sure. But certainly workable.
At this point, the technically savvy voting public, especially those inclined to vote Labor, were pretty comfortable with the policy. The matter of ACMA’s blacklist was still contentious given the holes in the governance of it.
The release of the policy saw several people (including me) note there was ambiguity around for whom, where and when the “mandatory” applied. Was it mandatory to offer? Was it mandatory only where children were concerned? Or was it plain mandatory?
What has happened now, as Senator Conroy appears to have received increasingly bad advice from his Department and has become increasingly strident on the matter, equating opposition to the mandatory feed with being pro-pedophilia, is that the public understanding of the policy as campaigned upon no longer equates to the implementation.
The implementation being proposed has several flaws, not the least of which is the possible breach of the UN Declaration on Human Rights (we’ll see how that goes in the High Court, no doubt). All the other flaws have been raised, discussed, analysed and dissected at length, so I’ll not rehash them here.
Suffice it to say, this policy is not what the public voted for and is not what they want, either. The public outcry is more than adequate demonstration of that. You have to wonder what previously unencountered level of hubris Senator Conry and the Prime Minsiterhave access to that has them perpetuating this dangerously flawed policy.
“This is where a lot of passionate opponents of the filter get very frustrated “well if it doesn’t work 100%, why do it?” The answer is because the Rudd Labor Government is convinced it will encourage concerned people that the internet will be a safer place for themselves and/or their children.”
Do you mean a placebo? A placebo is meant to have no effect, the policy will have no effect on access to material like this http://bit.ly/8BSfT2 for children as it is rated PG nor any other content as it can’t block https.
Consider this URL, https://broowery.com/content/rudd-conroy-gambling-mandatory-internet-censorship-working note the HTTPS at the start, that is all it takes to bypass the filter. ie A webserver that is configured for https traffic, do you really think that wont be used when it takes 5-10 minutes for the site operator (not the user) to configure and can cost nothing? All the user needs to do is click on the link, if the difference wasn’t pointed out many wouldn’t even notice the “s” in https.
I’d just like to congratulate Senator Lundy for facing the public discussion on this topic. I think it is a particularly difficult situation to be in and it is great to see that the blog post and the enormous discussion in the comments creates a forum to expose some of the core issues.
I think what you have to really look at is the statement that the “trials were successful”. As has been stated by others, the tests undertaken were not representative: the lists too short, the bandwidth too low, and the algorithms not dealing with dynamic content. The tests were indeed following a Web model that was current about 10 years ago, but has nothing to do with the Web we are experiencing now: Web 2.0 and NBN. I think we need to seriously question the results of the study.
In addition: anything bar the main list had a huge false positive rate, filtering out legal content. This could be businesses that get destroyed because they are being removed from Australian access – or educational sites that provide a fair diversity to the public opinion.
And finally, being part of a video-based business, I would hate to see network delays in Australia increase even more – 5ms is an eternity in video terms! A mandatory filtering scheme in a NBN environment will certainly have a hugely negative impact on the use of video for business.
In summary, in my opinion, the trials showed that it is not technically acceptable to roll out a mandatory filtering scheme. However, I would have no issue with an opt-in filtering scheme – even if I would not apply it because I think I have taught my son well what is acceptable on the Internet and what isn’t.
I hope you Senator Lundy will be well prepared with technical details when she enters the behind-the-door discussions!
“as a Senator in the Labor Government I will be bound by Labor Caucus’ position on the matter”
Kate don’t be a puppet, listen to the people you are supposed to serve.
“This is for the children” seems to be the catch-cry for supporters of filtering – it’s sad that you have such little confidence in the ability of parents to care for their kids. At any rate, there are plenty of home-side filtering options available already. Indeed most ISPs offer these packages to subscribers already. And they do so voluntarily!
Your party’s rhetoric is aimed squarely at stigmatising anyone who raises their voice in opposition to this plan. Very sinister and Orwellian…
First off I have to say Kate you deserve a big bravo on your comments. You have proved that politicians do not have the nations or their constituents interests at heart, but are rather more interested in pushing personal and party agendas over the needs of the nation. This is being proven over and over again by both state and federal labor parties.
When will labor be announcing the changes to the national anthem? I refer to the second line of the anthem that states “For we are young and free;”, since this absurd proposal is merely just the beginning of our freedoms being snatched away by the government, this line in our anthem in no longer correct.
In addition Conroy has many times stated that this measure will be open to public consultation, when can we expect this to happen? Or is this merely another case of a broken Labor promise?
We voted for the government to represent our views. If you go to any poll, online polls, newspaper polls, tv polls, radio polls, >90% are against this censorship plan. Therefore the majority wins, if this was a democracy. But is it now? With Kevin Rudd being great friends with China, this is really communism. And why hasn’t Rudd said anything about this?
It is disingenuous at best for you to support Rudd’s proposal to filter the ACMA RC list as being to protect children. Firstly, hiding illegal acts from view does not stop them, it makes them less noticeable and easier for perpetrators to escape punishment. Secondly RC is not limited to illegal media, it includes legal to own media as you well know such as MA15+ games, and video of illegal acts such as graffiti. If the same standard were applied to film and television, then all the police dramas and crime shows would be banned from free to air TV.
Is it convenient to abandoned your previously stated principles, or a requirement to remain a member of the Labor party?
Utterly disgusting policy, i hope the whole labor government gets crucified with this policy. Funny thing is, there’s so much public out cry against this filter yet Conroy is still contempt on going forward with it. And you say his actions are noble? I think not. We all know there have been some backroom deals to push this policy through with little media coverage as possible.
We should change out national anthem from:
Australians all let us rejoice
For we are young and free
To:
Australians all let us distress
For we are young and bound.
Hi Kate, Pia et al.
Others have voiced an opinion I agree with in the comments, so I won’t repeat what they’ve said. I will simply say that I will not vote for any individual or party who supports a mandatory “clean feed”. I will do every single thing in my power to convince others that this is a bad policy, that ultimately can’t work, won’t protect those who feel they need it and will cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
The proposed filter is bad enough I that it could be the most important policy come election time.
Turn the ship around before it’s too late!
Pia
Here is a question that is worth asking to test the boundaries of this legislation.
If you go to the movies and see a movie trailer that has not been classified, it carries an “Approved for advertising” classification and tells you to check the classification closer to the release date.
Not imagine watching that trailer online – the movie has not been classified in Australia, so it is RC. Am I now banned from watching the latest summer blockbuster. Potentially the IronMan 2 trailer at http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/ironman/ would have to be blocked…
Now IF the argument is that this is available to view as it is yet to be classified, then that would be the case for 99.999% of the content on the internet as it changes daily.
If a website is editted, does it need to be re-classified as it is no longer the same page as before?
Firstly, thanks to everyone for taking the time to contribute. The response has been (understandably) overwhelming and while I can’t respond to all the points raised I am/will be reading all your comments and the conversations online.
There’s been a lot of constructive input which will help me articulate the issues to my colleagues. As you know, this Bill will be going before Parliament in the first sitting session next year.
Details of the timing at http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115
Kate
Pretty disappointing Kate. I have applauded your work with the computer industry to date, in particular dealing with pair gain issues and Telstra, but your stance on this issue has voided any credibility you had.
It is one thing to tow a party line, and another to support something with such a lack of transparency.
At the very least please push for a full and proper evaluation, and a full and transparent report, surely you can at least do that while towing the party line.
Hi Kate/Pia,
It’s very easy, really. Since we are looking at a double-dissolution election in the new year, why not put this in as a referendum question. Make the question neutral and unambiguous and get people to vote on it.
The election will be on ETS, thus Conroy and Rudd cannot claim that they have a mandate to filter the internet, just like the last election was fought on the base of industrial relations.
This is too important an issue to be decided WITHOUT public consultation. All Conroy has shown is that he will stick his fingers in his ears when he hears opinions he doesn’t like.
With a referendum, every Australian is bound one way or the other to declare their stance, AND they get to do it secretly without being accused of being child molesters if they are against the filter. IFF there is indeed majority public support for this policy, then what is the government afraid of?
We have had pointless referendums on matters far less crucial than this in the past, this is an issue that will define as a democratic (or otherwise) country.
Kate, I am not so much surprised by your post, but I am saddened by it. I take it to mean that you will vote in favour of this misguided policy. I admit, I had hope that you would stick to your principles and abstain from the vote, even if party room politics mean that you can’t vote against it.
As a side note, I find this ‘vote our way or else’ stance of the Labor party to be deeply worrying and undemocratic, as it means you must put the party before your own constituents, many of who would not have actually voted for the Labor party.
That aside, I, like several of the other commenters here, I must point out some flaws in your logic.
The filter has not been demonstrated to be technically feasible. Indeed, the live trial was deeply, *deeply* methodologically flawed, so much so that it appears to have been built to prove filtering works, rather than test the technology, as I suspected from the moment my FOI request confirmed that the trial had no real success or failure criteria. Some of the more glaring flaws are that the trial relied on users who desired to opt-in to censorship, allowed Webshield, an ISP who has a vested interested in proving the effectiveness of filtering and whose CEO is a proponent of the mandatory filter, to participate, and did not test at anywhere near the speeds expected with the NBN. Some of the results bear examining more than once as well – one filter actually appears to have *improved*speeds, which I find remarkable.
“The answer is because the Rudd Labor Government is convinced it will encourage concerned people that the internet will be a safer place for themselves and/or their children.”
This is *exactly* why we have been saying that this is a bad policy. This is exactly why Save the Children says that this is a bad policy. It’s giving parents a completely false sense of security and encouraging them to think that the internet is a safer place when it won’t be, not by a long shot. As safety measures go, it’s not even a rubber bullet.
If people are concerned about the internet, let them opt-in to a filtering system. Educate them about filtering options, including pc-based filters.
Finally, this policy, before and after the election, was pitched in terms of it being opt in. The policy document suggests that the mandatory filter would only be applied to areas access by children. Further statements to the media by Senator Conroy said, bluntly that adults would be able to opt out. If you’re interested in seeing exactly what has been said and promised by Labor regarding this policy, and what promises have been ‘forgotten’ or modified since prior to the election, I recommend libertus.net, which is extremely detailed and well researched.
Hi Kate,
As a professional in the technology industry who has his feet in Y and below generations and industry, am shocked and disappointed. I thought you were savvy enough to see through the smokescreen to see the implications it will affect the voting public and the industry.
The report is deeply flawed and heavily side steps a lot of issues, both technical and policy goals wise – these are the words from someone who has graduated with a PhD and understands the rigorous research process when dealing with such studies. I can see a lot of omissions and bias ( such as filtering solution claims) that would have been done in the report because the amount of words describing positives outweigh the negatives which only hold a few sentences there and there. For example not much was elaborated on high throughput connections, scalability when the amount of traffic exceeds the filtering machines when doing more sophisticated filtering (DPI etc), its impact on affecting small ISPS (reducing competition), the many issues of of re-routing traffic for small isps who cant afford the extra logistics. Based on the maneuverers done by Conroy lately especially in the timing of the report release, immediate announcement of going ahead with policy on same day as report release appears premeditated and reeks of undemocratic lobbying.
Theres a lot of hidden motives under this plan and as you can see currently the industry, savvy and intellectual public are angry. This is simply a simple censorship regime that the various christian lobby groups and certain political individuals are secretly oiling wheels to turn into a full blown variant and hamper people’s freedoms when it comes to online – aka turning it into the next Chinese Firewall.
The manoeuvres that Conroy has done lately, ignoring the greater censorship etc issues at hand, just picking a single line from the tech industry (technical) and try and get this such report to attempt to push his own pawn in the scheme of thing is deeply unfair as a public discourse/debate & democracy. Its becoming more and more like what religious leaders/groups attempt to do when forcing their own viewpoints among the less powerful.
As others have said, education, parents, opt-in/opt-out solutions are better than mandatory ISP enforced filtering and does the same job without causing lobby groups enforcing their own self-interests.
Im disappointed because this all has turned Australia into a joke in the face of the international community, including the R18+ classification for games blocked by Atkinson n co, we are now forced to educate the rest of the public including MPs to better understand whats wrong behind the smokescreen. This already has gone viral and is affecting various generations especially 35’s and below.
Hopefully this makes better sense of the potential implications/fallouts if they were to occur and the waste of public money if this was spent instead of educating/supporting families and other better initiatives.
Thanks very much for taking time to read. I support your other policies such as NBN etc except this which has heavily swung voting hand. If this was re-fixed or removed, you would regain a whole new generation of voters back for the ALP and better voter support many years on.
Regards,
Abe
The labour party never threatened us with a mandatory all encompassing filter before the election. Don’t try to tell us after the fact that this was the case – it only serves to make very angry people angrier. Had this been one of their platforms I would not have voted for them. They offered an opt in (or out) service for those who were interested.
Now we a are a laughing stock around the world with even super conservative Fox News comparing us to Iran and China.
I am a mother with young children. I am capable of supervising their internet use.
If you want to protect children then why not give the money you are wasting on the filter to an organisation like the AFP who can actually do something.
If this goes ahead then I will never vote Labour again.
I want to congratulate everyone who is contributing to this thread. The level of analysis and critical intelligence is pretty mind-blowing. Whether it’s all a useless echo chamber is another matter. Sigh.
The Victorian Era Classification Board should be closed down. Social media technologies can replace the filter-by-blacklist, the Classifications Board should be completely ‘wikified’.
Police can use the freed up resources to investigate and prosecute crime.
Check out stumbleupon.com for one example.
The posters here are to be congratulated for leaving any supposed mandate in tatters.
Further,the act of releasing the Enex report and the final policy line, and making them simultaneous, was utter arrogance. Rudd, Conroy and the ALP left no time whatsoever for feedback on a complex, technical, lengthy report. But then again silly me. Experts like Mark Newton don’t matter do they? He doesn’t repeat back what Rudd wants to hear: that the internet censor machine is fantastic and magic. Worse still, Conroy and Rudd sat on that report for months and let the Australian Christian Lobby, a group of utter nutters, either look at it or get a precis [we will never know which].
This is the daftest, most dangerous, arrograntly conducted example of government policy since the ID card of the mid 80s.
Senator,
I had a letter published in today’s Canberra Times about the scope of Refused Classification. It is not a good candidate to base a blacklist on as most RC material is legal to posses and view in the ACT (and most of Australia). You would also know from Senate estimates that the ACMA blacklist contains much more than RC material anyway, all the way down to MA15+.
I have written another letter to the Canberra Times about the problems with the trial today. In short, the trial was a farce. I am including the letter here, as I obviously don’t know if the Canberra Times will publish it:
—
After almost 1 million dollars and over 10 months of delay, the Enex report on filtering the internet has finally been released, and it’s not worth the electrons it’s served with. Either Enex is incompetent, or the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has been playing with the numbers. They have been sitting on it for 3 months, after all.
No mention is made of the sample size of the ISPs involved. However, one ISP revealed they had only 15 households in their trial, and the
impression was that this ISP was far from the smallest. How this gives any indication of the technology’s capabilities with the millions of internet connected homes is not discussed.
The government has been heavily trumpeting their proposed National
Broadband Network which will deliver speeds up to 100 Mbps, yet the trial barely tested speeds 12 times slower. The fastest speed tested was 8 Mbps, barely into ADSL2 speeds. Even then, the report implies a bottle neck at around 7-8 Mbps. No investigation into this bottle neck seems to have been done.
Website addresses are currently based on IPv4, which allows for 4 billion different IP addresses. These are expected to run out within the next few years (there are that many computers connected to the internet), and it is already being replaced with IPv6. Current censorship technology is often incapable of dealing with IPv6 based websites, and no mention of this major transition is made in the report.
The report mentions that censorship technology is expensive and that the government will have to take the matter of funding this equipment
seriously. This will mean more expensive internet access, and less competition as smaller operators are forced out of the market.
The report also concedes that it would only take minor technological competence to bypass even the most draconian of the filtering products
tested. This is below the level of competence that today’s school children posses, as they easily remove restrictions on government provided laptops.
Finally, the report shows in some of the results, that internet speeds are actually faster with the filter in place. This is not only technically improbably but physically impossible.
Any claims the government makes about the technological feasibility of
censorship based on this report are fallacious. Continuing with this
project will be a phenomenal waste of taxpayer money that could have gone to actually doing something about the scourge of child abuse.
(Address withheld, although you have it as I’ve written to you previously).
—
The report also makes the extraordinary claim that a speed decrease of 10% is considered negligible, and that over-blocking rates of over 3% are acceptable.
Frankly, I don’t have much faith in Kevin Rudd being in control of a secret blacklist, and I certainly wouldn’t trust Tony Abbott, let alone any future Prime Minister that we haven’t met yet.
It’s also worth noting that Michael Flood, Hamilton’s co-author in that 2003 report, has recently come out and said that he was wrong about recommending filtering as a solution.
There just is no logical reason to impliment this filter.
It is said it will protect our children. How? It doesn’t block chat rooms nor social networking sites which are the breeding grounds for the majority of our safety concerns. So it wont protect our children.
It will combat child pornography. Again, how? It filters http traffic. I challenge you to actually find any via http. Filtering http traffic will have zero positive impact on combating child pornography. Even if some child pornography was filtered due to this scheme all you are doing is forcing those viewing and posting it to use a vpn connection to bypass the filter (which itself will be encrypted) making it infinitely harder to actually catch them. So it certainly wont combat child pornography.
All it does is give parents a false sense of security regarding their children which will make them even more vulnerable online.
So the question must be asked…why?
There are already far more effective solutions in place, they have existed for years. Using a client end filter (such as net nanny) parents have far greater control over restricting hazardous material. Why can’t the government fund the creation of their own version and offer it free to family homes? it would be cheaper. It would not tax our already slow Internet and it would actually meet the stated goals put forward which the current filter will not do. Going off some of the sites that were actually filtered in the tests I really don’t believe this was ever about protecting children or fighting child porn.
Very disappointing, Kate. I used to think you made your own choices based on your own thinking.
You don’t seem to have picked that “the test was successful” does not mean the filter will be successful in the real world. The test made all sorts of simplifying assumptions, such as ignoring the use of encrypted tunnels, an user base that can adapt, etc.
You appear to be clinging to this “100% accurate” statement to justify ALP leadership’s policy. You have lost my respect and my vote.
You want input on this subject? Here’s some… This mandatory filter is a bad idea for many, many reasons, and most people either don’t want it, or want it to NOT happen.
Hi Kate & Pia
Whatever credibility you were trying to manufacture with your participation in debates about gov2.0, transparency, NBN, etc have been exposed as a sham with this drivel of a blog post. I am really disappointed in your position, nor does it even read like it was written by you.
Furthermore, by putting on your lawyer hat and trying to justify your position as being something that was in writing before the election (even though it is against most other things you advocate) shows how shallow you probably are.
Stop towing the party line, and cross the floor on this. Otherwise you will be forever remembered as a fake.
Sincerely,
Sam Granleese
PS. You can remind Mssrs Bitar & Rudd they can say goodbye to those marginal Liberal seats expected to pick up next year too.
I also just wanted to say how valuable this blog, and Kate’s willingness to discuss and reason issues out as part of the community is. I think the ALP policy on this is truly awful, but having a Senator be open and frank about her views is refreshing and encouraging. Be good if this blog could be an example of how useful it is to engage in that way, because you solicit info and ideas from the public. I particularly appreciate the honesty around Kate’s commitment to follow caucus (I have my own views, like everyone, on compromise and political party membership and for that matter, what the representative in representative democracy means, but none of it simple.)
I think the question of this filter is going to be a line-in-the-sand issue – even though it won’t effectively block much at all. But it’s not just about whether we want to allow the government to decide what we can and can’t look at; but also about whether we are more interested in pretending to solve problems than we are in solving them.
“This discussion is rightly an internal one” So much for Government 2.0 then? What a farce. Once this infrastructure is in place future conservative governments will have no impediment to adding further material to the list. Why did the ACL, who have publicly said they want more currently legal material added to the list, get a private meeting with the minister when opposing groups have been fobbed off? It’s clear who’s driving this policy, and it’s not the ALP caucus.
I for one DO NOT support this scheme. It will stifle the overall development and growth of the true open internet and provide the opportunity for those inclined to maliciously bend policies in their favour.
Kate, as a long time reader Im deeply disappointed. Au voir.
As you say, the intent of the policy is defensible. But as you also suggest, and as the excellent comments here attest, in practice the proposed filter would fail in many ways. So… I wish you well in your work of building a killer case against!
Imagine a United Nations meeting in the future…
UN sec gen: any motions?
French delegate: I move a motion to impose sanctions against Australia for their gross restrictions of free speech and expression, in particular in their internet filter.
Italian delegate: I second the motion
30 minutes later:
UN sec Gen: the motion being passed 105 to 15, sanctions will be imposed upon Australia starting in a week.
As many have made clear here and elsewhere, what is being proposed is not what was taken to the last election. Additionally, we’ve had it demonstrated that the proposal as it currently stands will not achieve the goals outlined for it. So, this voter and grassroots member of the ALP would like to know why we’re spending tens of millions of dollars pursuing it? Can’t find something sensible to do with the money?
Kate,
I had previously thought you had a clear understanding of the issue of internet censorship. Your comments clearly shows you are dancing around the issue and watering down on principles. You should take a look at the stand that your collegue Penny Sharpe has taken.
The real evil of internet censorship is NOT that it is unworkable, or it slows down access, or it is costly, or it can be circumvented or any of the usual arguments. The real problem is that it is information control on a massive scale, Kim Jong Il style. You think I am exaggerating? I don’t think so because I really don’t see the difference.
Proponents of censorship ask why content on the internet shouldn’t be restricted just like content on films, video, TV, print, etc. The difference is this: Restriction of content on the traditional media is largely transparent – we know or can easily find out what is being restricted and why. While we may argue about whether it should or should not be restricted, at least we know what we are arguing about.
Internet censorship is completely opaque. We won’t know what we are not allowed to access, let alone why. We won’t even know that it exists. This is a massive erosion of our rights. Australia is now the laughing stock of the world. Even in highly regulated societies like Singapore, where the government controls many aspects of citizens’ lives, they have free access to the internet because the government realises that any attempt to cure the internet of its evils by censorship will be worse than the disease.
I thought it was only the conservatives who caved in the religious right. Now I’m not so sure. I’m a Labor voter but if the opposition can come up with a good policy on this, this issue alone is enough to make me swing.
Australians have been too complacent. I have dedicated myself to telling everyone I meet about Labor’s betrayal of trust. Conroy has proven himself to be this administration’s most incompetent minister. Kevin Rudd can do himself, your party and the country a great favour by removing him. Does he need any more excuses?
Kate,
There was NEVER going to be a mandatory filter for all. Check these quotes:
Nov 07: A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a “clean feed” internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries.
Note the words “offer” and “accessible by children”.
Dec 2007: “Senator Conroy says anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm
Sounds optional to me. Businesses never mentioned. Universities?
Dear Senator Lundy,
You may be familiar with the internet phrase of: “Pics or it didn’t happen”. I’d like to paraphrase that and say to you: “Stats or it shouldn’t happen”.
I challenge you to publish the results from independent and statistically valid studies that show the MAJORITY of ALL Australians (and not just a influential minority in some key marginal seats) say they want Internet filtering / censorship as was proposed by any reasonable person’s reading the ALP’s 2007 election platform, and / or the laws recently proposed by Senator Conroy.
I honestly am not aware of a general outcry from the non-IT savvy part of the electorate for a filtered internet. In fact, I am willing to bet the level of outcry will be about the same as the take up rate for the free client-side filtering software offered by the previous Federal Government.
