Aus gov is going to put a content filter on the internet

[Nifty]

Australians will be unable to opt-out of the government's pending Internet content filtering scheme, and will instead be placed on a watered-down blacklist, experts say.

Well that's insanely fascist. Why is this the first I'm hearing of this and when did Australia become Communist China?

[Ninja Catfish]

Heh, a bit late to the party

But I agree, it sucks to a large degree, and I hope to God that it doesn't get passed.

[Nifty]

The content filter part isn't new, but this is the first I've heard that you won't be able to opt-out, which instantly changes my opinion from "don't care" to "HOLY **** THEY'RE NAZIS"

There are so many things wrong with allowing any government to filter the availability of information - once the infrastructure is in place, who's to say the government of ten years from now won't see it as a perfect tool for blocking "objectionable" content that is simply material that contradicts them?

[Jez]

The content filter part isn't new, but this is the first I've heard that you won't be able to opt-out, which instantly changes my opinion from "don't care" to "HOLY **** THEY'RE NAZIS"

There are so many things wrong with allowing any government to filter the availability of information - once the infrastructure is in place, who's to say the government of ten years from now won't see it as a perfect tool for blocking "objectionable" content that is simply material that contradicts them?

I agree completely, as they say: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Whilst I have no real objections to filtering out child porn per se, I just don't believe in its efficacy. I don't see how it actually prevents children suffering at the hands of paedophiles, the films still get made, they just won't be distributed over the internet as easily. If they actually cared they could spend the money actually tracking down the people who do post such material and taking the suppliers out of business.

As for filtering out kids being able to access porn, it seems completely unnecessary and pointless. Is anyone really being harmed when fifteen year old Johhny types "****" into a google image search? There is already effective end user net nanny software to stop younger children from accidentally stumbling on to inappropriate material, and the government's last filtering system was cracked by a teenage boy within hours of release anyway.

On top of all that we'll end up footing the bill twice, once in the form of taxes to fund the government's program, and again when our internet bills go up because of the additional costs the ISP's incur complying with the legislation that they then pass on to us. The whole issue is a complete and utter false moral panic.

[senseibaka]

so, who's moving to Canada?

Switzerland is also an option, but beware the LHC.

[Sathias]

The content filter part isn't new, but this is the first I've heard that you won't be able to opt-out, which instantly changes my opinion from "don't care" to "HOLY **** THEY'RE NAZIS"

There are so many things wrong with allowing any government to filter the availability of information - once the infrastructure is in place, who's to say the government of ten years from now won't see it as a perfect tool for blocking "objectionable" content that is simply material that contradicts them?

There are two levels of filter, one which you will be able to opt-out of (stuff unsuitable for children but ok for adults) and one you will not be able to (child porn and other illegal content).

While it sounds reasonable in principle, for me the main concerns are

a) The filtering affecting the performance of the internet and putting extra cost on the ISP's
b) False positives blocking content which is not intended to be blocked
c) The definition of "illegal content". We have seen in games such as Mark Ecko's game that illegal content can be applied to crimes much less serious than child pornography. Would this sort of application of the law happen for net filtering as well?

[zebba]

c) The definition of "illegal content". We have seen in games such as Mark Ecko's game that illegal content can be applied to crimes much less serious than child pornography. Would this sort of application of the law happen for net filtering as well?

Are they going to start filtering out chemistry/physics sites also cause they could teach would-be terrorists how to make explosives? It's not just the crimes that are less serious, it's also the stuff that can be applicable to crimes or have completely legitimate content.

The last few years have not inspired me with much confidence for the future of our liberties and indeed our country. We've gone from the Howard fear-mongering style of politics with evil people everywhere to the Rudd nanny style of politics where we're all being wrapped in cotton wool. It's not much of a stretch that the next person in charge will have the worst of both sides of these two - and then we really need to worry...

[Blocker]

Once again the government is trying to raise our children and tell us how to live, rather than govern.

Who will be the internet policeman? At the end of the day it will reside with one single person (not a panel) but one person to decide what content is legal and what is not.

e.g. I am an avid paintball player... It is illegal to own a paintball pistol in Australia, will all paintball sites be blocked because they sell or review items that are illegal - yet I miss the other content that is legal and relevant to my legal sport?

Every day I tell my kids something new about this world they grow up in... they will not get the sanatised govt approved version from me.

[DXPetti]

Parents have a role, know it

Its not upto the Government, our Education system, the Internet etc etc to raise our future generations....

[S3MT3X]

I don't see how it actually prevents children suffering at the hands of paedophiles, the films still get made, they just won't be distributed over the internet as easily. If they actually cared they could spend the money actually tracking down the people who do post such material and taking the suppliers out of business.

What he said.
It's going to cost a very large amount of money to put this system into place, not to mention the ongoing maintenance costs. Many millions of tax payer's dollars will be sunk into keeping this system alive and ultimately it's a flawed system (it can only block content that it already knows about, so any blacklists will be constantly outdated).

I'd rather see my money going toward preventing these acts from happening in the first place instead of just hiding the evidence.

[dmar]

will they block sites like govsec, insec and milw0rm?

how will they filter secure traffic?

[Mr Spinks]

I've been surfing the net for years and never stumbled onto a child porn website.

[Q17]

I've been surfing the net for years and never stumbled onto a child porn website.

same, unless your trying to find it, you wont.

[Sathias]

I've been surfing the net for years and never stumbled onto a child porn website.

Me neither.

Recently I read in The Advertiser that a prominent business person and philanthropist in Adelaide had child porn charges against him dropped because they got some expert witness to testify that the child porn images on his machine were part of the "temporary memory" (I'm assuming they meant browser cache) due to child porn appearing in "pop-up advertisements". If true, he must have been on some pretty shady web-sites anyway