Comments on: My thoughts on the Filter

By: Kimberley Heitman

Kimberley Heitman — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:27:31 +0000

A new study by a German activist group has demonstrated that the lauded Scandanavian blocklist of child pornography sites contains 1.7% of such sites. One has been there since 2008, undisturbed by police.
http://ak-zensur.de/2010/09/looking-away.html has the details. The activist group were able to demonstrate that taking action instead resulted in child pornography sites being removed quickly. Their press release says “Access blocking means looking away instead of acting”.

By: Peter R

Peter R — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 06:55:35 +0000

I’m also disgusted by Liberal/Labor censorship of the net.
Yes it’s great not to be able to find child porn, but then to blacklist sites that give excerpts from the black list will be the next to be censored, then we will find that wikileaks.com and Information Clearing House and other political sites will be targeted. Even if Labor does not expand the black list into political sites, we know that Mr Abbott will want to show how hairy chested he is and will (*not may*) do it. He’s never let the truth get in the way of telling a good story,
Would Sen. Conroy censor the Sex Party’s website?
I agree with Martin C, it’s too dangerous to allow censorship of any kind and I certainly used this policy when considering where my vote was to go.

Sorry Sen. Lundy but the Greens got my vote and still will as long as Labor wants to censor the internet and keep refugees interned offshore.

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 22:07:43 +0000

Interesting to see the reborn Democrats’ site. There’s some good stuff there but, interestingly, there’s nothing in their policies about the filter. I suspect that the brand has been too tarnished by past betrayals for that particular soufflé to rise twice.

Re the Libs and the filter, make no mistake – both Labor and the Libs are captive of either the Christian lunar right and/or old-fashioned socialist control freaks. Both will introduce mandatory filtering. I’m horrified that so little has been said about Labor’s plans for deep packet inspection (referenced in an earlier post of mine). If they were proposing to open every letter sent through the mail or to eavesdrop on every telephone conversation we’d have the proverbial blood on the streets; this is precisely what they’re planning yet the silence is deafening.

By: Ivan

Ivan — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:09:38 +0000

Max: Obvious conclusion? Maybe in your mind…But we can leave the readers to draw their own conclusion, and vote the way they want. Either for the controlling, nanny state, we need to monitor your Internet surfing, or for the party with a prominent, senior member who has stated publicly what their position is. I’ll take my chances with the Liberal party.

By: Martin C

Martin C — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 07:46:27 +0000

Ivan: the words you quoted from that article are NOT the words of Tony Abbott: they are the words of Joe Hockey, who as I said above is notable among the Liberals precisely because he IS the only prominent Lib speaking out against this appalling censorship legislation. Given that he is the shadow Treasurer, not any kind of IT minister, and NOT the leader of the Liberal Party, this kind of quote gives me even more reason to wonder whether an Abbott-led Liberal Party, in government OR in opposition, will oppose this legislation. Why aren’t there any quotes from ABBOTT saying something like that? The obvious conclusion to draw is that Abbott DOESN’T oppose Conroy’s censorship machine.

By: Ivan

Ivan — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:57:49 +0000

Haha, doubtful, they are two sides of the same coin. There are quite a few articles floating around.

“We will implement practical and effective measures to enhance online safety and security including PC-based filters for families,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/liberals-would-scrap-labors-net-filter/story-fn59niix-1225901856447

Now that may not meet your “standard of proof”, but it is better than the alternative, which is the madman spruking high speed Internet on one hand, and crusading with his “choke point” Internet monitoring on the other.

I liked the idea of the NBN, but it was way to ambitious for someone like Conroy, who is on some sort of personal crusade to implement his censorship program.

By: Martin C

Martin C — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:28:58 +0000

Ivan, you’re sounding a bit like a Liberal shill there, mate. Do you have any actual evidence that the Liberals “policy position” is to “block it and go back to PC based filters”? I’d love to think that’s true but I’ve been looking hard for even a HINT that might be the case, and there has been a long suspicious silence instead.

By: Steph

Steph — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:57:15 +0000

It seems you’re a bit confused about preferences, Ivan. Voters can direct their preferences any way they like, regardless of how a party suggests they vote. You can ignore what the good ol’ how-to-vote cards say!

By: Ivan

Ivan — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:44:53 +0000

Martin C, great unanswered question? Their policy position is to block it and go back to PC based filters that parents can use if they like – which BTW is the most effective way for parents to control their kids usage. The debate is over, if you are against the communist style filter that Labor proposes vote for anyone else, as long as they don’t have a preference deal with labor.

By: Martin C

Martin C — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:33:06 +0000

Ivan: The Libs’ position on the internet censorship policy is the great unanswered question. I am not as convinced as you that they will oppose it: Joe Hockey opposes it, but Tony Abbott has been suspiciously silent. The possibility exists that Abbott is aware that the policy is costing Labor votes, but as the natural recipient of right-wing religious votes, the Liberal Party may not actually oppose it when it comes to a division in the Senate.