BTW a valid “study” is not the results of the last election. The ALP would have been voted in with or without the Internet filtering policy.
I voted Labor in 2007, but this is a vote-changer, unfortunately. RC is a broad, eclectic category & banning it all means blocking political content such as euthenasia information and anti abortion images. It also gets regular porn that happens to involve things like latex or spanking. And it can catch all manner of random things from lower classifications that aren’t behind an access shield.
Had the government wanted to target illegal content, it could have – there are categories within RC for that. But Conroy cast a far broader net, & then tried to conflate RC content at large with “illegal material”. That kind of spin is toxic because it’s so dishonest, and disussions about censorship have to be be honest because censorship is ultimately a trust exercise. The secretiveness and outright refusal by Conroy to even be interviewed about this has cost the government the chance to build that trust.
Incidentally, the trial produced virtually nothing that wasn’t already known – I’m surprised that it would motivate a change in the Senator’s position.
Indecency and illegality are two entirely separate things, and rightly so. I’m happy to be bound by the laws that pass through the checks and balances of our parliamentary system. I’m not, however, happy to surrender my freedoms to a ‘decency panel’.
I personally don’t find videos of female ejaculation a turn-on, but some people do. It’s not illegal and nor should it be. It is, however, in the eyes of some, indecent.
Why should the opinions, and that’s all they are, of this ‘decency panel’ over-ride the individual’s right to participate in activity that is 100% legal?
Will it happen? Who knows. What I do know is that human history is just a litany of governments abusing mechanisms installed with good intentions.
Pia,
Thank you for your participation. You’ve said a few times now that our help in exposing the gap between what you’re calling community expectations and the ALP’s understanding of its own policy documents is a useful thing. I’m assuming you mean useful in helping build a case against this policy which Kate can take to the party room. Can you, or Kate confirm that?
I think the gap (maybe more akin to a chasm) you speak of has now been thoroughly demonstrated in the comments on this post. There has also been a wealth of other information provided and linked to which demonstrate in very clear terms the deep flaws in this policy. Any person with the ability to reason should be able to build a very strong case indeed.
Having said that, you and Kate know much better than the rest of us the specific kinds of information which will be useful in persuading the people that matter. We are here, in large numbers, to help you find and organise that information if you are able to be more specific about exactly what would be useful.
If you, the other staff in Kate’s office and more importantly Kate herself are really the principled and reasoning beings we believe(d) you to be, please give us the information and tools we need to help you most effectively. What is it you need?
Do polls matter to the government? The strength of feeling on this issue isn’t confined to a few nerds – the censorship poll had the highest response of any poll conducted by the SMH.
http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/results.html
Sky news poll is similar (slightly less dire, only 88% against).
The timing for this bill to reach the Senate suggests it will happen very close to the election.
Hi Kate and Pia
I understand from the report and the discussion paper that the filter list is to be automatically distributed, machine to machine by the ACMA to the ISP. This is to prevent the ISP staff from publishing the list as has occured in other filters. Is it proposed that a properly configured environment be established at the ACMA to test each version of the list befor its distributed? Is there going to be a mechanisim to roll back the list if the update fails? Will the ACMA or DBCE be funded to have a 24 hour 7 day a week IT response team on hand to resolved filter problems? Will there be a test lab to validate the performance of various filter products and their impact on the network? All theses things cost considerable amounts of money and its doubtful that in the light of the Gershon review there is sufficient funding or staff to handle the 24/7 nature of this proposal. Are these organisations going to be exempt from the BAU Gershon cut backs?
kind regards from an old IT manager.
Thanks Kate – for taking the decency to actually engage the public on this issue and not just hide behind press releases. BUT I have a few bones to pick, your arguments are very sloppy (understandable considering what your trying to argue for).
“Unfortunately, the debate about whether reducing the risks of people being exposed to unwanted online content through mandatory filters outweighs the value people place on the concept of an open and unflitered internet was resolved by the Rudd government before the last election”
The current ACMA blacklist is around 1,300 websites, even if the list is 10,000 websites out of a possible 1trillion+ (according to just google) and changing by several billion per day. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/we-knew-web-was-big.html
It is quite a misunderstanding (I would say deliberate) to say people ‘accidentally’ stumble upon abhorrent websites containing child pornography and bestiality. You would have way more of a chance winning the lottery then stumbling upon any other these so called websites.
It also brings a point up on cost-benefit. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars in case someone ’stumbles’ upon RC content is quite irresponsible when child welfare groups and the AFP are struggling to deal with actually stopping abuse and helping Children.
Also the obfuscation about what RC actually contains is incredibly insulting to the intelligence of the public. It contains sexual fetishes, advice on euthanasia (a lot of sites banning pictures of high buildings and cliffs I suppose), adults dressed up in school uniforms and video games over MA15+. I think constantly peddling this lie by omission is a downright attempt to spin this laughable ‘policy’. Some honesty would go along way.
The claim that your party went to the 2007 election telling people about this ‘mandatory’ for ALL Australian’s URL blocking system is downright dishonest as the document you link says quite differently and has been corrected by many other posters. Some admission of that fact would also go along way.
“So where to next? With a policy announced and the tests done and the definition of what is to be filtered resolved there is little room to move.”
Glad your open to consultation about what will be filtered. I enjoyed resolving that problem with you.
“Material that is deemed RC by a properly skilled entity such as the classification board affords more confidence than the previous methodology, which had given rise to much of the concern about unjustified, unfair or plain wrong blacklisting of web sites based on complaints because there was no transparent system or method of picking the sites.”
Oh, first time I’ve heard of transparency on this new list. Do tell where I can get a copy? Where can I lodge a complaint if my website accidentally gets blacklisted? How do I dispute a listing if I think its wrong? *looks left and right*
“To Minister Conroy’s credit, he tackled the issue of defining exactly what was proposed as being filtered: the content that could not be regulated here because it was not on a server in Australia, and was incabable of being classified within our system of classification, hence refused classification, or ‘RC’.”
Wow, he told the public what was going to be blocked. Amazing. /sarcasm
Please – Conroy’s performance on this particular detail has been dreadful. He only announced that “almost exclusively RC” was the target on SBS’s Insight program. Might I add only after the HUGE embarrassment of the leaked ACMA blacklist pressured him to change what was going to be blocked.
http://www.libertus.net has more details on the history of this ‘policy’.
“The industry’s original claims that the filters were not feasible were proved false.”
That’s a giant flaming straw man and you know it. What was being proposed (the scant details that the public knew about) was something COMPLETELY different to what is actually the goal now.
I applaud you for actually taking the time and effort explaining your position and engaging the public.
I feel that the testing phaze was farcical at best. Using “No Name Brand” isp’s, with obvious ties to net filtering technology, is not what I would call conclusive or realistic evidence. It is a blatant whitewash to bolster certain Labor Ministers egos.
Do some real testing, with real ISPs and real people! Then we can see some real results, rather than the current hazed over propaganda.
The whole net filter debacle is going to be a mighty thorn in Labors side come next election. Australians see this country as being a democracy, not a dictatorial regime, where freedom of speech takes second place to moral servitude.
Labor has lost a long time supporter (me) because of this blatant disregard for the wishes of Australians and a removal of not only freedom speech but democracy as well. If wanted a dictator, I would’ve just voted John Howard in!
I used to be inundated with spam mail. It still comes to my email address but almost all is automatically put into a spam folder that currently holds 9,000 spam messages. Each week one or two get to my inbox.
How has this happened? It has happened because, I like many millions of others, have reported emails that are spam. These reports are automatically collated and my browser now decides whether or not an email gets through. I am happy to use the collective wisdom of my fellow users to block spam.
The same technique can be applied to websites – and some browsers now offer this facility for websites that are dangerous as they may be phishing sites or contain dangerous or pornographic material. I would suggest that the government help fund work with ISPs, Browsers, social websites etc and allow the “wisdom of the crowd” with which a user is happy to be associated determine what is filtered.
To set up these systems requires funding and effort – but it can be done in ways that are “privacy” friendly. That is, the filter is under my control and only I know how it is set. I can then decide whether I want to protect myself (and others in my household) from “the thoughts of the leader” and other pornographic material.
Also they only tested on 8MB, if you doctor the testing of course it will look successful.
So the filter will protect children by stopping them viewing child porn? Makes perfect sense… :S Add my name to the list of people not voting for anyone who supports this.
Hi Pia,
Thanks for keeping a watch on the comments. I too am of the understanding that the filter was an “Opt Out” option by reading the policy and from Senator Conroy’s comments at the time. Those have already been alluded to in the comments.
What I would like to know is:
Seeing the amount of people against a Mandatory Internet Filter (Censorship!) will this in any way change the minds of the senate knowing how unpopular this plan is to the general public?
Kate, as a Senator in the Labor Party you should be ashamed that you and your colleagues have sold out free speech and secular government to appease the religious right. The Australian Christian Lobby has its muddy little feet all over this – and don’t think that the voters are too blind to see it. This is yet another example of the religious right, with the aid of a theocratised government, seeking to impose their views on the rest of Australia. If Christian parents are so concerned about what their children might see on the internet, let them install filters. If the government wants to encourage that, by all means, make them available free. But do not let Mr Wallace and his cronies tell me what I may or may not access on the World Wide Web. The stranglehold that religious institutions have on the Labor Party under Rudd is now being noted by commentators as diverse as Peter Fitzsimons (SMH 17/12) and Max Gillies and Guy Rundle (Godzone, MTC. The Global Atheist Convention to be held in Melbourne next March will further highlight the Labor Party’s failure to uphold secular values and the separation of church and state. As a once-Labor voter, all I an say is I am thoroughly disgusted.
In a filtered world, what would the end user experience be like?
If my google search results linked to filtered content, what would I see? A government message advising what had occured? or perhaps my browswer would simply sit there and eventually time out?
What happens when legitimate content is filtered? What if I was a business owner who was incorrectly filtered? Can I sue the government for loss of potential income?
I consider myself a technical user and a point of contact for my large friends and family on IT matters. From the people that I have spoken to, I am yet to find a case where someone “accidently” browsed to a type of site that would fall under the RC banner.
With people specifically looking for this material having other means of navigating around the filter, in my opinion it really takes the wind out the sails for an argument for a filter.
People often state that Australia is heavily influenced by the USA. On this particular topic, I am of the opinion that the government is influenced by the likes of China, Iran and any other oppressive country who have a major goal of censoring their constituents.
There is an even more basic flaw in the Enex report. The scheme is slated to happen in late 2011. The web moves like lightning. By 2011 the report will be as relevant to the current technology as TV is to a caveman.
Unfortunately, Senator Lundy is trying to have her cake and eat it, too. Given her previous positions on the subject while in opposition and her admissions in this blog post, it’s clear her sentiments are that filtering isn’t good policy.
My respect for Senator Lundy will return when she threatens to cross the floor- and hopefully takes others with her to defeat this bad legislation. Secret censorship is anaethema to a liberal democracy. It’s worth losing a political office over.
Gaelian Ditchburn’s comments deserve an explanation. Labor’s pre-2007 election policy absolutely did not include a ‘mandatory clean feed’ It made mandatory the availability of a ‘clean feed’ by ISPs. The ‘community expectation’ was just that- ISPs would make a ‘clean feed’ available and it could be taken up by anyone who wanted it- or not. We, the community, did not misunderstand the policy- the goal posts were moved by Senator Conroy. To suggest that the public did not understand the policy is insulting and disingenuous.
“Secret censorship is anaethema to a liberal democracy. It’s worth losing a political office over.”
Outstanding, Brian. I couldn’t (in a 1000 years) agree more.
In our parliamentary democracy, Lundy’s first obligation should be to her constituents and not the ALP machine. I’m a realist, so I know this isn’t how it actually works but it’s a nice thought, isn’t it.
I’m currently living in China, where people defend their seemingly powerless position with the phrase “Serve the people. Follow the leader”.
Lundy’s sign-off statement above is essentially saying the same thing. She’ll serve the people by following the leader.
“I want to be very clear that ultimately, as a Senator in the Labor Government I will be bound by Labor Caucus’ (read: Rudd’s) position on the matter”.
Pia:
What on earth would possess you to say that there’s “confusion” about what the 2007 policy document (released 5 days before the election) means?
Everyone who has posted here knows exactly what it means. It’s unambiguous — Mandatory to offer, but only on computers used by Australian children.
Conroy himself backed that up by telling the ABC that adults who didn’t agree with the policy could opt-out.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm
It’s disingenuous now, after all this time, to suddenly claim that it was all well understood that it was always going to be mandatory and that this “confusion” is a new phenomenon you haven’t previously encountered.
I know I’ve been banging on about it for two years now, quoting that very document in an attempt to hold the ALP to its own words.
There is no confusion between policy and community expectation here. Those in the community who read that document have ALWAYS understood that the policy was to mandate a service that ISPs would have to offer to customers with children.
What possible advantageous public policy goal is satisfied by forcing this on people who don’t want it, don’t need it, and don’t have children? ESPECIALLY when the Government has already acknowledged (and had proved by its own report) that it won’t work.
Hi Mark,
I’m not claiming it was well understood, and I’ve only pointed out the policy where it’s been useful. As mentioned I’m just trying to understand the policy as held by the party, the policy as communicated to the public, and any gaps therein – particularly gaps for the majority of people who probably didn’t read the document.
I appreciate all your expertise and input, and am busy reading up on everything I can get my hands on.
Thanks,
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
Pia…..
Why is your party hell bent on wasting tax payers money on something that is proven even in the report handed down by Conroy himself not to work?
Its very simple to understand.
It will provide a false sense of security…for parents, slow the internet and costs businesses dearly.
So much for being a party for the people.
Its about appeasing other parties for votes…and religious organisations…so it seems.
Please talk some commonsense into Conroy…as this will cost your party dearly at the election.
Pia, Kate,
I wasn’t confused. I remember clearly before that election thinking that even though it won’t work and will be a waste of money, I’ll at least be able to opt-out. Now it’s proposed to be mandatory.
Can you see how even your most ardent followers are getting ready to disown you?
My 17yo son tonight invited 800 of his closest facebook friends to join one of the many groups voicing outrage against this issue.
One point about the filter test report that seems to be missed by most is simply that the proposed technical architecture wasn’t trialled. To infer that our largest ISPs with millions of concurrent users would see negligible performance degradation is wrong.
But finally, let me end on a positive note.
Senator Lundy and her team are at the leading edge of the participatory government movement and this blog and its comments are a great testament to the open government vision. Kate’s intelligent debate on wide-ranging ICT issues over many years has finally given me hope that we might one day have a government that will bring innovation via initiatives like the NBN, Gov2 and the Public Sphere series.
I fear, however, that all this good work will end when we lose the younger generation and the edge geeks.
Pia & Kate,
Why are you only now reading up on the policy and trying to understand the “gaps”, the policy document from 2007 was brought to your attention a long time before now. It was published by Conroy 5 days before the election, the party has had approximately two years to understand it.
There would be a lot of loyal Labor members that would be surprised by the policy, even if they attended the national conference this year. The 2009 draft constitution had any mention of Internet censorship removed and it was not debated. The policy was then added back after the conference and before the final version was released.
Any “gaps” in the understanding of the policy are by design and trying to be used to provide sufficient room to manipulate the public to drive this through with no respect for Australia’s political processes let alone Labor’s.
Conroy has recently tried to say that the policy was always to block RC only content, this is a patent lie, you must know that or admit incompetence. The information published prior to the recent announcement explicitly cited “Prohibited Content” and the ACMA blacklist, which as you know can be content down to a MA15+ rating.
Perhaps the fact this included movies being sold and gifted on the iTunes store, Telstra’s Bigpond Movies, Blockbuster’s movie download service amongst other sites changed this. Perhaps Conroy realised the insanity of censoring the very applications that are going to drive the NBN.
Whatever the reason for Conroy’s sheer incompetence in being unable to form a coherent policy or understand the very legislation and organisations he oversees, it is no excuse for Kate to continue the charade.
Kate is damaging her credibility by failing to be direct on this and being part of the damage control. Kate may have had support of the IT community should she find the Communications minister’s chair vacant, that is rapidly disappearing.
The thing about this policy is it appears to have been bolted onto the “Save the Children” platform but is really a moralistic, paternalistic Rudd driven agend to ingratiate himself with lunatic fringe at the ACL.
Firstly I would lime to commend Kate for commenting on the filtering policy on her blog.
No other Federal Labor MP has similarly opened the floor for open discussion of this topic.
Australia already has a mandatory filter – between Senator Conroy and the community. It appears that the Senator’s filter prevents him from hearing any view which does not agree with his own, leaving us in the position of having a Minister who refuses to openly discuss the policies he is championing for the ‘public good’.
This issue has become a vote changer for many people and will not go away as I am sure the Government would like. It will become an ongoing factor in voting decisions for many Australians and a source of civil disobedience as members of the public flood the body responsible for Internet censorship with millions of web pages to access and block.
As others have said, the filter will not serve it’s purpose of protecting Australian children and will only disillusion adult voters. There is no electoral benefit to the plan for Labor, therefore the only reasons it is being pushed towards law are to support the government in securing cross party votes and to make Australian society reflect the views of Senator Conroy (regardless of evidence).
I want the government to realize that by taking this step it is not only alienating thousands of current voters but is also establishing a precedent as to how the public views how the Labor party develops and implements policy.
If the filter becomes law, without clear evidence of its effectiveness, it calls into question Rudd’s ‘evidence based policy’ stance and the decisions the Labor government is making across many different areas of society.
Following Senator Conroy’s refusal to engage with dissenting views, the government will not be trusted to listen to all stakeholders or accurately reflect the community’s views.
In short, by treating the electorate with contempt the government will bring contempt and eventual electoral ruin upon itself.
A government that wishes to be taken seriously must take the community seriously. Senator Conroy is letting down the Labor party in this area, where Kate is not.
AndrewS then why is her staffing trying to tell us that mandatory filter policy was pre the election when it wasn’t?
It’s funny we live in a democracy where there is so called freedom of speech yet Lundy is not allowed to go against her own party? Cross the the floor on this issue Kate, and if ALP expel you for doing what you believe in then they’re not worth representing.
How you can back Conroy when he is meeting with nutjobs like Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby? He also only met with Jim Wallace prior to the results being published.
I thought the Liberals and Family First were the Right wing parties in Australia? Then again ALP’s dodgy preferences gave Fielding a seat in the first place!
No thank you. I do not need any censorship for my internet connection. Not only does Australia suffer from slow and crappy Internet speeds but this censorship WILL make it slower. The report was based on a trial conducted on a few people. Around 15 if I remember correctly.
Stephen Conroy has wasted millions of taxpayer’s money on trials and now we will have our money wasted on a crippled version of the Internet and now Australia will end up as a repressive country like China and Iran for example.
And no, I do not need these lovely Christian values on my Internet connection. I do not need my Internet connection to be censored from sinful content because I’m not a Christian and do not believe in zombies or ghosts or witches or wizards etcetera.
So I do hope this censorship plan will not be implemented. Personally I think your position supporting Stephen Conroy on this Big Brother internet plan is ridiculous.
http://www.pennysharpe.com/redleather/15/12/2009/why_the_internet_filter_is_not_the_solution_we_wish_it_was
You’re not the only ALP member against this Kate, don’t follow Conroy and his fundamentalist mate Jim Wallace.
Pretty funny, Conroys department is now sending out information to media outlets that have published articles on the filter.
Looks like he’s worried by the HUGE backlash today from the public.
Some of us have been busy submitting porn sites, (amongst others) to the ACMA, the one’s that are in the top 25 of all sites visited by Australians in the last 12 months. (Some visited more often than the Australian Google portal).
They all contain material that could be RC, so I will be very interested to see the response from the Australian public when some of the most popular sites on the net for Australians are no longer viewable.
Facebook sites as well as many others have been submitted. Let’s see just how wide ranging this filter is shall we?
I appreciate the blog entry, however, I have to agree with MANY comments here. We were sold an opt-out filter at the time of election, and from that point on, the goalposts have changed every time Mr Conroy opens his mouth. We have no idea what’s going on, and what ‘exactly’ is going to be filtered.
My main concern is that of the ‘Mandatory’ filter. Remove ‘Mandatory’, and make it opt-out, and every single opponent of this filter will back the ALP. We all know this has nothing to do with ‘protecting the children’, how long are you going to blow that trumpet? We all know that the worst of the worst is NOT HTTP traffic that your filter will be… filtering :^) So please, stop treating us like idiots with the ‘think of the children’ rhetoric. If the ALP really want to ‘help the children’, they’ll stop wasting MILLIONS of dollars of OUR money, and re-direct the funds to the parties who TRACK & CATCH the criminals.
I’m also very concerned that you choose to ‘toe the ALP line’ rather than stand up for your beliefs. Are you really going to turn your back on the people who have helped you get where you are today?
What scares me is the outcry about this, and how the ALP just ignore the IT professionals, and the people it elected in. What democracy? Why not hold a referendum? I’m assuming here the ALP know this is an unpopular move, and therefore won’t give the people it represents a democratic vote. The Sydney Morning Herald Poll has had the biggest response it’s had to a poll with 96% of over 21,700 votes against the filter.
Why have we not seen a single word from Kevin Rudd about this filter?
I have so many things I want to say on this topic, but many have said them before I, however I will finish with this: the introduction of a Mandatory Filter will have me placing a Mandatory Filter on the ALP at the next voting opportunity!! If you won’t listen to us now, then so be it, but you’ll hear us loud and clear at the next election.
Oh and Kate, another question.
What do you suggest that the department or independant body (whoever they will be) -who will deem what is or isn’t appropriate for me to see, do when your wacky ACL friends start submitting hundreds of URL’s a day of any site which doesn’t meet their Hillsong standards of morality?
You can also count on the anti-filter side such as myself submitting URL’s for referral as well, ie the ACL homepage and other attached minority interest groups. Straight away this is not going to be about RC anymore. It will be about the wowser’s from the ACL actively searching for material offensive to their beliefs (their’s and certainly not mine). Us on the other hand – we will do it because we know that setting up this body is going to cost millions of dollars to construct, then many more millions to run and fund the faceless staff deciding censorship for all.
How quickly will the list of 1000 URL’s get in 6 months? How many URL’s will actually submitted before 100 sites are added to the list? What would the cost associated with submiting a complaint be for the taxpayer? But it’s for the children isn’t it? 1 Trillion websites on the internet at the moment if you only count HTML, growing at 1 million 1 day. I child has a greater chance of growing elephant ears overnight than this occuring.
I truly do not understand this bizarre argument that people who vote for a party are in total agreement with every one of the party’s stated policies and must swallow them without argument. We hate this one, and we expect the ALP to accept this.
Sorry Kate, but any party that pursues this nonsense will not be getting my vote.
I am disappointed. I understand the political reality of being a member of a party. I understand that this is a “little thing” compared to the huge changes an up-and-comer can see themselves making if they toe the party line. I know just how unreasonably it is to expect a party member to cross the floor over a policy that almost seems like it could work.
Thank you, Senator, for saying you will lobby your party internally to see changes. Perryn’s comment [#comment-12506] is cogent and explains simply why so many of us believe this policy is ill-conceived.
I’m sure you don’t need arguments against. All I can ask is that you make these arguments, vehemently, tirelessly, to others within the party. I understand your position. I thank you for your honesty. I am still disappointed that the ALP would take such a step.
Sorry AndrewS but reading all these comments I have seen many compliments on Kate’s willingness to express her views and even courage.
