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/ and then by
Q and A from my thoughts on the internet filter and the specific ammendments the Senator is proposing to the Labor Caucus to modify the policy are on the My thoughts on the Safer Internet Group statement blog post.
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.
467 Comments
Reply | Subscribe
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.