We are attacking the policy not her. Perhaps sometimes passionately which you confuse for not giving enough credit to the Honorable Senator.
Everything else has been said, cut to the chase.
Next election, Labor will suffer a bigger landslide defeat than Howard did at the last election.
I speak for more Australians than your party could possibly imagine.
I for one have never protested, but will take to the streets over this issue.
DON’T go there.
Political suicide.
Luke from Sydney.
PS. perhaps in the spirit of Christmas, reallocation of war funds from this “www” coup d’état to keep the buses on the road tomorrow might be money better well spent, (even if it is a State issue)
This seems to be a case of political ambition put ahead of common sense.I have seen jellyfish with more backbone than is being shown here.
The filter will never work the testing was fundamentally flawed and designed merely as a smokescreen to try and back an archaic policy dictated by the religious nut cases like the ACL.
The filter pre election was always addressed in public as having an opt-out option and mandatory for anyone. A document put out 5 days before the election means nothing other than proving the ALP say one thing and then arrogantly ignore public. The stench of this policy will linger with the labor party for ever. Any talk of Gov 2.0 and the NBN lacks any creditability while this policy exists and the creditability Kate had is lost with this “tow the party line” stance.
Prior to the 07 election, I was concerned about Labor’s internet filtering proposals, but was at least comforted enough to know that the proposals involved ISPs OFFERING a filter to users. Had Labor proposed a mandatory filter, I would never have voted for them. So it is with a great sense of betrayal that Labor are now going back on their word and proposing a filter to be enforced on all Australians.
It is also frustrating that Labor only seems to be interested in accommodating the views of the Australian Christian Lobby and ignoring IT experts, children protection groups, countless other citizens, and their own voter base.
Kate, I really do hope you can persuade Mr. Conroy to at least allow an opt-out facility for those who do not want to have their internet censored. Thank you for at least pushing for that, albeit I (and countless others) would be far happier if the plans were scrapped altogether and the government instead gave the funds to the police and other real means of combating child pornography, etc.
My chief concern with the introduction of the net filtering is that has the potential of being the thin edge of the wedge in government control over who can see what on the web.
While it is difficult to argue with an “it’s for the children” argument because that’s an emotive one, it still remains that parents need to be teaching children to be safe on the net, just as in the rest of life.
Anyone who wants to carry out illicit activity will always find a way around blocks like this.
It is personal freedom that is at stake, and that is the scary thing. How do we know when the government might decide that a particular political or social or religious viewpoint is dangerous, and bit by bit continually erode freedoms, bit by bit turning Australia into a police state / nanny state.
My chief concern with the net filtering is that it has the potential of being the thin edge of the wedge, in restricting personal freedoms.
It is difficult to argue with an argument saying “it’s for the children”, because that’s an emotive, not a logical or factual argument. What is needed is for parents to teach their children who to live safely in the world, and that’s across all spheres of life.
Anyone who wants to carry out illicit activity will always find a way around things like this.
The people of Australia have not given permission for the government to step in and restrict freedoms. How do we know how much further the government will take this, restricting access to the web based on political or social or religious perspectives because it is deeemed to be dangerous, without the people giving the right to do that?
I’m not concerned with any ratbag argument in favour of an internet filter – it’s a no-brainer and therefore pretty much puts anyone in favour of it as unworthy of any serious consideration.
What I AM concerned with is that as a 30 year plus supporter of the ALP I am now in the position of having to switch my vote – most likely to the liberal party – and you can be sure that once that decision is made it will be a permanent arrangement. If this nonsense becomes law – my vote is forever lost to the ALP. It annoys me no end that replies and statements addressing my concerns are brushed off with this kind of arrant stupidity and blatant deception. Believe me – and you labour party people may have heard something like this before eh… I know how to maintain my rage.
Mark, AFAIC you’ve squarely hit the nail on the head. I’d originally not given this much thought as I though “common sense” would show it was a no-brainer that it wouldn’t work, was easily defeated and had more downsides than up (if any). Obviously I was mistaken, won’t make that mistake at the next, or any subsquent, election again.
Well after reading this, I can safely say my vote this is one the Greens won’t be getting.
The Greens have gone from stern opponents to a foolish, wasteful and undemocratic plan to all but selling out their stance on the matter. Poor form indeed.
As a long time supporter of the Greens, it shocks and shames me this party of any out there would be one to support something more fitting for a dictatorship then a supposed democratic nation….
Pathetic.
“Finally, I want to be very clear that ultimately, as a Senator in the Labor Government I will be bound by Labor Caucus’ position on the matter.”
How tight does the party line have to tighten around your neck before you decide it’s no longer worth towing?
I’d just like to remind the Senator of a quote from an article from 2003, titled Democracy and Censorship.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/29/1059244609141.html
“When governments start covering the eyes and ears of the whole nation, however, there is a real problem. We only need to look at those governments that have taken it to the extreme and burnt books to understand that. But there are more subtle ways to inhibit the flow of ideas that we need to be just as alert to.” – Kate Lundy, Australian Labor Party Senator
It’s not too late Senator Lundy. Stand up for your principles. Cross the floor and if they boot you out run as an independant. God knows you will pick up a massive number of votes if you do.
Sorry to reply to myself, but here are a couple of other quotes from that article that apply directly to the discussion about the filter. All of these words came from Senator Lundy.
The recent controversy surrounding Ken Park in Australia shows have far we have strayed from these important principles into the simplistic world of “just ban it” thinking.
What has happened to this film has much to say about the way this Government has conducted itself, and the ugly results this is having on our national character and body politic. A hallmark of this Government has been the way it has moved by increments to have us accept situations that a few years ago would have been unthinkable.
Banning access to this and that has been a case in point. It began with Senator Alston’s trying to “ban” some content on the Internet that was legal in other media. This was a cynical political strategy to ingratiate himself with Senator Harradine when he needed votes for the original Telstra sale legislation. Alston has forever more been branded as the “world’s greatest Luddite” by the international technology press. At the same time, Labor’s calls for a sensible approach: giving parents the skills to ‘classify’ what their children accessed through supervision and filter tools at the desktop were ignored.
It is time that as citizens we reminded ourselves that the only way to maintain a healthy democracy is to expose ideas to the light of commentary and intellectual challenge. Evil grows in dark corners, not out in the full glare of public attention.
Australians should not accept that they live in the only modern country in the world too immature that make up its own mind. We are not zombies to be manipulated, we should not be told what to think, and we should not be protected from an ugly truth, any more than we should tolerate being lied to.
What a magnificent quote. Where’s THAT Kate Lundy now that the people need her?
It is interesting to observe how selective many people will become when they enter into denial…
May I suggest that many of you cease trying to take the ALP policy document, linked by Kate, out of context by taking only a portion of the statement, but be honest and take the paragraph in it’s entirety.
You then have this *complete* and context correct statement:
“That is why Labor will:
Provide a mandatory ‘clean feed’ internet service for all homes, schools and public computers that are used by Australian children. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will filter out content that is identified as prohibited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The ACMA ‘blacklist’ will be made more comprehensive to ensure that children are protected from harmful and inappropriate online material.”
Now let’s take a key styatement out of this paragraph, that many of the filter protesters seem to avoid like the plague:
“Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will filter out content that is identified as prohibited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).”
That sentence is absolutely clear and concise. No “opt-in / opt-out” clauses, no maybe, no voluntary, simply a statement of fact of what the ISPs will do.
Read it again, slowly and carefully…
Pre 2007 election, clear statement what will happen.
It was ALP policy, that is irrefutable and documented. May I also request that you cease to try and misrepresent the policy document.
Now we have a group of bitter people who are morally outraged that a political party has actually **kept their word** and implemented their pre-election promise.
Michael said:
Now let’s take a key styatement out of this paragraph, that many of the filter protesters seem to avoid like the plague:
“Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will filter out content that is identified as prohibited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).”
That sentence is absolutely clear and concise. No “opt-in / opt-out” clauses, no maybe, no voluntary, simply a statement of fact of what the ISPs will do.
The only problem with you argument is that YOU are being selective in quoting the passage. You are neglecting the fact that the quoted paragraph about filtering out content (which I agree is mandatory) comes directly after a sentence in the same paragraph (that you conveniently left out) that ties this mandatory filtering to “all homes, schools and public computers that are used by Australian children.”.
Not every computer in Australia, which is what we are looking at getting now. And that’s a big difference.
“Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will filter out content that is identified as prohibited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).”
Of course you realise that they are no longer planning to block “prohibited” content as defined in the Broadcasting Services Act, but are now planning to block RC content which is just one of the catagories defined under their definition of prohibited.
It is pretty clear this policy bears very little resemblance to what was presented a few days before the election, it is madness to try and claim they have a mandate for what we are seeing now.
Michael, the intent of Labor’s policy being mandatory for ISPs to offer and optional for subscribers was clear enough to Conroy himself, who is quoted by the ABC on 31 December 2007:
Conroy was fairly convinced, why aren’t you?
Labor has lost my vote for good until this policy is dead and buried. There’s no two ways about it.
Senetor Lundy,
First I’d like to thank you for your openness and honest, as well as your engagement with the community (being displayed right here on this page).
I have little to add to many of the other excellent comments on this page detailing the many issues with the proposed Clean Feed, I just wish to add my voice to the growing community sector who are unhappy with the proposal, and feel that their personal freedoms may be about to be infringed upon for something that is, with today’s technology, a lost cause.
I implore you to critically analyze the recent released ISP Filtering Live Pilot Report and recognize the glaring issues present in the study.
It’s not easy for me to sit at my computer and expect much of a response from a senator, even one I respect, such as yourself, but I know it would be much harder for you to risk your very livelihood in order to cross the floor on a bill such as this. Ultimately your decisions are your own, and I hope you come to the conclusion that many of us here have come to, that the currently proposed ISP level Mandatory Filter with no opt-out is an insult to the intelligent Australian public.
Thank you very much for your time and effort, I hope you continue to critically analyze this proposal.
Kind Regards,
John Baker
Kate, if you have bothered to think a little about the proposed censorship how is it that you have totally failed to perceive that the correct policy would be to require all ISPs to simply offer customers some censorship? That is all that is required. Nothing more, nothing less.
It isn’t the governments job to shape policy according to the perceived willingness or otherwise of families to freely adopt such a filter. The government’s role should merely be one of ensuring the facility is available if required.
There is no need to ruffle feathers and send us back to the 1950’s with mandatory, albeit ineffective, censorship. You risk losing all of the votes you gained at the last election, plus some.
Coincidentally it would be more-or-less the same policy that the Howard government had already implemented, and which the Rudd government, in an obvious attempt to reduce family safety, canned.
Why did the Rudd government cancel the existing filter system? What was the point of that action? Was it simply the childish behavior that we expect from politicians these days?
Kate,
I’d like to state my discomfort about your claims of the filter trials being “successful”. As one who has repeatedly demonstrated a profoundly greater understanding of the technology than Senator Conroy, you should be aware that this is misleading at the very least.
The trials confirmed that 90% of circumvention attempts will be successful (or 100%, when people learn which methods work). This came as no great surprise – any tech expert will tell you that it is impossible to stop circumvention without breaking the internet itself. As far as “mandatory” filters go, that’s clearly not a success.
They also confirmed that high traffic websites will overload the filters – also no surprise. Given the previous blacklist leaks and public understanding of what “RC” comprises, we know that high traffic websites such as Wikipedia and YouTube will be on the blacklist unless the government goes out of its way NOT to include them because they will break the filters.
Despite pushing forwards with a 100 Mbps national broadband network, the 8 Mbps upper limit of the trials isn’t a resounding endorsement of ISP filtering – at the very most, it’s a big fat question mark. It also mentions the cost of the filters as a significant drawback – which may very well send smaller ISPs under, and will cost consumers dearly for a filter they neither want nor need.
The trials were clearly set up to give the minister the answers he wanted, and avoided the most compelling arguments against the filter (speed was never the main objection, and both you and Senator Conroy know it), but they still demonstrate failings in the plan.
Even if we take it as a given that the filters are 100% accurate and don’t slow down the internet, what does that really mean? 100% accuracy in implementing a deeply flawed blacklist (as the leak earlier in the year demonstrated) isn’t a situation many Australians would want to find themselves in.
I think you realise that it is all one expensive charade, that most of the “illegal” content isn’t over the filter’s limited scope of http, and that any illegal content that is on http will be removed by international authorities far more swiftly than the several months it takes to add something to the blacklist at the moment. I also think you realise that this leaves the scope of the filter as “refused classification, but generally not illegal” – such as video games for 16-year-olds. You’re probably also aware of the severe damage this is doing to Australia’s international tech reputation.
Unfortunately Senator Conroy and the Prime Minister (as silent as he has been on this, no-one is fooled into thinking the policy isn’t endorsed at the top) won’t be swayed by logical arguments such as this. What may sway them is an understanding of how deeply unpopular this plan is – case in point: a recent http://www.smh.com.au poll showing 96% opposition to your plan! (http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/results.html) That’s about as resounding a rejection as you’re likely to get, and I’ve never seen an smh poll give such a unanimous result before.
Just drop the word “mandatory” and almost everyone will be happy except the ACL, who won’t be happy anyway because what they really want banned is ALL R18+ content and higher.
I understand your hands are tied, but Labor really has to ask itself what it has to gain in implementing such a woefully futile and authoritarian plan.
Yeah, I understand the frustration that Kate might not be doing more. I also have also been following her genuine efforts to help the Australian online (and offline) community, as well as the broader ICT sector, for 10 years now and it takes more than this statement to drive me away. It is an apology, even if inadequate.
Part of me WOULD like to see Kate cross the floor – but I worry that would be part of her political demise, and that would mean one more light of reason would go out.
Kate has already made it clear that her personal position on net filtering has cost her a potential ministry for Digital Economy or IT. She has relatively little leverage. But is there another way?
We could put pressure on the govt to include some kind of opt in/out mechanisms. This would be relatively simple for the govt to do, and would not alienate too many voters .. err, people. Something that returns to the original commitment made, as mentioned by earlier posters.
Like many reading this, I honestly feel despair about the gradual erosion of individual rights in this country, especially over the last decade since 9/11. It is one great big black mark (or perhaps many of them) on this wonderful country of ours.
Hm…
If your electors wouldn’t vote for you as an independant, are you really a successful politician?
Those who comment here that Senator Lundy should cross the floor are living in a fool’s paradise. Senator Lundy does not own her Senate position. Her seat in the Senate belongs to the ALP. She was elected as a Labor member of the Senate, and she is there to represent those who put her there – namely ALP members who preselected her & ALP voters who elected her.
Do not delude yourselves into painting all sorts of philosophical ideals about her crossing the floor. If she does not wish to follow party policy, she can resign from the Senate and the Party and be replaced by someone who will.
This is, of course, a separate issue to whether the filter under discussion *is* party policy. Which the quotes dug up by contributors clearly indicate it is not.
This issue has become for me another nail in the coffin of my Party involvement and after 14 years in the party, several of which involved holding administrative offices and staffer roles at Federal and state levels, I am wrapping up my ALP membership. Not this filter alone, but issues such as the ETS and the NT Intervention have also contributed to this result.
And for the record, several ACT ALP branches have passed motions condemning the filter being proposed by Senator Conroy. He is acting against the party’s grassroots and policies, and should be censured for doing so.
“I am also firm in my belief that this debate does not diminish the exciting work we are doing with the NBN, in Gov 2.0 and other areas of ICT policy. I will always be committed to realising our ICT-related social and economic potential.”
I applaud your efforts to engage the internet community and to open up debate on this and other issues. However, as you have probably already observed, whenever you open up a line of dialogue with the internet community, you are always going to get people posting in opposition to the mandatory censorship policy. It doesn’t even matter what the topic of conversation is. This policy clouds any other IT policies the government introduces. You can’t just ask people to ignore the big white elephant in the room.
Senator – did you not once say that “Evil grows in dark corners, not out in the full glare of public attention”. Also “we are not zombies to be manipulated, we should not be told what to think, and we should not be protected from an ugly truth, any more than we should tolerate being lied to.”
You say that you will follow the Labor Caucus on the matter of internet filtering but it has already been shown that a) the report data does not add up and is, at best, cherry picked and b) this will do NOTHING to prevent a determined child from accessing anything they wish to. This will only hide the child’s activities from their parents, allowing evil to continue to grow in the plain view of internet chat, instant messaging, etc. Are you not asking the Australian people to blindly comply with a poorly conceived, shoddily aimed and badly executed law?
Why re invent the wheel?
Optional,Personal, Effective protection is already available in software solutions such as NET NANNY, anyone seriously concerned about unsavory content will have already installed such a program. Are these companies and their customers to be compensated when their sofftware is rendered redundant by an act of parliment?
But it’s not about protection from porn is it? And it’s not about anything less than censorship and controll.
We don’t believe the lies anymore, we have the internet, we can read……….
oh hang on, what if I get filtered, no one will hear me………..
There seems to be a very big lets say problem for people promoting this Mandatory censorship as a tool to protect children online. Firstly its also Mandatory for all Australian adults. So in other words, its either going to miss the mark completely on actually encompassing inappropriate material for children or it encompasses much more content and drags every adult down to a child friendly level. Watching Sesame Street all day doesn’t particularly interest me.
The 2nd ‘opt-in’ tier seems to be stillborn. Although I’m sure ISPs that already provide filtering will grab some extra cash from the government. Fully completing the picture of Stephen Conroy to not notice when hes being hoodwinked. (I wonder why Anthony Pillion from Webshield was so for this? $$$$$)
Lastly this puts our Country into a position on being labeled hypocrites when our Government members criticize other Countries for censoring their internet. Rudd did make a big fuss about China doing this very thing.
“I use the Internet and I Vote”…SMH Poll has what, 95% (of thousands) opposed? There’s a couple of senators down the tube…
Nuts.
A few comments on the Cyber Safety policy.
“Some of the deficiencies in the Howard Government’s approach are:
implementation of an $84.8 million PC-filtering program, where the filters are easily bypassed and rendered ineffective, as was demonstrated in August 2007 by a 16 year old school boy”
Its hard not to be rude. When its a fact anyone can bypass the Labor filter and this fact is simply pushed under the rug by Conroy. The stupid really is beginning to hurt.
“wasting $22 million of tax-payers’ money on a public awareness and education campaign, which uses fear tactics to get its message out”
*cries* Not much else to say about that one.
“the NetAlert website provides:
inadequate and age-inappropriate material”
Pot-kettle-black.
“Labor’s ISP policy will prevent Australian children from accessing any content that has been identified as prohibited by ACMA, including sites such as those containing child pornography and X-rated material.”
Remember people, they have never talked about blocking anything other then “almost exclusively refused classification” I implore anyone to watch SBS insight again. I seriously hope Conroy knows how ‘Prohibited’ is defined under the Broadcasting and Services act.
“While the Government has implemented its Protecting Australian Families Online program, it is simply not good enough. The message isn’t getting out there, the PC filters can be bypassed andAustralian children are at risk.
This will be remedied by Labor’s Cyber-safety Policy.”
*bangs head against wall*
I have to add here that the ALP’s polacy was snuck under the radar, it wasn’t part of their advertising, and only got a mention in a tiny article. The polacy was only brought to my attention well after the election was over, because I happened to be part of one of the nonpedophile groups affected by this. Rest assured, I will be bypassing any filter put in place. To make such bypassing illegal would truely be moronic and against human rights.
There is already enough legislation made on “moral” grounds, based on one group’s view of right and wrong, drawn from a bible based in significantly different times without the knowledge and situations we now have. Let’s not add another piece of legislation whose clear aim is to assist religious groups force their beliefs on me. I don’t force mine on them, don’t allow them to force theirs on me.
In cyberspace no one can hear you scream – Conroy has filtered you!!!
I’ll keep it simple.
It just makes me sad that a person like you Kate Lundy that I have looked upto as an example of what a politician should be has proven me so wrong. I don’t expect much from politicians but I honestly believed you were different.
RC content is filtered by this plan.
What constitutes RC Content?
in the erotic sense of this, this can include a scene where a man and woman in a consentual relationship, make love, and in this scene, the man strokes the woman over her body with a feather.
This will automatically recieve an RC rating from the government, and is not only _currently_ illegal to view in my own state of Western Australia, but will be filtered by the proposed internet filter.
“Fetishes such as body piercing, application of substances such as candle wax, “golden showers”, bondage, spanking or fisting are not permitted.
…
Fetish: An object, an action or a non-sexual part of the body which gives sexual gratification.”
Source: Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games & Internet Content (Available to view here: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/A3B39BA36F22DFE5CA25700D0029AEE4?OpenDocument )
This filter, by the direct interpretation of the current classification guidelines, can block 95% of the pornography in the internet for australians, Not simply the child pornogrpahy or rape/violent sexual content. (which is not on the WWW anyway).
Not only does the filter legislation need to be looked at, this brings to light the incredible flaws and innapropriateness for our more openly sexual culture of the current classification system.
Kate, this is the second time in a short period where you have announced that you will not be crossing the floor on a matter that I consider very important to vote with your conscience.
It doesn’t matter what restrictions the Labor party is putting on you – saying that you can’t cross the floor is only proving that not only on this matter but on any other critical matter that comes, I cannot rely on you to vote against the party position if you think it is wrong. I have no choice but to put you on the bottom of my preferences in the future, and I will be reminding everyone I know in the Canberra electorate to do the same.
Senator Lundy, I am very disappointed to learn that you support Internet censorship. This filter will, in all certainty, prevent adults in their own home from viewing perfectly legal content. This is not speculation on my part; it is accepted fact – the blacklist will contain RC material.
While Senator Conroy keeps telling us that CleanFeed is to prevent child pornography, it will not do anything of the sort. Not a single site on the leaked blacklist contained any child pornography. All it takes is for one person to be offended by perfectly legal content, and for ACMA to agree that it is “offensive”, and the result is censorship of completely legal material. RC is not the same as illegal!
I do not care how successful the “trials” were or how much the technology has improved. It is completely irrelevant; CleanFeed is not acceptable in any form.
I will never vote for any person or party that supports this policy. Judging from the reactions I’ve read so far on the Internet, I believe there are many more that feel the same way. I hope you allow common sense to prevail, realise that governments should have no part in deciding what legal material consenting adults should be allowed to view, and re-think your views, even if that means disagreeing with Labor’s official position.
I have a one word reaction to this blog post.
Pathetic.
And by pathetic I mean your arguments for supporting the filter are pathetic.
Hopefully Kate Lundy and Pia can see from the strong comments coming from this blog give an indication of what the public views this policy to be.
I would be disheartened in my faith of government to actually listen to their constituents and people that put them in office in the first place.
As all of the core issues (and many of the satellite issues) have been comprehensively addressed already, I’ll not rehash them. Suffice to say, I’m gobsmaked that any (supposedly) democratic Government would continue down the road of censorship despite such massive public opposition and arrogantly treat every voter with unbridled, naked contempt. It’s a telling sign that Senator Conroy thinks we’re all so stupid that we can’t see that this censorship is being driven by Christian lobby groups; the same groups that are now expressing their desire to have anything they consider “immoral” added to the black-list. Senator Conroy’s eagerness to please these over-bearing Bible-Thumpers is a dire warning to anyone who doesn’t want their internet connection to resemble an episode of “Touched by an Angel”.
I have no doubt that the political fallout from this debacle will unceremoniously end Senator Conroy’s political career. With the odious stain of mandatory censorship on his hands, the only vote he’ll win is “Biggest Miscreant of the Decade”.
Kate, don’t think for a minute that he’ll be lonely in Pariahville. The public will remember who backed this lame horse policy and there will be consequences. Even now, all your hard work in becoming a trusted champion of IT related issues is being undone. That gurgling noise is your credibility going down the drain, closely followed by the trust the Australian people have placed in you.
Remember, it’s the people who put you in the position you now occupy and we’ll happily cast you out if you don’t do the job we employed you to do; represent us.
I’m sure you’ll be shocked by the cartoons of your Senator Conroy on this page http://www.lolconroy.com/interview/index.htm but if you are limited by your party affiliation from stating your true feelings then feel free to laugh your a***’s off.
I hope this injects a lighter moment for you and your clear minded colleagues.
I do feel for you in having to wade through all these comments. If you are actually against the filter it must be very hard to maintain the party line. If you are for the filter you must be feeling a little overwhelmed by the consistency of the views put to you.
Cheer up. What can it cost you? Only re-election I guess. And that is a price far less than what it will cost the Australian public who have their reputation as living in a tolerant, liberal, western democracy at stake.
“Unfortunately, such a short memory regarding the debate in 1999 about internet content has led the coalition to already offer support for greater censorship by actively considering proposals for unworkable, quick fixes that involve filtering the internet at the ISP level.” – Sen Kate Lundy 2003.
How is the memory Kate? This statement directly contradicts what your doing now.
Kate, I am entirely comfortable for people being able to choose their level of exposure to internet content, provided there remains an unfiltered option. My major concern is the effect that the implementation of filtering will have on the speed of content delivery. Australia is already hugely behind the US, the UK and most of Asia in its internet speeds,bandwidth and pricing. As we are now experiencing a huge growth in content delivery over the internet for information, entertainment and education, failure to keep abreast with the technology will have long term effects on the ability for Australians to compete on an international stage.
How is this going to be addressed in the possible implementation of filtering?
Paul is correct. That’s what Conroy said, and at the time the debate on the issue was why should anyone have to opt out, those who want it should be the ones to opt in.
The original policy was never to be mandatory for users and the Government knows it.
So what we have now is a broken election promise.
“I do believe that the intention of this policy remains noble – to protect our young and vulnerable. ”
I believe that the intention of the policy remains to pander to religious groups.
I find many of the comments in response to the note by Senator Lundy unproductive. By all means disagree but please play the ball not the person and be well mannered.
If you disagree say so but there is no point in personal attacks. If you disagree say so but try to give some constructive suggestions or alternatives.
Here are a few.
1. Provide ways for ISPs, web browsers, independent groups to provide filter lists.
2. Provide default lists for everyone and a mechanism to implement lists.
3. Make sure that people can change to different lists but they are the only ones who know to what list they have changed.
The underlying problem with Conroy’s approach is the assumption that “the government will protect us” and that is difficult if not impossible to achieve. An alternative, that could be acceptable to Conroy and fit in with whatever promises were made at the elections, is for the government to help us protect ourselves if we want protection or if we can’t be bothered.
Who’s making ad hominem attacks here exactly?
You obvisouly don’t understand how the Internet works if you think it is that simple. You are now asking the ISP to route your traffic through a different path depending on what list YOU wish to apply. This kind of filtering cannot work at the ISP level efficently – it is something that can only be applied by the consumer…
I feel very disenchanted to be called an Australia. For one I didn’t vote labor and another thing I never vote for the internet to be filtered.
Sure cyber safety is a real issue and I am all for keeping children safe.
But I have no children and not planing on having any my Internet shouldn’t need to be filtered. I have never stumbled across any child porn ever on the internet nor I go out and look for it either.
I believe in parenting as in installing a end user filter on their pc’s and not having the government to hold the parents hands. Also a well supervised PC is also imperative.
I find it very hypocritical of the government slamming China for their internet censorship and now our government is planning to go down the same road.
This is nothing to do with protecting the children its about control. The ACL is also wanting to control the masses with their religious agenda’s pushed down everyone’s throats.
I am an athiest and will always be one and I find it completely disrespectful that the ACL and Government is trying to push their moral agenda on everyone.
Politics and religion should always be separate. Religion should never be used as a tool to enforce powers of control on everyone.
And Conroys filter test resaults are nothing but an insult and a joke. 100% accurate? I don’t think so I take those ‘accurate’ test results to be completely false.
Its an insult to our country and Conroy should be held accountable to completely mislead Australia with such bogus results.
It will have an effect on performance and what happens if the filter systems crash?
Would the ISP’s have to stop delivery of their data to the customers until its fixed? or face a $27,500 fine each day?.
What happens to the smaller ISP?s will they be able to fit the bill for the installation and maintenance of the filter?
And most of all our internet costs is extremely high so how much extra does the customer have to fork out?.
In a nut shell its a waste of tax payers money and it makes Australia looks like a complete joke.
I am no longer proud to be called an Aussie its a sad day for me to even say that.
Please Kate voice in your opinion and please for the sake of Australia don’t support this filter.
Kate, your words seem to do little for the situation.
As people above have stated this is a pure smoke and mirrors trick that is being pulled and your comments have literally stated that even if your were against it you are powerless to do anything – this is of great concern to your constituency, as you are their representation (their voice) in parliament.
1. The filter will not block the _real_ content
2. The filter will not block nearly enough content to make a difference to those as its proposed aim (children)
3. The laws provided by the filter will allow great misuse in future
4. The filter will take money away from other policies that _can_ make a difference to children such as the AFP’s online department
5. (HOW CAN YOU MISS THIS) the overwhelming majority of australia ( ever poll has been over 90% against!!) are against it
What else is there to discuss? The problem won’t be resolved, the peoples needs won’t be met, and the future of censorship in australia will be brought into question – And after all of this you state you are unable to help as you “are bound by labor caucous”.
If this is the case, and australia remains a democracy your future as a representative of your area will not last.
Wake up and make a difference
“I do believe that the intention of this policy remains noble – to protect our young and vulnerable.”
Kate, the same thing could be argued for the Stolen Generation, that the government’s intentions were noble and righteous. A government and its members will be judged on their actions not their words, or even their intentions.
One of my concerns is that this policy is designed to;
“Provide a mandatory ‘clean feed’ internet service for all homes, schools and public computers that are used by Australian children.”
This trial was only run on connections at ADSL1/ADSL1+ speeds (8Mb), and not on connections of 100Mb and higher. SABRENET, VERNET, AARNET, the Rudd Governments “Smart Schools:Smart Students” program underway in the ACT and the other Research and Education providers are provisioning links at 100Mb, 1Gb, 10Gb, and, in some cases, experimental connections at 45Gb, with 90Gb optics already on the horizon. How can we be sure that the Backbone (in both senses of the word) of our teaching and learning network won’t be hobbled by the introduction of this filter without proper testing? This was aimed squarely at ISP’s, without consideration of it’s impact on primary, secondary and higher Education. UniMelb is a HPC compute node for CERN, how effective will their contribution be if there is a filter looking at every part of a HTTP-transferred datastream coming in from the LHC.
Secondly, the filters were not tested for compatibility with ipv6. with internode running an ipv6 trial underway, and more and more ISP’s and hosting companies offering v6 addresses, why wasn’t this highlighted and specifically tested? Surely if Australia wants to be at the forefron of innovation, we should be looking forward past the next election (or two), and securing our capabilities to engage and participate in research opportunities that cross international borders.
Ms Lundy, I was sickened to have to read the weasel words you have written here. I know you have been forced to back down from your anti-censorship position. The Labor politics of today does not permit public dissent. But that just means we have to fight harder. Senator Conroy is not dealing openly and honestly. A more duplicitous politian would be hard to find.
There is no place in a free country for mandatory internet censorship. All talk of internet nasties is an obvious diversion to cover the true aim. You know this. You have written on this point in the past. Censorship is insidious.
Anybody who fears the internet can already purchase a configurable filter. The only purpose for a mandatory filter is to suppress free speech. Nobody here wants to force an unfiltered internet on unwilling users. But you should not force a censored internet on unwilling users either.
Please publicly retract your support for this deeply flawed and dangerous proposal. I’d like to think that at least one politican is on the side of logic, sense and openness.
This is a stupid blog. The internet filter will not work as it will slow down and decrease our already slow internet speeds. Thank you for censoring our freedom!!!
Very interesting reading guys, it is refreshing to read sensible and well considered dialogue on any comments page about this topic.
Kate you mention that the tests were successful, but this is subjective. What the tests prove is that it is technically possible in a lab to filter a small list of sites (1000) for a small number of people at 8 meg speeds without a noticeable impact.
In the real world, the list of URL’s will inevitably increase, as will the bandwidth, so the scalability of the solution remains in question?
Once committed to this legislation, the gov’t will have little option but to throw money at this problem. It’s a Gov’t IT project after all, so there is a very good chance the overall cost may well spiral.
After spending many more millions of public money than was initially ear marked, we are left with a filter that can not stop bad people from doing bad things, and can not protect children from the many inherent dangers of the internet; in fact it has the potential to lull parents in to a false sense of security and leave children more exposed.
It has been said many times that this solution is not a silver bullet.
I would go further and suggest that it’s actually a billion dollar suppository.
If you are for internet censorship you are for child porn – http://www.streetcorner.com.au/news/showPost.cfm?bid=12886&mycomm=WC
The public is against the filter. Why is it even being considered? Maybe it is time to fire our ignorant employees in Government.
Party loyalty above the most basic principles of liberty and freedom.
Political survivalism above ethical standards and integrity.
Doing what your gang of insiders want instead of doing what you know is right.
Ignore democracy in favour of the elite in caucus.
Rob and trounce the weak and have the audacity to justify your actions in their name.
Disgraceful and appalling.
Give us our right to choose. It’s *our* right – and not the ALP’s *priviledge* to take it away.
So here are a few points from the “Labors plan for cyber safety” document.
Recent media reports have noted the growth of incidents such as:
- online identity theft;1
- cyber-bullying;2
- abuse of child avatars in virtual worlds;3
- computer addiction;4
- an increase in the number of registered profiles of sex offenders on MySpace;5 and
- online breaches of privacy such as the posting of sexual photos and sex videos by students.6
Children face issues such as:
-having their identities appropriated by others;
-having photos or videos of themselves published online without their permission;
-suffering from computer and/or internet addiction;
-being traced by strangers from details they have entered online;
-being the subject of cyber-bullying;
-picking up a virus or trojan or being the victim of a phishing attack; or
-inadvertently downloading illegal content when file-sharing.
So you plan to implement the following to “save the children of our world” from the above:
“A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a ‘clean feed’ internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries.
Labor’s ISP policy will prevent Australian children from accessing any content that has been identified as prohibited by ACMA, including sites such as those containing child pornography and X-rated material.”
Clearly you need to ban what ever you are smoking. I agree the issues mentioned above are issues in our society, education is definatley needed, some form of intervention may be required (such as federal police investigations on child pornography and other such illegal crimes). However you will be a fool to believe that a mandatory filter will prevent any of the above!
Have you spoken to any unbiased IT experts that do not have a “interest” in the adoption of such a filter?
- online identity theft; – Filter’s will not prevent this
- cyber-bullying; – Filter’s will not prevent this
- abuse of child avatars in virtual worlds; – Filter’s will not prevent this
- computer addiction; – Filter’s will prevent this!!! thats right, why? all you will be able to see is KRUDD! that would be enough to cure any addiction.
- an increase in the number of registered profiles of sex offenders on MySpace; – you could filter Myspace, or any other social networking site, i can see the court cases starting as the government get sued for loss of revenue if all of Australia was blocked from social networking sites. As for preventing sex offenders from creating profiles, your filter will not achieve this.
- online breaches of privacy such as the posting of sexual photos and sex videos by students. – The filter cannot prevent this. There are millions of sites that students can post too, are you going to filter the whole WWW? even then it’ll take weeks before a site is filtered, only for the next to pop up.
Now lets look at the issues our children face:
-having their identities appropriated by others;
-having photos or videos of themselves published online without their permission;
-suffering from computer and/or internet addiction;
-being traced by strangers from details they have entered online;
-being the subject of cyber-bullying;
-picking up a virus or trojan or being the victim of a phishing attack; or
-inadvertently downloading illegal content when file-sharing.
None of the above can be resolved by a mandatory filter successfully.
Yes i agree that there are issues with the content on the net. Yes i agree there has to be education and monitoring. But wasting Tax payers money on implementing a filter that will not prevent any of the arguments in relation to child safety that you present is a complete JOKE!
That’s a great post. Thanks Peter G
From reports I’ve seen (I work at a Canberra-based ISP), the trial that has been conducted was on a fixed group of URLs and seeing if these could be blocked. This is what the 100% success result Senator Conroy is quoting seems to have come from.
But of course, the web is not a static universe. Pages change. Websites are set up and closed down and moved all the time. So Senator Conroy’s proposed “dynamic” filter will need to check the data as it passes through the ISPs servers.
It is here that the data will be slowed.
So his test thus far as managed to prove that something that isn’t his proposal works. *clap* *clap* *clap* what an achievement with taxpayer funds.
Now, if we do move to a dynamic filter, as proposed by the Minister, which will slow the data (despite spin from the Minister saying his tests showed it wouldn’t – but they didn’t), noone seems to have considered that the ISPs do not currently have such hardware in their server rooms. So they’ll have to buy it. And ISP owners aren’t going to fund such things out of their own pockets, they’ll charge their customers the cost.
So, ladies and gentlemen, Senators and staffers, what we’ve got on the table is a filter that will slow you down, restrict your access to information (legitimate or otherwise) AND cost you more.
Pia & Kate – let’s see you win votes with *that* slogan.
There’s really no dilemma Kate.
You are either a representative of the people who voted for you or an apologist and collaborator for a bad decision by a political party. The fact is you got to be a Senator by votes from your electorate, nothing more nothing less.
This is just another example of the ‘government’ focussing on irrelevancies. To align yourself with such stupidity is just plain dumb.
In short you have lost at least one vote – mine.
Kate, I think you guys have totally underestimated the reaction among your support base. I’ve voted Labor all my life, but implementing a China/Iran-style firewall is taking things too far. Enough is enough. You won’t be getting my vote next election, and based on a straw poll of my friends, you’ve lost their votes too.
But Kate, the really sad thing is I’ve always held you in high regard. I was surprised and disappointed for you that you didn’t get the Communications portfolio when you came to power in 07. I’ve always thought you had your head switched on the right way. But the fact that you’ll stick by caucus on this is not good enough. That’s a spineless response. So now you join the ranks of the other Hypocrite – Garrett.
Labor has never been perfect, but you’ve always been better on social policy than the Libs. But in doing this – not only are you no different – you’re actually worse than the libs.
Time to give someone else a go. Hello the Greens.
They’re probably counting on you voting Green 1, Labor 2, which means Labor still gets you vote.
Not so much in the Senate, particularly if the next election turns out to be a double dissolution election. Enough Green votes there should hand a number of Labor seats to the Greens, particularly with many not intending to put Labor no. 2, but at the bottom with One Nation where they belong.
With Labor preferencing Family First above the Greens, I’m willing to bet the more politically informed Green voters know where they stand and will be doing much the same.
I just went to Alexa, and dumped the top 100 sites visited by Australians currently.
The following one’s will be blocked by the filter, or possibly blocked:
Youtube.com – Probably not but some videos might be. Big load on a filter.
liveprivates.com Ranked 37th (NSW govt homepage just below it)
redtube.com Ranked 46th (Just under the VIC govt webpage)
pornhub.com 49th. Beats digg.com and just below carsales.com.au
partypoker.com 53rd. Might not get blocked but Xenophon would like it blocked. Ranks above St George Bank
youporn.com 56th. Beats Paypal!
Thepiratebay.org 58th. Between Paypal and Adobe.
mininova.org 62nd. Beats Whitepages.
isohunt.com 74th, just above Yellowpages.
tube8.com 80th, beats Australian Post site easily.
That’s 10 sites. Or 10% of Australians most popular websites potentially blocked. If I’m kind and drop the one’s that may get away with being not included, that leaves 8 sites or 8%.
BTW, I’m contacting all the bands that play at the Big Day Out.
They play to 10′000’s of Australians and I’m urging them to speak out against Labors filter plan.
Telstra’s proposed internet filtering policy of blocking access to non Telstra DNS servers will cause harm to lots of businesses, both small and large, that operate their own internal DNS servers, that must be allowed on a periodic basis to connect to external root DNS servers.
You can count me as another person to never trust labor again. Your support for this is outrageous, you don’t even have the guts to stand up against what is fundamentally wrong and hide behind the same bs as your peers.
Content being given an RC classification is the definition of censorship as it means that you as a government decided which LEGAL content the population is not allowed to see.
People like Conroy manage to hide this little fact behind a propaganda campaign about blocking child porn. It’s misleading, it’s criminal and it’s utterly undemocratic to put in place what based on every opinion poll out there 95% of the Australian population is opposed too.
This country is allowed to becom a facist dictatorship thanks to politicians like yourself.
I hope that the government doesn’t get too complacent in estimating public opinion. It isn’t just the tech savvy or the children that oppose mandatory filtering. I’m middle-aged and even my elderly parents think that this is a bad idea. Australian-born and immigrant Australians alike mistrust moralistic attitudes, curtailing free speech and the wasting of their tax dollars.
Even at the most superficial back-fence gossip level, this is a vote loser Ms Lundy. Tell your colleagues that they are backing the wrong horse.
You are a disgusting spineless criminal. You enrich yourself by destroying freedom in Australia, and you wouldn’t be mourned if you disappeared forever from the political scene. You disgust me more than the criminals who make child porn, because your crimes have millions of victims, and you still illegitimately retain and demand the respect of the community. You are an appalling criminal and you should resign, and spend the rest of your life paying back your ill gotten salary and pension.
PS: If you censor my post due to me including links in it, please email it back to my mail address, I’ll edit the links and resubmit.
Thanks.
Grant. Thank you for reminding me of what Conroy said. At the time I did read the Hansard of that exchange Between Conroy and Ludlum. I didn’t really digest how offensive Conroy’s response was. But upon reading it again I do.
That has to be the most disgusting comment by an honourable [?????] member of paliament that I have seen in 34 years of human life. There is comparison with what Ludlum may have said. A “great wall of China” pales into insignificance compared to child pron. I’m no shrink. But I reckon that based on that comment and other stuff from Conroy [such as getting his staff to contact Mark Newton's employer, breaking promises to Fiona Patten about the filter not censoring legal adult sex content] that Conroy is what is called in the psych lit a sociopath or psychopath. I see such an utter lack of moral basic sense or empathetic function. And I say this as a realist who expects scant morals from politicians.
That accusation towards Ludlum is SO bad that if I had to choose between him and Jack the Ripper for the senate I would vote 1 Ripper.
This guy has got to go from the senate. It will hard to kick his butt into the political wilderness but we have to try. I will put him last below the line before I do anything else. I feel sorry for people who don’t live in Vic so they don’t get such an opportunity.
Kate I have been a strong supporter of your position on internet censorship in the past but I find it absolutely shocking that you will support your parties position on this matter.
There comes a day when individuals need to stand up for what is right and you have a chance to be a shining light of commonsense within the Labor Party. If you cave in to the demands of the Caucus then you merely become yet another self-serving puppet of the Labor Party.
I for one will will never support a democratic government that wants to impose any form of mandatory internet censorship. If the Labor Party continues down this path I will not be voting Labor at the next election.
I am bitterly disappointed in your comments and your stance on this issue and I dearly hope you change your mind before it is too late.
What rubbish, this is almost like something out of a George Orwell novel, I understand the concerns of protecting children from some of the content on the Internet , but this is a sorry excuse for lazy disfunctional parenting, they should be responsible enough to deal with this, why is the Australian government treating everyone like children?
Hi Kate,
Thanks for posting this, but unfortunately, like all of the other commenters, I have to disagree strongly.
A policy announced 5 days before the election and then modified on the run is in no way a mandate. The obvious deception of Minister Conroy in his dealings here is the most troubling aspect of all of this. I have 2 young children; there’s no way I would assume that a government mandated filter would protect them in any sense from the issues they may encounter using the internet. To do so would be moronic. It’s impossible for me to imagine that an RC filter implemented by one government will not be abused politically by a future government. Reluctantly, after almost 20 years of voting for and supporting the ALP, I will no longer be an ALP voter. Unfortunately this will be the case regardless of the outcome of this legislation, since I feel that the deception behind it casts your party’s shadow in a very bad light indeed.
Children and Saftey.
Yes cars kill children but we do not deny access to them. Children cross roads and many children have been killed. Children travel in cars and many are killed by them. Children cannot drive cars but adults can.
Yes children drown. They drown in pools, creeks, rivers and beaches. Safety precautions and education assist to lowering children drowning numbers but we don’t deny adults.
Yes the internet has some issues that children do not need exposure to but it will not lead to the death of children. Why deny adults access? An all-for-one resriction doesn’t apply to death and life situations so why would it apply to the internet.
The mandatory filter equates to the mandatory sentancing that once existed in the Northern Terrirory. It is a fix that takes us back to the 50’s. Welcome back McCarthyism. Welcome back witch trials.
How many Australian citizens will be charged and publically humiliated for bipassing the filter before stupidity is removed?
Senator Lundy,
Happy to see you are now toeing the party (Conroy) line. Bring on the next election and it will be good to see you still toeing the party (conroy) line from the opposition benches.
Cheers
Paul Danyluk
Kate – You will have to make your own choice on how important freedom of speech is and how you will be remembered. You were one of the people who has spoken out against internet censorship and understand the issues.
In history, there are many instances of “I was only following orders”.
Everybody has choices. It is whether you are willing to live with the consequences of that choice.
- Your move.
Hi all,
Please stop posting on this blog, Senator Lundy definitely do not appreciate that each and everyone of you opposing this wonderful policy.
It is highly inappropriate to reject the collective wisdom of our elected and respected Senator Lundy and Conroy’s policy especially in this most sacred and joyful season of Christmas. Please I implore you all, netizens to stop this mindless attack on the credibility, effectiveness, and logicality of this policy. Think of the children! Don’t think about anything else, it’s all about the children! I can’t understand why do you all have to be so self-serving and not think of the children?
It is the government decision and just like the war on terror it is for the good of the nation and correct me if I’m wrong, there’s absolutely nothing you can do to change this goodwill commitment. So please bring your constructive criticism somewhere else, I don’t want to see them here.
Please don’t even try equating this great Southern land to third world countries like Cuba, People’s Republic of China, Iran, and North Korea who implemented internet CENSORSHIP rather than FILTERING. Don’t get confused, they are absolutely different in every sense.
I’m also sick of having to read every ridiculous accusations, wild conspiracy theories, and cynical comments being posted here, it amounts to cyberbullying and harrassment to Senator Lundy. Despite her position as a public figure she is still a human being and thus as vulnerable as you and I. Don’t be so mean.
I should report all of you to ACMA so you can enjoy being on the list and get filtered. I can’t help but noticing that this blog has also become full of inappropriate comments, I should immediately report this to ACMA to stop children and any other vulnerable people from inadvertently being exposed to these unhealthy materials.
For extra cyber safety this festive season please unplug your modem and keep it somewhere safe, I believe this is a mandatory workaround while the filter is not implemented yet. Merry Christmas Everyone!!!
Yours Truly,
Victor H
Let’s see some disclosure Victor. Are you a member of the ACL? Do you have any connection to the ALP? Any association with an IT firm that will be called upon to help waste the government’s money?
If Kate did not wish to receive comments she would have disabled them, censored the negative comments, or not even blogged in the first place. In any case, I’m sure she’s glad for your glowing comment.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Satire
RC content does not equal illegal content. This Labour government is the last one that will ever have my vote.
I am disgusted that you could support this rubbish.
If you are blocking more than illegal content how far do you take it. Next you will be blocking websites critical of the government, but we won’t know will we?
While most of us who have read even one of the arguments against this are slapping our heads in disbelief there are apparently positives:
“This is also a unique opportunity because no other government in the world has provided financial incentives to ISPs to implement a service which can be so readily sold on to customers.
“We envisage that customers will be willing to pay an additional $5 per month on top of their broadband services to have that higher level of filtering,” Mancer said
http://www.watchdoginternational.com.au/index.php/press-releases/51-watchdog-press-releases/134-watchdog-launches-hosted-filtering-services-in-australia
So it takes the company that “supplied filtering systems to three of the nine ISPs involved in the recent Australia government filtering trials at the Enex Test Laboratory” to point out the “unique opportunity” this provides for Australian ISP businesses, and there I was thinking that this whole scheme presented the Australian Government as backward and naive:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/like-china-iran-australia-filter-internet/
I agree with the majority of comments so will not repeat the excellent points that have been made. I just want to add my weight to the interpretation of the policy and ‘community expectation’ prior to the last election.
I have followed this issue with interest from its first mention and would never have cast my first (and probably last) vote for Labour if it wasn’t very clear to me at the time that there would be an opt-out option for any filter implemented.
Good work on the blog though, its great to see a politician actually using the internet effectively and even appearing to read the comments.
This is horrible Chinese style Internet censorship. Kate, you admit that it won’t even work when you say: “Conroy has never said is that the filter will guarantee people will never be exposed to RC content”.
If parents want to protect their children they should choose it for themselves. You can’t treat me like a child and get away with it. This is about controlling free speech. This Labor government has no respect for free speech or democracy. This is the most fascist Australian government ever. I was a Labor/Green voter before this fascist totalitarian government. Labor is toast at the next election.
Just like policing pool fences and introducing on the spot fines for faulty enclosures, once again we allow parents to abrogate their responsibility and engender the flawed notion that the state will look after you ftom birth to death and that we should put total trust in our overloards , much the same as “Seig…..”.
Its a shame so many can be deceived so as to put their faith in so few, and with so little scrutiny and accountability.
Hi Kate,
You talk of an ‘opt-out’ option (or ‘opt-in). This really should be enabled. It should not be mandatory for all, that is just making Australia like China and Iran.
If this filter ever gets off the ground, it must not become mandatory. That is the main problem so many are having with it. A mandatory filter also being put in place allows the government to block any sites or opinions or things they do not want known. Maybe not this current government, but once the mandatory filter is in place, future governments may abuse the system and just block anything they disagree with.
If there absolutely must be a filter.. fine, do it but don’t make it mandatory for all. There needs to be an opt out or opt in system, where the internet isn’t censored for those who don’t wish it to be.
Ms Lundy, it is incredibly sad to see your comments on this page, given that I would have thought you would be one of the few politicians to have some idea of what the internet is about, and the incredible danger this appalling legislation represents. I urge you to read Ms Penny Sharpe’s (MLC, NSW) blog post and the huge numbers of responses thanking her for it. You have a very angry public on this issue. Why? Because this is not a Liberal versus Labor issue any more; it is a People versus Politicians issue, and the people are getting no say. You are in Parliament to represent the interests of the people. Those people are now crying out in their thousands that they do not want this legislation, despite the lockstep response of both major parties. The Herald’s poll is running 96% to 2% against Senator Conroy’s legislation. You and your parliamentary colleagues are blithely and flatly abrogating your responsibility to represent us, and there is an apparent bunker mentality coming from Senator Conroy about this (his ignoring the expert opinion on filtering which says it will be almost totally ineffective, his refusal to talk to the newspapers, his lack of response to mail sent to him). This issue is taking Australia down a very dark path, one that is deeply embarrassing for us as a nation in the eyes of other nations and also in the eyes of the historians who will judge us.
You stated that “the Rudd Labor Government is convinced it will encourage concerned people that the internet will be a safer place for themselves and/or their children.” I believe that statement is exactly correct: the existence of this legislation WILL encourage people to believe their children will be safer. Their children WON’T be safer in reality, because the filter doesn’t work, but that’s OK, because APPEARING to do something is apparently much more important than achieving anything. It certainly wins those ACL votes, doesn’t it? How deeply sad that is.
I really don’t know where to go now. When Kevin Rudd was elected, I felt that finally we had someone intelligent who was able to look toward the future instead of the past. While I admit I had a few reservations about his God-botherer background, he seemed to make it clear that he would not let that influence his common sense. And now, this. It feels odd to see Mr Rudd at the climate change conference, an issue I cared about greatly only a week ago, and to realise that I really couldn’t care less about it any more, because it and all other issues fade into insignificance beside the fact that the great Australian tradition of genuinely representative government is under direct threat. I have voted for Labor in each election in the last 25 years, but I stand by my comment in the Herald: “I feel far more strongly about this issue than about any other I have ever looked at as a voter. As long as one party is making a fundamental attack on our democracy, it is my duty to vote against them.”
“Finally, I want to be very clear that ultimately, as a Senator in the Labor Government I will be bound by Labor Caucus’ position on the matter.”
Gutless.
Thank you for actually considering this issue sensibly! Speaking out about this is the first best start to this issue and this should be lauded admirably; although to vote favourably on the issue regardless of caucus rules now seems to show us that the labour party is undemocratic and unworthy of future support at next years election.
As there’s at least more than a couple of Labor members that do not support this proposal, why don’t our representatives go and ask their large donors what they think of this issue. I believe the parts of the top end of town that understand or are sold the enormous impact to productivity this would cause them, suddenly many would go to enormous lengths to assist..
I also believe that anyone in the labor party that votes against any such proposal would surely be applauded in the electorate, where the people know such ideas stink. Those that go the other way, may have new jobs soon. Vote with your feet if they don’t come good on this issue.
The problem seems to be fear of disendorsement.
So let’s have a campaign fund for disendorsed Labor MPs and Senators who outright oppose Government-controlled internet censorship.
I pledge $10k.
Kate, you can be sure that the next Federal Election will be the first time in nearly 30 years that I do not vote Labour.
I fall into the “deep abiding commitment to a truly open internet” category. My commitment to freedom is greater than my commitment to your part.
No debate, no vote.
Very disappointing.
Will this get you a ministry?
“This discussion is rightly an internal one” — so Labor is no longer interested in public opinion?
The election after this one might be close, in which case you will miss the few percent of votes this looses. Labor, just like the Liberals but less so.
But if you write this sort of article you need to prevent people from commenting.
Anthony
Dear Kate,
Show some backbone to go with your brains – This is an issue worth crossing the floor over! You obviously understand the issues better than most, and I would urge you to do everything in your power to stop this filter from going ahead. The filter plan is not the reason I voted your government into power – there were a few small issues like climate change and work choices, and this was just slipped in under the radar. Australia is not an ultra-conservative country; why does the current Labour leadership think that the easily-offended need to be pandered to?
Forget weasel debate over over the 2007 policy statement. Your statements during the Howard years created the general perception that Labor was going to be the modern tech and Net smart party who understood and respected the value of the Internet and the rights of Net users. Instead, what you have delivered to us is Stephen Conroy, the equivalent of Richard Alston from hell. I cannot really figure Labor’s motivation for this mandatory Internet censorship scheme. If Conroy genuinely believes what he is saying, he can’t be qualified to be in his role. The more likely possibility is that there is another agenda, as there sometimes is when the government is dead keen to push through seemingly irrational and clearly unpopular legislation. Any way you look at it, this thing stinks and if it goes through, although I have always voted Labor, I’ll be voting green in the next election.
Kate, you need to change your slogen ‘taking Australia forward with openness and vision’ since you are taking Australia backwards and you clearly have no vision.
Kate,
from all these comments, you must see this issue is a nail in the coffin for the ALP, come election time.
Your statements are disturbingly verging on Fascism!
The people are begging you to have some humanity and cross the floor on this vote.
For your sake and credibility and Australia’s democratic freedom I hope you do the right thing.
You are Kate Lundy a Senator voted for by the people not a puppet.
Good Luck!
Let’s spend lots of money making the internet slower and more expensive for Australian working families. Good one, Senator Conroy! Sounds like a real vote catcher.
I am disgusted. censorship is censorship.
Ms Lundy, Almost Anonymous is right on the money. Your decision to ’stay the party line’ demonstrates that Labor politicians are scared witless to dissent. This censorship is fraught with problems and is totally unnecessary. It will leave Australia exposed to being dictated to by other countries who will require restrictions to sites because they are either political or contrary to their perceived trade agreements, ie. USA copyright or access to music, video etc.
To make the ridiculous claim of ‘protecting our children’ is just laughable. Our children are just so so much smarter than many of our politicians. Whatever happened to the meaning of ‘freedom’ aka ‘democracy’?
Please change your mind and listen to the majority.
‘censed:
That’s absolutely correct. Conroy himself cuts the legs right out from under the “protecting the children” line by making his own arguments.
Seriously: Find me a single parent that’s sympathetic to the “protecting the children” argument who’ll feel comfortable with a censorship system which lets R18+ and X18+ pornography through.
Lets ask Mr. Rudd what he thinks of that:
“Mr. Rudd… Kevin. Can I call you Kevin? Ok, great. Kevvie, are you comfortable with protecting children with something that your own Minister says will let through hard-core porn without a second thought? Really? God, how retarded are you?”
The whole line of reasoning is intellectually bankrupt, and Conroy ought to be ashamed of himself for making it. Sen Lundy, of all people, knows better than to say, “the Rudd Labor Government is convinced it will encourage concerned people that the internet will be a safer place for themselves and/or their children.”
– mark
Why not talk to Penny Sharp? as she seems to proof that free thought in parliament may still be possible
http://pennysharpe.com/redleather/15/12/2009/why_the_internet_filter_is_not_the_solution_we_wish_it_was
Labor has already lost my vote – as someone has already said this whole thing has shown me that you cannot be trusted to lead the Australian people and that you are not working FOR the Australian people
OK, I seriously need to ask. Why does Senator Conroy still have a job? I mean, seriously, over 95% of the Australian population are against this and his brilliant defense… to call the whole nation Paedophiles.
Kate, please stand up for the Australian populace. We voted Labor in and we can just as easily vote you out. We are the voice you should listen to not caucus.
What Senator Conroy is pushing for is what the Christian Fundamentalists desire, *not* what the Australia voted for. Grow a backbone and stand up for us as Penny Sharpe and others are now doing.
Come election time, those people will retain their seats, not the ones who back Senator Conroy.
I guess it’s time for Kate Lundy to make a decision as to whether she not only cares about people who voted labor who have been lied too but about the Australian population in general and fundamental freedoms. I have never seen such a unanimous opposition against a government policy, not only in tech savy circles but equally amongst all Australians from all walks of life.
Or will you keep supporting your political party no matter what, even if they have the “internet villain of the year” as the telecommunications minister.
It’s people in your position that have the ability to make your own party understand that sometimes they get their stuff wrong, SERIOUSLY wrong.
Australia is watching very closely and are now extremely informed about what this filter really means when it comes to freedom of information and freedom of opinion and speech and they are all pointing the finger at “labor”.
As a further, late addition to this debate… If you’d like to know why people have no confidence in the government’s ability censor without scope creep, particularly without resorting to blocking political opposition, I refer you to two incidents.
The first took place in late October, where the Department attempted to silence a high-profile critic of the policy by pressuring an industry body and his employers:
The second took place today, where the http://stephen-conroy.com.au protest site had its domain name registration abruptly supended, without being given real reason as to why. The speed at which this action was taken – following a news article on the site – and the register’s sudden suspension of its normal policy of allowing challenged registrations 20 days to respond, suggest that the agency was pressured, or feared some sort of political repercussion.
To the Anti-Filter Bogans
[Look at the history of any media,it is a self explainatory process that rules are resisted or embraced dependent on who gains /loses.]
Now what was your argument again?
So you have decided to toe the party line…good on ya.
Can I just remind you that you were elected to represent the people, not the party?
You know this is BS
Kate Lundy has been a great supporter of open source, Linux and the ICT industry in general for many years. Still remember Kate from the Open Government panel at Linuxconf Adelaide a years back. I consider Kate the most tech savvy of all politicians, and wished her to replace Alston (different party) at the time. Alston turned out to be not half bad. Compare to Conroy and the current mess, Alston was Obama. Sen. Conroy has so far, refuse to engage industry experts, refuse to build dialogue with the community, and refuse to be interviewed by the media in depth on this issue.
GetUp and other advocacy groups should build up awareness in Sen. Conroy’s own electorate, and make sure that he is voted out of his seat (but keep the Rudd govt). Kate would be the logical choice. However, siding with Sen. Conroy on this issue is definitely NOT the way to do it. This issue is a vote changer – this is Labor’s workchoices.
To end on a positive note, thanks Kate for opening up this blog, very courageous.
You’re a disgrace to your party and the people who voted for you. I quit the Labor Party several years ago*, due to its inexorable drift to the right. The Greens are now what Labor once was. A pox on the lot of you.
Vote Green!
*I will verify this for you if you email a request to do so.
Kate, there do come times when an must as a matter of conscience oppose policies of their party.
The real question is whether party discipline and cohesion comes ahead of principle.
The proposed mandatory filtering of the internet is a direct attack on freedom of speech and so antagonistic to democratic principles that I hope that you wil find the strength to vote NO to this legislation.
I think your mission statement “Taking Australia forward with openness and vision” is the diametric to Conroys backward step with internet filtering. The protest site stevenconroy.com.au has already been sut down. Is this the example of how political dissent on the internet will be handled by your government. Shut down! This is not only a backward step for our country and a complete contradiction of your own mission statement, but an intrusion on our civil liberties. Wake up! “Man is not free unless government is limited”.
Kate,
I hope you can walk the streets of Canberra with your head held high.
Canberra has a large well educated ICT sector and many people a disgusted at the the thought of a mandatory filter with a SECRET Blacklist. Amazingly this is Fascism!
It is still not too late, you can be a hero for the people and democracy of Australia or go down in history as a puppet to the Fascists in the corridors of power
I guess in your socialist utopia Kate we believe everything the Labor party says.Unfortunetly you havent done a good enough job of dumbing us down yet.A very dark period in Australian history
I think Kate Lundy would be very wise to listen to the words of Juatice Michael Kirby and his 4 parables during his address to IIA:
http://iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=617&Itemid=32
I would especially suggest that attention is paid to his comments on the limitations of government power and his remarks at the end of the 4th parable.
Some very good posts here. I’d like to add that I’m a Labor supporter but I also consider myself a swing voter every once in a while. I wait until the current government becomes arrogant and stops listening to it’s constituents before I swing against the party. The NSW labor government will more than likely lose their next election for this very reason, this is precisely why the Howard government lost at the last election.
I would have hoped that the Rudd government would last longer than one term but I feel that they have already started to become arrogant. I won’t support a government that feels it will ignore 96% of it’s constituents who DON’T want mandatory filtering. The arrogance comes in because the Rudd government has the attitude that it can go against 96% of the people and they’ll still be voted in come the next election.
I predict this outcry will gain momentum over the next month or so, and this mandatory filter will become the Work Choices of the Labor government.
I don’t believe anyone is against filtering per se, it’s the mandatory and secretive nature that is of concern. There is no national security issue, so one can only assume there are other political motives at work here. There is absolutely no logical reason why this can’t be an Opt-in, or even at worst an Opt-out filter. Somehow the Rudd government believes this isn’t good enough. This is why as a labor supporter I will not be voting labor at the next election unless this policy is changed.
I’m writing to add my name to the long list of people opposed to this disgraceful policy proposal.
I’m also adding my two cents to the lack of democracy the population has, given that you are being coerced to vote for the censorship by your own party. Apparently majority opinion means nothing. It’s only what the lobby groups, corporations and knee-jerk reactionaries in the party office say that counts.
Disappointed? Not at all. Furious at your (and your colleagues’) lack of willingness to support true democracy? Damn straight.
Bacically what you are saying is when push comes to shove your job is more impotant than our freedom…………..
The Waffen SS were only carrying out their orders as well Kate.
PLEASE DO… “..protect our young and vulnerable….”
By leaving Parenting to the Parents and not giving NANNY STATE control over to Ministers who are keen to censor Australian websites EVEN WITHOUT the filter in place.
Enough is enough, the ANZACS died to preserve our freedoms. Freedom of choice, freedom to choose.
DONT TAKE AWAY WHAT LITTLE WE HAVE LEFT in this prison colony Society called United States of (israeli occupied) Australia. We, the people have heard enough lies from pollichickens already.
Labor has certainly lost my vote over this one.
I am aghast at the complete failure of any MP to acknowledge the patently rational points of those opposing the filter.
As many have stated, the filter will not do the thing(s) it is supposed to do. This isn’t a matter of opinion – it’s obvious to a numbskull.
Clearly there is another agenda here. Shame on you, pro-filter politicians for playing such a transparent game of your own when our fundamental rights are at stake.
‘Fact’ – Kate Lundy, you have now shown yourself as nothing more than a gutless hypocrite, who obviously has no principles other than to try to keep a cushy job in the Labor party.
‘Fact’ – This policy will simply not stop the production of illegal material in the first place.
‘Fact’ – this “filter” is nothing more than ‘censorship’.
‘Fact’ – This policy tries to hide behind the banning of illegal material, which is already in place, to now ‘restrict” any content that some group of faceless individuals will now determine what is “inappropriate” for everyone else in this country.
‘Fact’ – You and Conroy are simply pandering to the right wing, religious creeps that obviously now pervade the Labor party and who wish to impose their so called ‘beliefs’ on everyone else.
‘Fact’ – I will never vote for you, your pathetic comrades, or Labor ever again.
Oh, and on another issue, will you and Bob McMullan, stop putting your propaganda in my letterbox. It says “No junk mail” for a reason, and that includes anything that comes from politicians.
Quote:
“However, people with a deep abiding commitment to a truly open internet, the very idea of introducing a mandatory filter will always be an anathema, no matter the definitional limitations to what is being censored or how accountable/transparent that process is.”
Those who oppose this not concern with a filter on the internet… they are concerned with censorship in any form… for “no matter the definitional limitations to what is being censored” there will always be an opportunity for parties or individuals to exploit the filter for their own benefit… any form of censorship should be confronted at any cost, if only to prevent the smallest infringement of Australians democratic right to free speech…
Whether or not Free Speech is enshrined in the Australian Constitution, we are party and signatory the the UNs declaration on free speech… by adopting such a policy we are threatening the very right that this declaration tries to uphold.
My vote will go elsewhere if the ALP adopts this policy
I agree.
Please check out(funny/satirical)web videos about senator
S. Conroy and Internet filtering.
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/activism_non_profit/watch/v18045797mcEsHXBx
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/activism_non_profit/watch/v19535861qtWz29Ph
Thank you.
Long as Politicians fail to see the MASSIVE distinctions between old age mediums – like TV, Books and Radio and attempting to lump the ‘Internet’ under legislation and thinking usually applied to those mediums. We will always have these policies that are poorly thought out and even more poorly implemented.
It’s a serious problem Law makers are treating the Internet like it was a book. And the continued out-dated dogmatic approach will not keep up with the rate of technological progress.
THE INTERNET IS AN ENVIRONMENT NOT A MEDIUM!
The scale is gigantic and expanding exponentially.
The Internet was MADE to route around damage and therefore by a byproduct any level of Censorship.
Its USER driven. Anyone and everyone can upload to websites what ever the hell they want.
Sharing Person to Person what ever they want.
Make software that continues to push the Internet in weird ways (Twitter for example).
The way to regulate the internet is the same we regulate real life. THE POLICE.
It also makes current day Classifications completely obsolete. Look at the none-R18+, for video games. Has it stopped anyone from accessing this material – No. Will Atkinson’s stubborn approach do anything – No. Does this frighten him – Yes.
The slow moving processes of Politics and legislating have become to slow to catch up let alone keep up. By the time this Filter is put into place the Internet will have transformed into something that the Filters were never meant for. Dog meet Tail.
“The internet is a city and, like any great city, it has monumental libraries and theatres and museums and places in which you can learn and pick up information and there are facilities for you that are astounding – specialised museums, not just general ones.
But there are also slums and there are red light districts and there are really sleazy areas where you wouldn’t want your children wandering alone.
And you say, “But how do I know which shops are selling good gear in the city and how do I know which are bad? How do I know which streets are safe and how do I know which aren’t?” Well you find out.
What you don’t need is a huge authority or a series of identity cards and police escorts to take you round the city because you can’t be trusted to do it yourself or for your children to do it.
And I think people must understand that about the internet – it is a new city, it’s a virtual city and there will be parts of it of course that they dislike, but you don’t pull down London because it’s got a red light district.” – Stephen Fry.
Kate, I’ve always regarded you as a sensible voice when it comes to IT issues, so I’m both surprised and dismayed at your take on this filtering issue. It’s difficult not to be cynical and say that you’ve compromised your principles for the sake of party discipline, which brands you as just another career politician.
I’d like to opt out of the internet filter, and I’d also like to opt out of religious interference. Unfortunately, the Government seems to be happy to opt me in through its pandering to the god botherers. Please help me make the world a better place: http://www.redbubble.com/people/realism/t-shirts/4319760-1-your-imaginary-friend-is-messing-with-my-internets
Perhaps instead of a controversial filter of dubious effectiveness then maybe some technology that specifically targets the main cause of concern.
http://microsoftphotodna.com/
Hi Kate.
The numbers don’t add up.
Conroy says that the secret black list will be limited to 10000 urls as this is all that the filter can handle.
The internet is one trillion (1000000000000) urls and growing at 1 billion (1000000000) urls a day.
At most you can only block one 1000000th of the internet. Even if one percent of this is RC (most of chich is legal to view and read material) you can only block one 100000th of the RC sites.
This does not seem to an effective filter, or a good way to spend taxpayers money.
No silver bullet indeed!
You’ve (Labour that is) have lost my vote too. I can only hope that the Liberals have the guts to take a stand on this and throw it out of the Senate. There is no substitute for parental control. If parents don’t care then you should be looking at the parents not blocking every Australian’s internet. Try educating people and making an opt in filter available.
Publishing the results of a seriously flawed trial and saying they are 100% effective is the same as saying the filter will make the internet safe. What about all the experts in the field who are saying that A/ the trial was seriously flawed and B/ what Conroy is proposing is technically not feasible. Are these people wrong?
To oppose a filter when you believe it’s not feasible and then change sides when you think you might be out of step with your parliamentary colleagues is unforgivable Kate. You are there to represent your constituents.
Mr Conroy (since you’re popping in to Kate’s blog), are you prepared to state categorically that if it is proved that sites other than those you have stated above are blocked by your filter that no-one wants, you will remove it (the filter) and resign……I doubt it very much. The bottom line with what will be blocked and what won’t is that people just don’t believe you and don’t trust the government (any government) to administer what amounts to a secret list.
By the way…..I am against you and your plan, but I am most definitely not a child molesting, pornography lover. I’m 55 and have been connected to the internet for 15 years and I have never “accidentally” been exposed to the type of material you are trying to block.
“Taking Australia forward with openness and vision”
Just like the vision of an open internet, Senator?
You used to be cool. Now you doom yourself to irrelevance like the rest of your party, Fielding and the Libs.
Dear Kate:
I was amazed to read your carefully crafted words. I feel you have a deep internal conflict with this one.
So I decided to look into this successful report that you base your decision on:
Notes from the Enex TestLab Report 2009/12/19
1) The Checklist:
The ACMA checklist consists of 1000 URLs. Telstra tested up to 10,000 URLS. All with 100% success rate of blocking. I’m Impressed, but strangely surprised that blocking 1000 URLS was seen as an important milestone. I used a 386 to filter more than that back in 2001.
2) Circumvention:
NB Quotes are for text taken from the report.
“A technically competent user could, if they wished, circumvent the filtering technology.”
There is a whole section devoted to circumvention, It contains percentages of circumvention success for various of the many mechanisms.
and -
“stronger circumvention prevention measures can result in greater degradation of internet performance”
3) Accuracy:
The 100% success.
“All six ISPs achieved 100 percent accuracy in blocking the ACMA blacklist. This was a requirement of the pilot”. This sentence is the reason for the touted 100% success rate. However for other more comprehensive types of blocking –
“In blocking additional categories of content all six ISPs achieved 78 percent to 84 percent accuracy”
and …
“One hundred percent accuracy using these commercial lists is unlikely to be achieved as the content on different commercial lists varies and there is a high rate at which new content is created on the internet”.
This high rate of content creation also gets mentioned later
“An increasingly common technique used to negate filters is known as ‘fast fluxing’ and involves the rapid and automated change in IP addresses….employed by providers of content”
Hmm, a filtering arms race is about to start, congratulations.
4) Detecting False Positives- Blocking bad content is only part of whats blocked.
“Testing was also undertaken against a list of content, prepared by Enex, considered to be innocuous and which should not be blocked by a filter. All participants experienced some level of over-blocking in this test (i.e. blocking of some legitimate URLs). All filters blocked less than 3.4 percent of such content.”
5) Performance:
This system provides a mechanism for hackers to disrupt an ISP.
“Telstra reported that heavy traffic sites could overload its trial filtering solution if included in the filtering blacklist. This is also the case for all filters presented in the pilot.”
“…will all affect performance, and can do so at 40 percent performance degradation over theoretical maximum line-rate, or more in some cases.”
I remember in 2001 setting up just such a list to protect my ‘kids’. at that time the list was already over 100,000. By the strict success criteria, it also was 100% successful. Oh and it also contained many false positives and was completely unmanageable.
“Telstra (not a member of the trial) found that there was no discernible impact on end-user experiences with a list size of 10,000 URLs. Telstra describes the impact as equivalent to one seventieth of the blink of an eye.”
“It can therefore have an affect on performance if not planned and implemented correctly and of sufficient scale and capacity to handle the flow of traffic.”
Some of the worst results
“Filtering ACMA blacklist and additional content
ISP Streaming Download test Upload-test Latency test Web page Download test
Participant2 with SolutionA
44.15% 1.11% 3.71% -0.10%
Participant5
35.80% 20.56% -0.97% 36.45%…….”
Some of the best
“Participant1
-17.32% -16.95% -5.95% 0.46%
Participant2 with SolutionF
11.00% 27.20% -4.90% 5.24%
”
6) Customer/Subject Response:
“Overall the service offered by the ISPs was considered effective by customers, with around two-thirds of customers participating in the survey indicating that they would either probably or definitely continue using additional content filtering services.”
It can therefore be assumed that one third of the customers, would probably or definitely not continue using the service.
“Customers expressed the view that it was important for there to be mechanisms for self-management of the filter settings and improved visibility of the filter in action.”
My Conclusion:
I’m only up to page 26 of the 94 pages in the report. To me this does not read as a successful test or success story. To say so on the basis of achieving one tightly defined criteria borders on mis-leading the public.
Lets be truthful:
. There will be performance impacts.
. These filters can be circumvented, relatively easily.
. making them harder to circumvent will reduce performance.
. We are opening ISPs to attack by hackers.
. They are not 100% accurate (by any real measure of accuracy)
. They will incorrectly block valid or approved sites.
Other interesting points.
. With a test by 9 ISP, the list was leaked. With every ISP in Australia then list will be leaked every day, which will bring the whole process into ridicule.
. Malicious. The system relies on the honesty of every worker in every ISP. Whats to stop someone adding ‘liberalParty.com.au’ to an ISPs list just for a few hours/days before an election. Because of the proposed secrecy this could be very hard to prove or to track. Oh and how hard is it to imagine ‘laborparty.com.au’ entering the list in some far future?
Kate Lundy
Taking Australia forward with openness and vision..
Im sorry Kate, I cant match your stance and this slogan. “Taking Australia” seems to be the only applicable part.
We the obvious majority of the people of Australia are reaching out to you, come into the light, stand tall with us.
Kate / Pia:
As a follow up on the credibility of the ‘test’.
“SAGE-AU says net filter tests unrealistic ”
See http://www.itwire.com/content/view/30126/1231/
for details. SAGE-AU have raised questions about the number of users, the fact that the test was not performed at the required Internet speed and other shortcomings.
Now you don’t have to use the test as a justification for approving an insane implementation of an unworkable policy.
I do hope you are reading these.
Thanks everyone for all the comments, links and information. We are reading them all and will post more soon.
Cheers,
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
I honestly hope the Office of Senator Lundy is not going to arrogantly ignore this passionate topic, as it is gaining momentum, how can you as a Senator ignore the majority voter! And Conroy is just making a bigger fool of himself and the ALP(Rudd), constantly in the news.
“Conroy continues to soldier on with his censorship plans regardless of what the majority thinks.”
http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/security/soa/Conroy-s-filter-just-the-beginning/0,139023764,339300141,00.htm
Pia thank you for the replies, I realise that this must be a very trying exercise for you both. Probably as trying for you as it is frustrating for us. To us this is an obviously bad idea/policy, even after a cursory glance and the fact that few in power seem to be standing up makes us wonder whats going on and many of us get angry.
I do hope that you are taking these comments and also passing them onto your Parliamentary colleagues.
Thanks, Andy
He kate, got your 30 pieces of gold for betraying your integrity yet?
Kiss your political career goodbye from here on in Kate.
If you refuse to support this stupidly backwards plan you face being kicked out of the party.
If you support the firewall, you WILL be removed by the wrath of the voting public.
Either way Kate. You’re numbers up.
All you have to do is select which option you’d like to be best remembered. The Savior or the Lap Dog? your choice.
Oh how I can’t wait for the next Election, where we can see a REAL Democracy at work. Not this version we’re being force fed now.
Kate,
Sorry to say you have no shame, the filter has been a gross waste of public money, the arrogant and ignorant attitude shown by the ALP is astonishing.
How can you now ignore the recent polls on major news sites, over 90% not wanting a filter?
These truly are dark times for Australian democracy. We are becoming a Totalitarian Democracy.
Our Soldiers are fighting and died for freedom and democracy on distant shores while at home freedom is being sucked straight out to sea. The ALP are walking tightrope high over moral ground!
I congratulate you on having an open blog with comments and opinions to be viewed by all– embracing technology and what democracy is allowing freedom of speech. Where is Stephen Conroy’s blog with open comments?
Unfortunately Kate you have shown your true colours and are not a Senator for the people, freedom, democracy and transparency.
Another vote lost.
I wouldn’t be surprised if all these comments are eventually pulled from your blog as they are not exactly positive! Your blog is getting a popular mention on whirlpool!!
Well Labor have officially lost my youth vote if they continue with this policy from the religous right. Having only that mad group as yer base will not win you the next election and or gain the senate I guarrantee that. Its sad to see that members of Labor party dont have the guts to stand up for whats right or wrong
. I was a Labor voter but now I’ll be directing my vote to the other parties which oppose the filter.
Build a case Pia? YOU KNOW THE CASE. KL knew it 10 years ago. The whole industry has told the Alston/Harradine team & now we’ve been telling the conroy/Fielding team. You wonder why most Australians are cynical about politics. Your Govt has no credibility in this industry. At best this is a monumental waste of tax dollars. Kate was against the blacklist implementation, now you know what’s on it, you’re for it? NOW we have to build a case? A compromise is unacceptable. Mandatory filtering is the domain of tyrants. Both Howard & Rudd had “me too” filtering policies at the last election to appease the ACL. We didn’t have a choice.
The ACL never had to “make a case,” they just make stuff up and reactionary elements within the ALP treat it like manna from heaven (as it were).
Why is it that the only people who ever have to “make a case” are advocates of openness and personal responsibility? Australia is in such a parlous condition that the “nanny state” is the default mindset, and the only way to change it is with compelling constant advocacy. I mean, geez, I know the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but it isn’t supposed to be this hard.
Other parts of the world embrace progressivism with open arms, but here? Nope. In so many areas of policy we have too many politicians wetting their pants in absolute terror at imaginary phantasms, with public policy defined by whoever has the weirdest, freakiest, most extreme, most obsessive imagination. It really is embarrassing, and it’s such a phenomenal disappointment to see the new broom that swept through in 2007 reduced to this.
Look at the situation we’re in: We have a status quo which has served Australian citizens admirably for more than two decades: Open Internet access, with adults taking responsibility for their own conduct and their own children. A whole generation of Australian citizens has been brought up in the presence of this status quo, with no discernable change to the number of axe murderers hiding in everyone’s closets. By all accounts the Australian people have handled the societal changes brought about by the Internet brilliantly and deserve a good solid pat on the back for it.
Yet if you listen to the ALP right wing, that’s a regrettable state of affairs which desperately needs fixing through the imposition of top-down controls from a Government that obviously knows better than anyone else. Two decades of successful bottom-up community standards development is clearly unacceptable, and everything that happens needs to be regulated to within an inch of its life because the only way the ALP can preserve factional unity is to kow-tow to a small handful of moronic crazies on the right.
Disgusting. And so, so disappointing.
– mark
Dear Senator,
You make 2 comments that I take exception to.
The first is that the “what” of the filter has been resolved. On the contrary, it is still not clear exactly what content will be blocked. by definition, RC content has not been classified so we cannot say what kind of material it is. the guidelines used by the classification board and their ability to thoroughly check every site on the web are also questionable.
Your point about the trial being successful is also misleading. all the report says is that it is technically possible to filter a list of URLs with total accuracy and with little overhead. Duh!!! This is in no way a measure of the effectiveness of the scheme as a whole. To be a measure of anything meaningful, we would need to know if the blacklist can be kept up to date and how accurately it reflects the content we want to filter. it is possible for proxy servers and URL redirection to be implemented easily and cheaply so what should have been measured is the amount of prohibited content still available after the filter was applied. I suspect the effectiveness would have been much closer to 0% than 100%. What might be easier to filter of course is politically controversial material (of which there is much less). The whole scheme would make more sense if this was the Government’s true agenda.
What I would like to know is, how do you think you and the previous government differ in your attitude to participatory democracy?
Yours Sincerely,
Yehuda Harmor
One last comment from me. I don’t know this whole thing will “play out politically”. There is an article on Pollytics that predicts no politically fallout for Labor at all. W
I don’t know where this will play out. There’s an article on Pollytics that predicts no fallout for Labor at all on the issue. Whatever the case, I do not think that it is smart politics to cheese off 96 percent of 20000 people who answer a poll on internet censorship.
This is, amongst other things, a great wedge issue for Labor. That’s not a normative comment. For me I can’t express my disgust at Labor for cynically using this issue just to score political points. It has certainly in my eyes taken down the Labor ideology for the rest of my life. I never thought that Labor ideology was that libertarian; but I certainly thought that they were better than this.
With the mad monk wanting to put a bible in every government school I am utterly frustrated by Australian politics. Heck. Am I libertarian because I oppose taking this country back 400 years to a union of church of state?? In relative terms now that seems to make me libertarian. And that is very worrying.
Certainly I see Kevin Rudd very differently upon adoption of this issue. To me he is frankly just another religious nutter in bed with other religious nutters. He no longer has the remotest intent of acting in my interests – not even when my interests are so minimal as to be able to use the internet as an adult.
Hi Kate,
I voted Labor at the last election and I probably will do so at the next, but only for the Lower House. I will, for the first time. vote for the Greens in the Senate as I feel quite strongly about this issue.
My main concerns are that this will be mandatory and the list of banned URLs will be kept secret. I can understand the reluctance in revealing sites that harbour child porn but why need to hide the other sites?
Regards,
Steve Beek
Refused Classification includes “revolting and abhorrent phenomena” that “offend against the standards of morality”. Does someone know if that would include photos of victims of war crimes, for example civilians burnt alive by white phosphorous in the Iraq War? Or of prisoners being tortured in US custody?
Some future war hysteria will inevitably widen the scope of the filter.
Good to see Pia Waugh, is still involved in constructive communication.
Where there is dialog there is hope.
Do I detect that not all hope is lost with Kate?
If people can post constructive useful information or links that Kate can collate to hopefully to persuade for an opt-in filter… well we can dream!
The ENEX test was fundamentally flawed by not testing real-world conditions, and cannot be held as any evidence that mandatory filtering will not slow down Internet access. The ENEX test did not even comply with the technical requirements established before the trial began – ENEX should be stripped of their considerable fee.
Any policy and legislation that uses the ENEX test result as justification should be opposed – its rubbish.
I think you’re being too hard on Enex Testlabs here. Yes, their report was flawed, but I don’t think it was their fault.
If you’re asked to write a government report, you answer the questions that you’re asked, not the questions that you really think should have been asked. They even admitted some of the limitations in the report itself.
They didn’t even answer the questions that were asked.
Here’s the technical testing framework which formed the statement of requirements for Enex:
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/89160/technical-testing-framework.pdf
Things Enex didn’t test:
* IPv6
* Speeds “up to 12 megabits per second”
* “the capacity of filters to detect and provide warnings on circumvention attempts.”
Probably all sorts of others – they’re the things that jumped out after a quick skim, rather than a line-by-line comparison between the statement of requirements and the report.
They also appear to have flunked first year stats. E.g., adding averages without including Standard Errors, thereby making their tables of performance degradation useless. Not including sample sizes alongside their percentages is frankly a hopeless omission.
I’m not going to criticize the data in the report itself (because god knows, it’s a gift to those of us who oppose the policy, and I have confidence that a company with a reputation to defend like Enex wouldn’t deliver made-up results).
But the gaps in the testing protocols, the questionable analysis of the results, and the press-release style of the executive summary are, in my opinion, open for full public debate.
– mark
Did you read the same document that I did? The framework document contained a lot of “to the extent possible” and “potential [...] to be considered”.
IPv6 is a good example of something that, while desirable, couldn’t realistically be tested in the environment provided, given the lack of IPv6 clients.
As for the “press release” executive summary… in my experience, over half of them read like that.
I resisted making this point a couple of times because I didn’t want it to look like a cheap shot. It does seriously get to the level of my disenchantment with Labor on this.
I don’t intend this as a cheap shot. I understand Labor’s reputation for party unity around policy decisions. That doesn’t reduce my unease with this at all though. A description of Labor that really rang true with me around this particular policy came from an article that described the party as appearing to be schizophrenic when you compare this policy to others. On one hand we have statements of vision around NBN, open and transparent government, vision for national infrastructure. On the other hand we have this.
“Taking Australia forward with openness and vision” in your site banner. That’s honestly what I hoped we were in for when I voted for Labor at the last federal election. I certainly didn’t see openness and vision coming from the Howard Liberal party.
My wife was the same going into the last election. This policy really sours that voting choice though. I can’t see much hope of me voting Labor next time around.
It seems like Senator Conroy has turned the phrase “evidence based policy” into a perverse marketing term and while I used to see potential in Labor for “Taking Australia forward with openness and vision” I can’t see myself thinking that way again any time soon.
Lost me based purely on Conroys lies. He can look straight at you a spew forth garbage. The last 12 months has been a disaster for Labor. Enjoy yourself as your run in office is nearly over.
Internet censorship is a form of terrorism.
It really is this simple.
The Labor Party do not rule the country; they are elected to represent the citizens. Stephen Conroy, Kate Lundy and Kevin Rudd were all born naked and screaming just like me. Over time they chose to work towards representing me in my national parliament whilst I chose to work in other fields. I never gave any MP the right to tell me what to do.
I never completely relinquished my right to contribute to public debate and politics. I am entitled to contribute to public debate and deserve the right to be heard. I certainly think some of the responses from the office published here are condescending and patronising and indicate that public consultation is just lip service. Not one remark from Pia has thoroughly acknowledged or apologised for the significant difference between the pre-elected ALP stance and the one that is being ushered in under the chaos of Christmas. Many important points put by concerned citizens have not been addressed and Kate Lundy has barely contributed to “her” blog.
I also have the right to vote. Part of my right to vote is the right to be informed. Internet censorship is just one device that jeopardises my right to be informed. Breaking electoral promises also destroys my right to be an informed voter. The ALP policy and public statements did not say that my internet would be filtered. In fact, the ALP clearly said that I would not have to accept filters if I did not want them. At no stage did they put their proposal in its current form to the citizens of Australia.
In closing, I contend that my rights as a human are above those of the rights of the ALP or parliament. My right to access information overrides the role of the government. A government may only intervene in my activities if the citizens wish it to do so and then only if my activity harms another, hence taking away another human’s rights. Viewing and interacting with ideas that harm no other person is my right and I will defend it against any other human who tries to take that away from me. In this case, I will rally support from my friends, family and any other human I come in contact with. I will also vote against any candidate that supports this policy and campaign against any party who mistakenly believes that they can tell me what to do.
It’s incredibly frustrating that the politicians don’t seem to realise how IMPORTANT this issue is. Thousands of people like me are trying to make it clear that this is the ONE issue that will decide our vote. I freely state that I consider Tony Abbott to be a very poor choice of Prime Minister even among the Liberals, but if Labor continue with this filtering policy, I will not even CONSIDER any other issue when voting except this one, because this constitutes a direct attack on Australia’s standing as a free nation, one where information is not controlled by its government and doled out to the citizens as the Dear Leader sees fit, like North Korea. Even if, as I suspect will happen, the Liberals do not oppose the filter, I will still preference Labor behind Liberal on the ballot sheet, because the AUTHORS of this excrescence need to be made aware of how evil it is … through a period of purgatory on the opposition benches (and in some cases, unemployment), and a growing awareness of how powerless a Labor opposition would be if a Liberal Government decided just before the election that the ACTU website, for instance, constituted a clear and present danger to the nation.
If the citizenry of a nation allow politicians the right to secretly shut off information from them, it is always a descent from there, and it is very hard to get that freedom back once it has been taken away. Each successive government will use the filter for their own purposes, and whenever an election is likely to be tight, greater and greater abuses will occur. The Internet is a far greater source of information than any other in history, including newpapers, radio and television, and it needs to be available to every citizen of free nations.
Make no mistake, I will continue to fight this legislation even if it becomes law. I will take whatever steps are necessary to maintain a free internet access for myself, and if I’m able to, I will join in efforts to break the filter. I will feel not only that I have a right to do so, but that I have a duty as a citizen to do so. I’m usually a person who believes in obeying the law, but if politicians get it as wrong as Senator Conroy has here, a moral duty to the central principles my country stands for over-rides my civic duty to obey the law. I would hope that I would have had the courage to do the same thing when East Germany passed laws requiring its citizens to inform on family members, and when Nazi Germany required citizens of Occupied France to turn in Jews. I hesitate in making comparisons like those, but this law is that important: it is a small but clear step in undermining democracy in this country. It takes an essential right of free citizens (the right to access information free of the hindrance of government) away from Australian citizens and gives it to politicians instead, while also making them completely unaccountable for how they deal with this power.
Kill this appalling legislation.
I know that you’ve probably seen the news of auDA speedy takedown of a satirical website http://www.stephen-conroy.com.au following a complaint by an unnamed source, as it’s making the rounds on twitter, but when you combine that with, among numerous others,:
The fact that this policy was introduced a mere five days before the election to no fanfare or real publicity – meaning that voters interested in the topic would have presumed the policy remained the same as in 2006, where the filter was entirely optional – and has since been treated as if it were campaigned on the entire time
The constantly changing nature of the policy – opt-in, opt-out, mandatory prohibited and other offensive content, prohibited, RC and other unwanted content, RC illegal, RC – seemingly due to Senator Conroy’s constant, shall we say, confusion over its scope
Senator Conroy’s constant misrepresentations as to what content the various classification categories include
Senator Conroy’s attempts to re-write history by claiming that the policy has always been about refused classification content
The DBCDE’s prior attempt to silence Mark Newton by pressuring his industry body and employer
The preferential treatment of the extremist, unrepresentative fringe-group, Australian Christian Lobby, as a key stake-holder and their subsequent briefing on the trial pre-release
The failure to include on the draft plaform, or apparently even debate, the policy at this years’ national conference – and its subsequent reapperance on the final document
The way substantial dissent within the ALP – including a motion by the Brisbane Regional Conference to abandon the proposal and the public objection of several youth – has apparently been ignored or silenced
I think you can understand why there is zero faith, not only that this government won’t abuse a filter for political or other ends, but that future governments won’t abuse it too.
Here is a great example of Government controlled mandatory Internet Filtering. http://www.overclockers.com.au/image.php?pic=images/newspics/11dec9/18.jpg
Slightly off topic, but I found it interesting this particular blog post of the Senator’s has generated roughly 1250% more comments than any other posting in the last six months.
Acknowledging that happy people generally dont leave messages of gratitude compared to unhappy people complaining and even fewer actually inform the source of their dissatisfaction, just goes to show how many people are against this proposal and are hopefully willing to do something about it.
Use your feet and votes people!
Pia,
according to this site, under Kim Beazley, the ALP’s internet filter policy included an opt-out option. When did this change?
http://web.archive.org/web/20060422120043/http://www.alp.org.au/media/0306/msloo210.php
Pia, in December 2007, Conroy also said there would be an opt-out option (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm). Again, when did the policy change?
Ms Lundy, your hypocrisy ceases to amaze me. Today, you took on Tony Abbott’s stupid idea on enforcing bible studies. With your statement -
“Mr Abbott wants to take the choice away from parents and force every kid in every school to study the Bible”.
With your recent support for the internet filter. One could easily modify your statement to reflect your now completely hypocritical view -
“Ms Lundy wants to take the choice away from Australians and force every Australian on every computer to use the filter.”
Care to respond?
Quote: Mark M, that ABC site you linked to is now showing “Page Not Found”. Is the ABC destroying evidence?
try this one
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm
he says :
“Senator Conroy says anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service.”
Rumor has it that Comrade Kate Lundy has changed her position on the filter, again! What’s that saying? “Fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, shame on me!”.
PS. I wonder if this post will be filtered (like my others)?
Dear Senator
This internet filter is pure censorship, regardless of how the government wants to spin it.
As a technological approach it will do nothing to stop people with a little bit of knowledge to circumvent the filter and obtain the content that they wish to see.
I agree that there are some things that shouldn’t be seen like kiddy porn. But there are valid things that will be blocked because a moral minority will object to, subjects that deserve discussion like euthenasia. If gay rights had not advanced to where they are now, I’m sure those sites would also be included in the Refused Classification list.
You say we should trust the government to administer the RC list, but why should we trust this government, let alone any future government with such rights to determine what we are allowed to see?
If this white elephant gets forced through, I hope that the government takes out some form of insurance on the servers that will be doing the filtering.
I am certain that the criminal and foreign national interests on the net would look at those servers as the keys to the untold riches of Australia, as all the electronic purchases and transactions will go through those servers, as will all the multinational business information of companies. Even if they were not able to gain control of the boxes, a DOS attack of enough size at the right time would stop all traffic from entering or leaving.
But it may not even take that to cause it to be embarrassing. As someone who has worked in the public service in IT for nearly 10 years, I know how smoothly projects do not run, especially those of a complex nature that this is sure to be.
As a more intelligent member of parliament who has a better grasp of the technology involved and the infeasibility and the ramifications of this, please change you stance and oppose this filter.
Regards
Chris T
To circumvent the filter will only require close to zero knowledge, as one will only have to download a firefox addon. The whole process will only take about 30 seconds, even a five year old child could do it
Hi all,
Senator Lundy has followed up from this post with a bit of a synopsis of core points from these comments, please find it here and let her/us know of anything missing.
http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/12/21/further-thoughts-on-the-filter/
Cheers,
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
I am so very disappointed at the ignorance and contempt the ruling bodies of this country show to its population.
Australia is a great land, but limited by the stupidity and luddite attitudes to providing the citizens high quality, low cost broadband – and now – coming up with ‘the list’, so sites we never heard about will never be found.
These pro-filter arguments lack ANY merit. We are being lied to, fed it down our throats, pontificated to from podiums and with NO evidence.
What the hell is going on?
Capitalism a love story makes for hilarious viewing when you ask the question ‘how did the people let them take $700 billion with a don’t ask don’t tell policy?’
Simple; as a financial presenter recently told me ‘Just do whatever the f**k you want’.
And you know what.. that’s what happening. People be damned, logic be damned, hears a pack of lies and misguided rhetoric “we’re taking your internet”.
I would like to say “I’m not angry, I’m just very disappointed” but I am angry, I want to fight this, for my children – so that at the very last, when our food standards that lag behind European carcinogen exclusions don’t appear in search results, when a vast array of harm minimisation information related to illict substances is removed from the access of our young people, when the American aligned cross-border media policies gain enough commercial weight to take a hand in it all…
What the hell do you mean “You will support the party position”?
Don’t you see? Don’t you have to look children in the eyes and read these comments? And what about the other senators, have they seriously not heard the people? Or are they too out of step to care?
“I will be bound by Labor Caucus’ position”
Then why bother being a representative of the people?
We cannot build a better future, an environmentally sound, safe environment for all, ideally based on equitable resource distribution, if the very first foundations of Australias emergence into the information superhighway is made by stupid, fear based politicians.
I say emergence because from what I can tell, broadband is not adequate for the majority of the population, we are NOT there yet –
Lets just burn some coal hey? Or dig it up and sell it.
Join in the chant dear reader, but don’t say it unless you mean it for the people – and by that I mean believe in a free internet.
Aussie Aussie Aussie OI OI OI.
***
To Mr Conroy:
If we the people make up this country, and the progress of our society and tax dollars is brought into question, your actions define you as an enemy of the land.
This ignorance and its effect on our future cannot – must not – stand.
Aussie, the new China, the new Saudi, the new Iran… UK next
Kate & Pia:
I find that nothing focuses the ind like a few good examples. So like and interested citizen Ive asked these questions of the Department. I was wondering if you would like to comment (or even ask Stephen when you see him in the corridor) ?
I understand that the filter will be blocking ‘unsavory’ things. I assume this will also include the standard news services, especially when there is a particularly gruesome event. E.g. thousands of bodies during the Tsunami.
With the emphasis on drugs and sex, will these services (BBC, ABC) also be blocked when drugs are integral or mentioned as part of a story. E.g. celebrity deaths due to drug over doses or news stories such as Tiger woods.
Will the specific story be blocked ? and will its associated stories also be blocked? or if the service is less reputable, such as Al Jesira, will it all be blocked?
Looking forward to your reply:)
Pia:
Sorry to lumber you with all this and so close to Christmas. Actually it was Stephen that dumped (i just did a miss type and put in ‘duped’, amazing isn’t it) it all on us at this time and left it for you to reply and us to be indignant.
I hear that he has great concern for families, and quality of life. It looks like he blew it with this as well.. I’ll give you a Christmas rest (unlike dear Stephen) and return after Christmas.. be assured we will return.
All the best to you Pia and Kate.
Happy Christmas
I have no intention of remarking on the way Senator Lundy should vote, that is a matter between her and her conscience. My only form of redress is at the ballot box in the next election.
I have no idea what the actual numbers are in favour and against this proposal, I have seen contradictory statements in various blogs and forums I simply want to make the following comments.
What I would like to draw attention to are several statements that a Voluntary filter would be acceptable.
Many times it has been asserted among other things that a Mandatory filter would :-
1. Be expensive to put into effect.
2. Be unable to achieve its aims.
3. Be a burden which could cripple the smaller Internet Service Providers.
4. Lead parents into a false sense of security.
Surely all of these would apply equally to a Voluntary filter in which case the response to any suggestion of Voluntary filtering should be a resounding NO.
In addition consider that after installation, a Voluntary system could easily be converted to Compulsory.
Whoever it is that has such a strong desire to censor the net would not be above raising the issue again and this tiresome battle would have to be fought all over again and from a somewhat weakened position. I.e. Several of the current reasons for opposition would have been removed.
Probably the only one remaining would be that of opposition to the unwarranted censorship proposed, this opposition does not appear to carry much weight with some of our elected “Servants of the public”.
May I also say that anyone who cannot see that this form of censorship could be misused in the future is somewhat naïve, I believe it sets a dangerous precedent.
I also think a lot of time is being wasted on what the exact wording has been prior and subsequent to the election.
Surely what is relevant is the CURRENT wishes of the public.
I have long felt that politicians idea of what is a mandate and mine are poles apart.
Most elections are decided on the major issues and for politicians to claim they were given a mandate to carry out things which were not key issues in the election is to say the least somewhat suspect.
In the case of the last election I was focussed on two things, industrial relations and Howard’s apparent intention to impose nuclear power generation on us. Censorship of the net did not enter into my considerations at that time and I most certainly did not intend to give anyone the power to impose it.
In passing Mr Howard was a past master of the assumption of Mandates and this was one of the reasons I could not vote Liberal as long as he led the party.
So if, after reading the above there is any doubt in anyone’s mind as to my position on the proposition, I am totally against it in ANY form.
With the exception of the “false sense of security” aspect (which I agree with), I don’t see the other issues as being a problem as such.
First off, it’s far easier to drop a voluntary scheme than make it voluntary compulsory. Just look at Net Alert.
Secondly, an opt-in or opt-out filter at the ISP level running under realistic conditions (rather than the largely artificial conditions of the Enex TestLabs study) would constitute definitive proof of its efficacy or otherwise.
What I find curious is not that people like your good self are against optional ISP-level filtering, but that Senator Conroy is. It seems to me to be an admission that if you really did have the two systems running side-by-side, the filtered feed would not be an attractive option. All the more reason to try it, if you ask me.
Finally, let me give you a little insight into the psychology of modern parenting.
I am a parent of young children. While I probably wouldn’t opt into ISP-level filtering myself (I prefer to vet web sites myself and supervise Internet access), I appreciate the sentiment. I do care about my childrens’ safety, and to that end, I like the idea of the option of an ISP-managed filtered proxy being available should it ever be shown to be effective.
Deep down, parents such as myself want to be empowered, not pre-empted. Optional ISP-level filtering is empowering, even if I never use it. Mandatory filtering insults my intelligence and my parenting skills.
Hi Kate & Pia
I will be putting any party that supports the filter last on my ballot. (I’ve previously voted Labor & Green.)
Cheers
Myles
If I could sum up my feelings in a single word about the persistence of the ALP to push forward with this Broadband Filtering farce it would be “Betrayal”.
I would support a filter if it was opt in or out. The filter now appears to have a hidden agenda because it is well established that anyone can type “bypass internet filter” into google and get a web proxy to render an internet filter utterly useless. Or perhaps the more savvy will just get a VPN and not be hindered at all.
Of course when NBN becomes a reality (Sometime between now and when hell freezes over I imagine) it will be the laughing stock of the world. So new faster 100Mbit connection that can never achieve its potential because of a utterly useless filter bottleneck. The taxpayer will pay for this privelege also, both in the filter that they have no choice in and the resulting lag infested, bottlenecked joke of a broadband connection.
Please explain how the censoring of the internet is in ANY way reflective of the values that the ALP touts on its website
http://www.alp.org.au/about/values.php
I am not a religious man but I am praying for double dissolution so the people can vote with their conscience and not some hidden political agenda.
This is Australia NOT the Peoples Democratic Republic of Australia.
Oh representative democracy I knew you well….
Actually Kate, you are not, as a member of parliament, mandated to follow caucus’s decision on this or any other matter. The constitution makes no mention of political parties and your claim to be bound by the party’s position is cowardice in the extreme.
You have written a thorough piece here, although I agree with those who dispute the mandatory nature of the pre-election promise. It is extremely clear that you disagree with the policy yet you intend to vote for it anyway? Just another reason why the major parties are out of touch.
Its called crossing the floor, Kate, and it might just make you a lightning rod for dissent and a figurehead capable of rallying the other members of party opposed to the policy. You could actually stop it happening if you had the guts, Kate!
Dear Senator Lundy,
Although I am not a resident of the ACT, I beg you to stand up for your beliefs on this matter.
If that means crossing the floor, in defiance of your Party, then so be it.
NOBODY has the Constitutional right to prevent you from doing so, not even your Party Whip, nor your Party Leader, nor your Caucus. In fact, it is illegal for ANY of them to compel you to vote against your convictions.
http://austlii.law.uts.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca191482/s28.html
CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 28
Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.
Your actions, Senator – whatever they may be – WILL BE REMEMBERED.
Senator, firstly thank you for taking the time to put forth your views.
Secondly, I plead with you to stand for your constituency (the people of Australia), and your own conscience, and not the labor party. YOU were voted in, not labor.
To me this is the most DANGEROUS and single-most IMPORTANT policy that will alter the democratic landscape of Australia. Ministers now say that they will not block “political” content. But can you say, hand on heart, and garuantee that this immense mechanism for propoganda (blocking content at will, without publishing details of it) will not be misused by a future Government? Of course not.
What an immense risk it will put average Australians under. At our very nature we are all human, and thus subject to flaw; pride and self-interest. Would John Howard have been tempted to block all references to Tampa if this existed back then? I’m sure the temptation would have been there.
No one can say that the future will hold, and how future Governments will act. Providing this tool is giving ANY Government too much power; when the difference between a democracy and a dictatoryship are a few hundred URLs.
IN the very least, if you must support this bill, please ensure that there are NUMEROUS, ROCK-SOLID protections. For example, listing of all websites blocked (except for kiddy porn etc which would be counter-productive) publically, a right of appeal on blocked content (before the courts).
However, any Government which tries to bring this in will find me voting against them in Federal and State. Never have I heard a more objectionable policy.
Ok, I am going to be an apologist for Kate and Labor, but not for the lame filter, but for the Parliamentary system.
While people are saying that the constitution does not have anything about political parties and loyalties, the constitution also leaves out a lot of stuff. Like the Prime Minister. The only reference is a “Council of Ministers” who advise the Monarch through the Governor General. It was framed by the British and Australian designers that it will be up to the Parliament itself to determine the form it takes.
Australia traditionally has a stronger party system than the USA. Compare the situation when one party controls both houses, like the Howard last term and the current Obama Presidency.
Howard was able to force through “Work Choices” quite easily, as he expected members to follow party lines. Only on politically explosive issues would he ever allow conscious votes where each member was allowed to vote as he or she saw fit.
Obama however has to treat EVERY bit of legislation as a conscious votes, and he can not guarantee core party platform items like health reform to be passed due to members of his own party.
The stronger political party system makes it more certain to pass policy into legislation, even bad ones (like Work Choices).
Unfortunately for the opponents of Filtering, it means that people like Kate who disagree with the policy has to follow it anyway.
Kate’s job as to be an advocate within government, lobbying against the filter in terms that other politicians understand (I would get my Sir Humphrey on and say the decision would be “Courageous”, which means it will lose the election compared to “brave” that would only lose votes).
This is all pointless. She’s not going to read this thread any more than she’s going to take notice of what any of us say or think. Clearly, Kate Lundy is in politics just for herself. I’ll guarantee that she will not change her view on this as she has no spine and is just a coward. The only people who can change this is ourselves. We must vote this bunch of pretenders out next time around!
Mr Owen, that attack was uncalled for. Some of us are disappointed that Senator Lundy intends to conform to party lines on this issue. We all hope she is working within the party confines to try to overturn this bizarre filter policy. However, attacking our best placed and most sympathetic politician is self defeating as well as rude.
It’s a brave thing to have an open blog like this. You should not use it for unthinking abuse.
AA, while Mr Owen’s expression is strong, his reasoning for criticising Senator Lundy’s present position of supporting the ISP level censorship scheme on the basis of party unity alone is sound and as such is hardly ‘uncalled for.’
Senator Lundy is on record, in this very blog, in her post from 2003, where she criticises a Coalition proposal for ISP level filtering as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘absurd.’ She was right.
Senator Lundy now insists that she will support the Labor Caucus position on ISP level censorship, against all available evidence that it will be without any beneficial effect, certainly will not accomplish any claimed end of protecting children- and will do so at significant cost to the taxpayer.
Indeed, given the Labor Party’s standing rules that crossing the floor is cause for expulsion from the party, it would most definitely require ’spine,’ bravery and a demonstrable lack of self-interest for any Labor politician to oppose the proposed legislation.
Your “hope [Senator Lundy] is working within the party confines to try to overturn this bizarre filter policy” is indeed just hope. You presume a goodwill on the part of Senator Lundy towards the overwhelmingly anti-censorship electorate, which she has yet to demonstrate.
However, I can understand why Lundy has not yet come out with guns blazing against Labor’s proposed scheme. We don’t yet know what the Liberal Party’s position on the censorship scheme will be. If the Liberals do support the scheme, it would be fruitless for Senator Lundy to oppose it, at the cost of her seat.
While Lundy may be working in the background within the Labor Party to persuade the powers that be in Caucus that ISP level censorship is both unworkable and is ballot box poison, neither you, I nor Mr Owen know this with any certainty. The mere fact that Labor have mooted this policy is enough to support a cynical, albeit reasonable view (such as Steve Owen’s) that Labor politicians are pursuing a self-interested position of preservation of their seats in driving this bad policy. Mr Owen’s language, while strongly critical of Senator Lundy’s to-date failure to openly oppose the scheme, does serve to reinforce with Senator Lundy the strong opposition of voters to the plan.
Mind you, were I the good Senator Lundy, I’d also be waiting to see where the Liberals’ support of this issue will fall. In my capacity as a voter and potential entrepreneur, I’m also biding my time. If down the track, it appears as though the measure will be passed (which will require support of some or all of the Liberals), I’ll be building up a VPN service with termination in the USA for resale, with the intent of circumventing the filtering scheme- it will have a strong possibility of business success, given the broad-based and vehement opposition to ISP level censorshp within the Australian electorate.
The need to take personal responsibility is at the base of this discussion.
Responsibility to care for the well-being of our children, through active involvement in their education and their access to the world through the Internet, and not rely on false Governmental platitudes of security.
Responsibility to accept the right to be fully informed, and not just accept a sanitised “filtered” version of the truth, as dictated by a biased panel of 11 censors.
Responsibility to speak out when barriers to personal choice are being imposed by a State that believes that it “knows better” than the populace.
Clearly you Kate, Stephen Conroy, and the others behind this stupid scheme, will be fully responsible too, when you are voted out of Office by the responsible thinking citizens of Australia at the next opportunity for democratic process.
I think it’s a mistake to see this primarily as personal responsibility.
For sure, as a parent, the safety and welfare of my children is my responsibility. However, our country has a strong history of providing services that people can access to assist them in all aspects of life, safety and welfare being one such aspect.
It is not unreasonable for parents to request assistance, which is why, contrary to what Senator Conroy seems to think, Net Alert was a damn good idea. Senator Conroy declared it a failure without doing any research whatsoever into why fewer families took it up than expected. This, in conjunction with his remarks on the Enex report, gives you the strong impression that “success” is defined as “whatever we do”, and “failure” is defined as “whatever the other side of politics did”. Naturally, neither side of politics is immune to this thinking.
If the currently non-existent evidence shows that the problem was that families were prevented from accessing this service because of a lack of technical skills, then ISP-level opt-in filtered feeds, which is what Labor actually promised last election, is the next logical step, and one that is worth trying.
(I do understand and share the concern that it might provide a false sense of security, but if we are truly consistent about evidence-based public policy, we should test this claim rather than accept it blindly without evidence.)
I firmly believe that it is a huge mistake to frame debate in terms of personal responsibility. That is the surest way to lose to the powerful lobbies who are pushing for mandatory filtering.
You must speak in terms of empowering parents with tools that are effective in addressing real concerns, and in terms of sound evidence-based public policy. An opt-in filter is, at least in theory, a tool empowers parents, and also provides us a clean way out should the technology be shown to be ineffective. A mandatory filter disempowers parents, because the decision about what my children are allowed to see is taken out of my hands, and furthermore locks the nation into a technology which has not been shown to be effective.
Thank you for this comment Pseudonym and thanks again to all those who have contributed constructively to this discussion. The input is extremely valuable.
Cheers,
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
Kate,
I feel that it is impossible for me to continue supporting the ALP should mandatory filtering take place. I understand that the goals of this filter may be noble, but the opportunity it creates for censorship the likes of that seen in China and Iran scares me. Right now there is no intention of suppressing information for political or financial gain, but in the future, will all politicians and “those in power” when it comes to this black list have noble ideas at heart when they could quite easily block something that will tarnish their reputation?
I would support your proposal simply because it is better than nothing, but I truly believe that this filter should not take place, ever.
Why don’t you simply advocate that the filter be mandatory for ISP’s to have and ‘opt in’ for people that want it? Solves the problem!
I can understand why Senator Lundy remains concerned by the policy, but the fact that it has been kept very tightly constrained to the RC content and to identified page addresses (i.e. it is not a filter it is a page blocker) means that it shouldn’t be thought of as imposing a limit on the “freedom of the Internet”.
More importantly though, if the Senator believes RC content should be available through the easy online navigation that is a webpage for adults who choose to “opt-in”, why should the same content be denied to adults in other media.
The policy of refusing access to RC content is a child protection policy not because it aims to help prevent children (or others) from SEEING it, but to help protect children (and others) from being subject to the ACTIONS portrayed in the content.
Verity, Refused Classification is not where it started. Senator Conroy initially wished to ban all “unwanted” content. Only public outcry has forced him back, first to “prohibited content” and then to “Refused Classification”. As soon as he gets his filter, he’ll change it to whatever he likes. We do not believe that it is safe or in the best interests of Australians, be they adults, or future adults (otherwise known as children), to give this power to Senator Conroy and like-minded individuals. Even Refused Classification is too broad as it contains politically banned topics such as euthanasia and drug use. It is not safe to cede our right to discuss such topics to the whims of faceless bureaucrats. If anything, we should be demanding an end to attempts to control our thoughts using legislation. Do you accept that Senator Conroy and his bureaucrats are automatically morally superior to the rest of us, and hence should decide what we can see or say?
Another important point is that the internet is not “media” in the same way as a film at the cinema. The internet is primarily a communication medium and should be treated the same way as the telephone, not as a book or film. Do you expect Senator Conroy to install a filter on your telephone to prohibit you from having certain conversations? I don’t. You must be aware that telephones are used to discuss criminal plans and banned concepts, right? Surely we should tackle the unrestricted nature of telephones next. Could it be that it’s pointless? Invasive? Technically impossible? Exactly the same as his current proposal then?
And finally, Refused Classification really is exclusively about preventing people seeing things. Blocking an image does not cause the action contained in it to be prevented or undone. That is wishful thinking of a seriously distorted kind. Assuming you wish to prevent children being subject to abuse, you should be in favour of increasing funding for policing, which continues to produce concrete results in this area. Senator Conroy would save more children from abuse (that is, greater than zero) if he allocated the entire filtering funding to police work. He has apparently decided that the opposite way (taking money off police to give to censors) is more useful to him.
We who oppose the filter are not trying to harm children as some irrational opponents suggest. Everything about the filter is harmful to children, by taking money from services that help children, by fooling people into thinking the internet is child safe, by limiting the kind of things that these proto-adults may see, read or write in the future. Senator Conroy is working directly against the interests of all of us and he should be stopped.
Verity, I understand your concerns.
The reality is that most RC content is legal to own and view in Australia. It includes such material as video games that would be rated “R”, and art films which are perfectly legal in most developed countries, such as “Salo” and “Ken Park”. The material that you are referring to, the stuff that is objectionable by any standards, is already illegal to create, own and view privately.
What you seem to be referring to is child pornography. Child pornography is, to a first approximation, not available on the open Internet. This is not surprising, because it is not legal in pretty much every jurisdiction. Rather, it is privately traded between perpetrators over private virtual networks using peer-to-peer and other such technologies.
The technical details are unimportant. What’s critical for this discussion is that this illegal trade will not be affected at all by the proposed filtering regime, because there is essentially no open web site where you can find it today.
If we ever did find such a web site, surely the only morally correct response is to shut it down and arrest everyone involved with it! Australian law enforcement services are doing an excellent job with this in conjunction with police in other countries, but I’m sure they could do with even more resources in this area.
One last thing: Australia already has a classification regime that treats identical material differently, depending on what form of media that material takes. The most obvious example is that a lot of material would be perfectly okay in a movie, but is refused classification in Australia if it happens to be in a video game. A movie such as “Salo” or “Ken Park” is perfectly legal to own and view in Australia. One may ask why it should be illegal just because your legal copy happens to sit on a server.
But even more than this, the proposal is that the blacklist will be secret. This is unprecedented. The OFLC’s classification decisions are made in the open. In the interest of accountability and openness, it maintains a freely accessible database of all of its decisions. Why should this be any different, just because the material is a web site rather than a magazine or DVD?
In short, I completely agree with you that there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, but an unworkable non-solution is worse than no solution at all.
The entire ISP level policy never had anything to do with protecting the children, rather it was simply used as an excuse to attack the former governments policy.
Just playing politics at the expense of people civil liberties.
Clinton condemns Internet censorship
WASHINGTON, Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:33pm EST
HILLARY CLINTON: “Countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60K4R820100121
What an exhilating speech by Hillary Clinton – at last, a politician who GETS IT … or at least has speechwriters who do.
“And censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere.”
“Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They have expunged words, names and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in nonviolent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right ‘to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’ With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world.”
This should be compulsory reading for every Australian politician considering Senator Conroy’s attempt to follow China, Saudi Arabia and North Korea’s lead behind that curtain.
a mandatory filter on internet feeds accessed by children might be OK but I am 61 years old and i’m mad as hell.
treat me like a child and you’d better watch out for one hell of a tantrum.
I am an independent, clear thinking and intelligent adult who has been working with computers since before either the internet or the www and can see the stupidity of what you propose. keep your bloody naive moralism of my desktop.
I have to say that I really think it is absolutely outrageous what the government is attempting to do with this internet filtering. I, for one, am completely opposed to it. My children are now adults but even if they were small I would oppose it. I don’t need the government deciding what I can look at or not look at on the internet.
The way the government these days just makes a decision and then goes blindly ahead with it, overriding expert’s opinions, people’s wants and basic common sense, all with an attitude of “we know best for you” is what is making a lot of people very mad these days.
For anyone who references this blog the Labor party have deleted the document they issued before the last election. Looks like they don’t like being proven to be liars and scoundrels.
A google cache is still available to bypass their re-writing of history though.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6lNX_AlmwbgJ:www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf+labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgMhDZDtnPmurlAEgts_XVzFXtOQTuPn0sMeaomUDL_nYq3Zuvydqp2BLcd11pjyfFfX06u_EKW28SzNzLh5w-5WA1Jb7dk72qEM6Zzg_9KeLAxETYhW6s0EQpuA19PMHidbYN_&sig=AHIEtbQJeABtLHBN4aoMZxJxxw6ztj9rGw
Labor has lost my vote.
There’s copies at:
https://broowery.com/content/labors-plan-cyber-safety-2007
and
http://machinegunkeyboard.com/ausnetcensorship/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf
There is no Memory Hole in 2010.
(h/t to Cameron Watt)
Pia,
Please tell Senator Lundy that Senator Conroy has cost labour yet another vote; and in fact he seems to be recruiting resources to ensure that your Senator Lundy becomes part of the opposition. My friends and I are spreading the message far and wide and whereever the message goes eyes open and discussion starts. This goes way beyond a couple of naughty films.
This dangerous scheme has been dreamt up by a moron, and if your Senator Lundy is blindly following this scheme, then no more needs to said. The conclusion is very clear.
Have a good day.
“I want to be very clear that ultimately, as a Senator in the Labor Government I will be bound by Labor Caucus’ position on the matter.”
I note that the constitution of Australia prevents any executive from directing how a member should vote
This is not Queensland where the constitution has been revoked without a referendum by the Brigalow Act, and where its government is currently under challenge by the High Court
How do you correctly inform your Members and Senators of your WILL? It is so simple that only laziness and indifference ON YOUR PART stops it from working. Yes, it is so very simple, and here is an example:- Suppose, for instance, you believe that income tax should be halved and sales tax completely eliminated. You write, in this case AN INDIVIDUAL letter to your Federal Member, and each one of your State Senators, such as this:-
Kate Lundy Senator
Madam,
I know that it is my duty to keep you informed of MY WILL on anything that comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament
IT IS MY WILL that you take immediate action to prevent internet filtering
Yours faithfully,
(signed) J Tomkins
(Insert your full name, address and date, as legal evidence that you are a constituent.)
Thankyou Senator Lundy for showing some maturity regarding this legislation. I back you 100% in your efforts to introduce the opt out clause. Thus returning Australians their rights
Here is some food for thought….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7054432/Terrorism-and-child-pornography-used-to-justify-surveillance-society-says-academic.html
What is interesting is that the Australian gov supports dissidents overseas in enabling them to bypass their own countries filters, but with a straight face they try to introduce on here! Even more amazing is Comrades Conroy requests to Google that they filter youtube videos and then has the hide to say “you do it for China?”
As a technologist the best way for parents to control their children’s Internet use is through a PC software filter. There a plenty of options out there, but what is the take up?
http://www.consumersearch.com/parental-control-software/best-filtering-software
There are ISP in Australia who already offer filtering services at a small premium, but again what is the take up?
I think Kates proposal for amending the Internet filter legislation is probably best thing I’ve heard in weeks.
Conroys proposal was steaming pile of brown stuff.
Really hope the amendment gets through.
Good luck Kate.
Hi Kate, Pia,
Thanks very much for engaging in this debate. It’s very important to those of us opposed to a mandatory filter that we have a champion within the government. As you’ve noticed, there have been a lot of comments on your statement “When the Rudd Labor opposition reaffirmed the policy on a mandatory internet filter prior to the 2007 federal election”. Hopefully the linked news articles and quotes from Senator Conroy have now corrected the record. In light of this, may I suggest that you add a comment at the bottom of your original post with a correction?
Cheers,
Paul
No more comments allowed? Or is Kate filtering “refused posts” that don’t tow the line?
IMHO This is all a ruse by Kate and Co. to try and show there is some sort of debate within the party, when in fact there is none.
Look at Conroy’s latest statement:-
Stephen Conroy sticks with porn filter plan
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/stephen-conroy-sticks-with-porn-filter-plan/story-e6frg6nf-1225834057002
wake up sheeple!
Hi Ivan,
Why do you think there are no more comments allowed? Your comment from only yesterday has already been moderated. We use the default first-poster WordPress moderation and as well as moderation on comments with specific words or links, and we usually get queued comments through within 12 hours, except for a select few that end up in the SPAM queue which I only check every few days.
We have been very open about allowing pretty much all posts on this blog, and we welcome all constructive input to the discussion.
Cheers,
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
Which, Ivan, is why I have, by and large, stopped interacting with Conroy, he simply ignores everything, except for what he wants hear (its in his nature).
I am actively campaigning (user groups, churches, other influencers, email campaigns) for people to not vote for a party that can even consider an idea such as this. Unsuprisingly, once I get people think on this issue for a minute or two (the concepts are not hard), a look of horror appears and you know you have got the message across. Another room of non-Labor votes, another room full of carriers of the meme.
I have already made the case to Pia that the meme is already out there. As I see it, the only option Labor have is to sacrifice Conroy and his insanity, the earlier, the better.
The basic message to Labor is simple, Conroy and co. can do what they like (notice that I did not say Rudd and co.), come the election it will all be a mute point (And yes I was an Labor supporter until Conroy performed his black magic).
Here is a timely example of so called community engagement.
In the email mistakenly sent to the ABC, the minister’s office reveals a plan to block the Windsor Hotel development after staging fake community consultation
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/25/2830415.htm?section=justin
One wonders whether this debate is futile, as Conroy stance is firm.
I think it’s a forgone conclusion that the government will pursue mandatory filtering. Our only hopeis to engage the Liberals, Fielding and Xenophon to stop this in the Senate.
Conroy’s website removes references to filter
http://www.news.com.au/technology/conroys-website-removes-references-to-filter/story-e6frfro0-1225834474153
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1391908#r1
Some great debate on the whirlpool forums in relation to this subject.
QUOTE:
“Any body capable of critical thinking realises that laws only stop the lawful, criminals will continue to be criminals because its what they do. so new laws do not effect them.
By mandating a filter system nothing will change. Criminals will simply sidestep the filters.
In Conroys case he says he is about protecting the children and blocking paedophile sites amongst other refused classification sites. Clearly this wont effect paedophiles, at least the organised ones, the rest get caught by their own stupidity anyway.
Conroy understands this, he is by no means stupid.
So the question remains, what is the real purpose of the filter. What is the hidden agenda?
Personally I believe its primarily about kowtowing to big media.
But the filter network also gives the government the unprecedented ability to spy on most communications.
In the future the majority of our communications will be network based. from banking to personal phone calls.
If the government forces every ISP to have the hardware necessary to eavesdrop (full packet inspection) then they have achieved their goal with minimal cost and maximum efficacy.
Don’t forget the labour governments of past. Remember the Australia card an internal passport. Has the government forgotten its desire to give Australia an Orwellian future. somehow I doubt it.
So what’s your call. I have listed the ones that immediately sprung to mind, perhaps others have better insight into the real purpose of the filter.
Or do you think Conroy AKA The Labour Party is honest in his desires to see a paternal state looking after our children. We all know we are incapable of it.
oops I let that slip sorry.
Still my votes with “Protecting the profits of big media”. Because I really don’t want to believe the Australian government would deliberately bug its people. No I didn’t forget. Australia, UK and America and others monitor our international phone calls already.
Still I cant help thinking this is a foot in the door move. once done its easy to change the rules.
DC”
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1371106
Will you punish Labor at the next Federal Election if they persist with mandatory internet filtering?
Yes Votes: 10095 | 96.34%
No Votes: 381 | 3.64%
The meme rolls on, and on…
Wonder if Kevin 07 knows, or is the insulation debacle more on his mind (the one he should have asked more questions about)?
Is he asking questions about this policy farce? He should be.
You couldn’t script this better if you tried! Comrade Conroy strikes again!
SAY you’re a government minister in charge of a controversial plan to filter the internet that has been criticised for its secrecy.
Then imagine that you’re accused of obscuring access to information about that plan on your official website.
How do you respond? With the delete key, apparently.
http://blogs.news.com.au/techblog/index.php/news/comments/the_web_filter_minister_and_the_delete_key/
THE web developer whose code was modified to remove references to internet filtering on a government website has asked for it to be taken down.
“I would appreciate it if you could remove my Javascript Tag Cloud from your website,” said developer and blogger Aleks Bochniak in a letter to the office of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/web-developer-asks-conroy-to-remove-script/story-e6frfro0-1225836054709
Conroy is a liability, the sooner he is relived of his duties the better.. Combine his Stalinist filter with the complete farce of the NBN and we have a winner!
Conroy denies McKinsey NBN conspiracy
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/Conroy-denies-McKinsey-NBN-conspiracy/0,130061791,339301458,00.htm
Is Kevin Rudd superficial and complacent?
* Yes 90.81% (1305 votes)
* No 9.19% (132 votes)
http://www.news.com.au/national/no-early-election-as-kevin-rudd-gets-jittery/story-e6frfkvr-1225836315306
I think krudd will be looking to cut him loose before the next election, or at least his advisers should be telling that!
Thanks for that Brian. I think understanding the difference betweenn the policy and community expectations will be important in moving forward. Some people have commented on their reading of the policy, which is useful. It does mention in that document “a mandatory ‘clean feed’ internet service for all homes, schools and public computers that are used by Australian children”, so there is some confusion.
Cheers,
Pia
Office for Senator Lundy
“a mandatory ‘clean feed’ internet service for all homes, schools and public computers that are used by Australian children”,
Hi Pia,
If we are going to argue semantics, then what about a computer that is not “accessed by Australian children”?
Surely they are expressely excluded from the requirement for a mandatory ‘clean feed’?
As mentioned above, I think most people got the impression ISP’s would be asked to provide a clean feed, not to make it mandatory.
Opt out was definitely mentioned and it was never mentioned that businesses would be subject to it.
Pia said – [ It does mention in that document “a mandatory ‘clean feed’ internet service for all homes, schools and public computers that are used by Australian children”, so there is some confusion.]
Where is the confusion?? “used by Australian children”
Its not as if that could possibly be interpreted to mean “every single computer in the country whether children have access to them or not.”
The word “mandatory” is used twice in the entire Labor Plans document, the first instance has been mentioned a few times already .. Here is the second mention.
“Labor’s ISP policy will prevent Australian children from accessing any content that has been identified as prohibited by ACMA, including sites such as those containing child pornography
and X-rated material.”
Again, referencing children.
The smoke and mirrors on this whole policy is something the Labor party should be ashamed of.
Sorry, wasn’t trying to argue semantics. As many people say, the community expectation at the time was different and I’m trying to understand that gap. Trying to find reference materials.
Thanks for your comments, they’re all really useful.
Cheers,
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
No worries Pia.
I’d also like to say that even though I don’t agree with the Senator’s current position (and still hope that it will change), I do appreciate that you are taking the time to be involved in the discussion.
I just hope that the Senator will actually read the responses and realise that those of us opposed to the filter are not a bunch of paedophiles upset that we won’t be able to share our child porn. Many of us are professionals, have families, and work in the IT arena. Our protests are not gut reaction “we don’t want it”, there are many very logical and reasoned arguments against the filter.
I’d be very interested to see a study into how many extra cyber crime fighting AFP staff could be supported with the funds currently tagged for the filter?
Cheers,
Andrew.
With all due respect Pia, the policy Labor went to the last election with was released five days before the election that was being fought primarily on industrial relations issues, along with climate change and social justice for indigenous Australians.
The phrase “cobbled together at the last minute to appease wacko-fringe swing voters” comes to mind when describing that policy document. It wasn’t a major part of the Labor campaign and a lot of people who voted Labor to kill WorkChoices, cut carbon emissions and say “Sorry” feel cheated that Conroy is slipping this offensive policy in under the wire.
You can find the references you’re after at http://libertus.net/
Pia – you may find this helpful. For example, the ABC reported Conroy as follows on 31 December 2007 (after the election): “Senator Conroy says anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service.”
“Mandatory ISP Filtering
A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a ‘clean feed’ internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries.”
Pia…
I take this as they are saying its mandatory that the ISP’s provide a facility that offers clean feed. It does not state it is a mandatory clean feed to ALL.
If that (the linked document) is a word for word policy statement then your government is wrong as it does not state or imply imposing it on all citizens without choice.
Senator Conroy does not have a mandate to impose this.
If he was to take it to a poll as say the republic issue he would loose hands down.
The biggest flaw in all this apart from the affects to all users of the net both in cost and speed is that the people it supposedly intends to protect will become even more vulnerable than without it.
It will set up a false sense of security.
The best solution is the old localised firewall and parents supervision.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
Hi Pia,
First off, thanks for being such a good sport about this, it’s very commendable.
Now to the business end of this comment: What is happening here isn’t just a ‘gap’ in community expectation. It is a dishonest act, a broken election promise.
Promise keeping is considered by some philosophers to be a fundamental part of ethical behaviour. The flip side is that breaking a promise is always wrong, unless there is good reason for doing so.
Senator Conroy said one thing and now plans to do another. He broke a promise to the electorate. Nothing that has come to light so far strikes me as being in the category of ‘good reasons’. Worse still, the shift from it being mandatory to provide the option of a filtered service to it being mandatory to provide only a filtered service seems very much like a deliberate attempt to manipulate the structure of choices offered to voters.
Pia, there is no confusion on the mandatory component by us public. Senator Conroy made that very clear:
Conroy himself backed that up by telling the ABC that adults who didn’t agree with the policy could opt-out.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.html
The confusion is on your end. I remember debating before the election that the filtering should be opt-in, not opt-out. This policy is much worse!
Hi Kate, Pia.
I’d just like to add a voice to those pointing out that the community expectation around this policy was for an opt out filter:
“A Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a ‘clean feed’ internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children, such as public libraries.”
I don’t interpret this as “mandatory”, and from a quick ask around of my family and friends, I’ve not had a single taker so far to interpret it as mandatory. I’d suggest from the poll results I’ve seen in every different type of media, it’s reasonable to conclude that the majority of Australians also feel the same.
I also have serious concerns about the way the debate on this policy is being hampered by the policy being released only a few days before the election, and the results of the study being both poor quality and again released at a time to minimise exposure.
If the Government is serious about this policy, let it stand on it’s merits. It’s quite clear that currently debate on it is being stifled and misdirected by playing the “think of the children” line, which I think there is ample examples throughout the comments showing that realistically, all this is doing is giving uninformed users a warm feeling of safety whilst doing nothing to address the problem.
She will certainly be reading all of it
Thanks again for the comments and ideas.
Personally, I have great respect for Kate for making her statement. She is trying to express her own views about the issue, and is aware that her own views may diverge from the party view. This involves considerable risk of party backlash against her. To do so takes great courage, especially in such a public forum as this.
I would ask all of her detractors to keep this in mind. Instead of lambasting her for not coming out with all guns blazing, perhaps you could give her credit for saying as much as she has about an issue she is clearly passionate about – possibly as passionate as any of you.
One thing I notice is that the #nocleanfeed community are very quick to hit the button. Maybe we could all think a bit before we hit that button.
Good on you Kate – and Pia too.
If we really need to be congratulating Kate for saying, and committing to, as little as she did in this post, then the Australian Labor Party is an even bigger menace to democracy than we thought.
Maybe if people stopped “playing the game”, we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place.
Andrew,
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, Kate seems to be the only Labor Senator with a basic understanding of I.T without hearing it second hand from an I.T nerd who is paid by Stephen Conroy to tell him what he wants to hear.
If anything I hope debate here will make Kate and the Labor party realise that by following this course of action through will be slippery slide down the 1 term government slope. Seriously Kate, this issue WILL be an election issue. It’s not up there with ETS or NBN at this stage because of the way Labor have played it out of the mainstream media (not juicy enough and too hard to understand for the general public) however once this gets the media spotlight consistantly as it has over the next few days, then people will gain understanding of what is being proposed.
Avoid having the Liberal’s use an anti-filter campaign at the election (a campaign which will be backed by a vast majority of Australians will back as evidenced by every poll on any online news site). Make it opt out like the original policy stated and everyone can pack up their bags and go home. Then we can focus and spend money on policies that will actually achive something good.
Shame though isn’t Andrew that her staffer is trying to assert that the mandatory filter policy was pre election when it wasn’t right?
I suggest Kate should cross the floor on this issue, if the ALP are petty enough to expel someone over this they’re not worth representing.
How you could support Conroy when he has alinged himself with that nutter Jim Wallace of The Australian Christan Lobby is beyond me?
*Apologies if this is a double up as my post seem to work before.
AndrewS,
Senator Lundy has always had my support for her efforts on this and other IT related matters until I read the following sentence in the second to last paragraph of her blog post:
“Finally, I want to be very clear that ultimately, as a Senator in the Labor Government I will be bound by Labor Caucus’ position on the matter.”
I realised at that point the Senator is just like most other “politicians” and is prepared to let poor policy become bad law in order to keep pre-selection.
I hope she reconsiders her position.
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment.
This ongoing moralistic rubbish coming from the government is to freedom what the death of a thousand cuts is to the human body…
Mobs like the ACL will push for something, 100% solution. You compromise and manage to argue them down to 25%. Next time around, they ask for 100% again, and you manage to hold them to a 25% increase. Now you’re at 50%. Next time around, they argue for 100%, you lose another 25%…
That is why there should be no compromise on this. Offer subsidies so people can avail themselves of a filtered service if they wish, but no mandatory system ever. Even if it worked perfectly with no slowdown and would never block stuff that wasn’t on the blacklist, I wouldn’t trust it because the list is administered by people, and people are prone to corruption. Even if it’s a simple as silencing websites about something that isn’t popular with the current government (gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia etc), once we start introducing secret lists, it’s a short trip down the path to abusing them…
The appalling thing is that the government via Sen Conroy, have resorted to vilifying the public and a senator who have stood up to this…
http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/24/cheap-tricks-not-the-right-response-on-internet-filtering/
or that he has tried to use the power of his office to silence members of the public…
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/264974/appalled_opposition_hits_back_conroy_internet_censorship
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/10/23/1224351430987.html
How any member of the Senate/Parliament can stand by when such gross miscarriages and attacks are carried out is beyond comprehension… Particularly when the holders of the supposed ‘moral’ high ground are shown to be hypocrites…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/alp-leader-sorry-for-drunken-night/story-e6frf7l6-1111114215865
Yes, our glorious leader can pontificate about the dangers of alcohol to our society.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/and-baby-makes-five–the-senator-his-wife-and-the-surrogate-mothers/2006/11/06/1162661615860.html
And our censorship minister evades the law in his home state to get what he wants, rather than try to change the law for the better… The quote from that article that should seal this issue forever…
Conroy:”I appreciate the interest that this event may create but I trust people will respect our privacy”
Respect your privacy Sen Conroy? When you do not respect ours?
Side note: Yes, I know dragging Conroy surrogacy in to this is very poor form. So is the inference that not supporting the filter = supporting child porn.
Sen. Lundy, how can you sit by and watch these grotesque events continue?
I could only imagine what would happen if a politician bullied a member of the AMA for instance. The way this farce has been conducted by Stephen Conroy is nothing short of breathtakingly arrogant and ignorant on what exactly he is talking about. Its not the opponents of this censorship that are misinformed, its the minister.
Constantly miss using (deliberately or worse; incompetence) and interchanging words that mean different things under legislation ‘prohibited’ ‘unwanted’ ‘Refused Classification’ ‘illegal’. Every time he opens his mouth hes contradicted himself (either through incompetence or a blatant bald face lie).
Here are some chestnuts:
“Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will filter out content that is identified as prohibited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).”
http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf
“Senator Conroy- “…we are looking at two tiers – mandatory of illegal material and an option for families to get a clean feed service if they wish.”
Senator Conroy- “We would be enforcing the existing laws. If investigated material is found to be prohibited content then ACMA may order it to be taken down if it is hosted in Australia. They are the existing laws at the moment.”
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S11346.pdf
Senator Conroy: “Cleanfeed is broader than the prohibited sites. You can’t opt in or out of the prohibited material. The cleanfeed is something you can opt out…”
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=o4UGEWYf2bY
“The pilot [of ISP-level filtering/blocking] will specifically test filtering against the ACMA black list of prohibited internet content… While the ACMA black list is currently around 1,300 URLs, the pilot will test against this list as well as filtering for a range of URLs to around 10,000 so that the impacts on network performance of a larger black list can be examined.”
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds111108.pdf
“ISPs are invited to participate through two streams:
1. Filtering the ACMA blacklist of prohibited URLs; or
2. Filtering the ACMA blacklist, and also providing additional content filtering e.g. dynamic filtering of other unwanted internet content and non web based applications (such as peer-to-peer networks).
…
Successful applicants will need to install the ACMA blacklist on their filtering solution.”
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/89159/request-for-expression-of-interest.pdf
There just a few.
Then we are told:
“Senator Conroy— … In terms of the mandatory ISP filtering that we have been talking about, I would argue that there is a very strong case for blocking RC or “refuse classification” material that includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act. I understand that we are all engaged in significant public debate around the inclusion of other categories. This is a decision that has not yet been determined and it will be determined, as we have always said, following the live pilot trial to give us advice— [...interjection...] —about what is technically feasible. So, as we have said consistently, the RC illegal material under the classification act, not under other arguments that others have put forward, will be included. But no other decision has been made and it will be determined on the basis of the trial.”
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S11635.pdf
..”The full scope of what we filter won’t be determined until after the trials,” a spokesperson for the Senator told iTnews.
Assumptions that the Government intends to “filter the entire ACMA blacklist and extend its scope,” is a myth, the spokesperson said.
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/99567,optus-remains-conroys-last-filtering-hope.aspx
“STEPHEN CONROY: But that is not what is being proposed. I mean we believe that there is a compelling argument to block refused classification. We’ve not suggested, and I repeat, it would go against the fundamental tenet of the Labor party to suggest you would block political content, which is the China line and the Saudi Arabia line. I couldn’t be more clear or simple or straightforward on that. … We’re looking at technology to see if technology can help replicate what happens in the real world. … and, again, Greg tried to just slide in, “Oh, look, it’s going to be a much broader list.” Refused classification. Material that you can’t view and distribute today is what I am talking about.”
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2521164.htm
Much of RC is …legal… to view.
“MARK NEWTON, ISP NETWORK ENGINEER: I can address that in a few ways. In order to be prohibited on the internet in Australia, in order to make it onto the ACMA Blacklist, content needs to be refused classification – which doesn’t just mean child pornography and bestiality… Or it can be X-18-plus,… Or it can be R-18-plus and not behind a restricted access system. …also the most recent addition which came into force in January this year – sorry – last year – prohibited content on the internet in Australia includes material which is MA-15-plus sold for profit and not behind restricted access systems…
…
JENNY BROCKIE: …But Stephen Conroy is that right that this net that you’re throwing out to gather in material is much broader…
STEPHEN CONROY: This is one of the great furphies that people have wanted to engage in to try and create a scare campaign about what we’re actually proposal. I on have only ever identified refused classification in terms of child porn, bestiality, rape, incest sites – those sorts of things. For adults who want to be able to watch the other material we’re not proposing to do that – we’ve never proposed to do that. …
…
STEPHEN CONROY: …I think – I repeat again – there’s been, unfortunately a lot of misinformation spread about what our intent actually is. I was more than happy to accept to come on the show to make sure that people understood – we are talking almost exclusively about refused classification. …”
Misinformation indeed. Anyone interested can read -
http://libertus.net/censor/ispfiltering-au-govplan-timeline.html
For sure, thank you all very much! Please keep them coming!
Cheers,
Pia
Office of Senator Lundy
Mark M, that ABC site you linked to is now showing “Page Not Found”. Is the ABC destroying evidence?