Why the Internet filter is not the solution we wish it was

I believe that it's all a big, 'look what we are doing for you..'

It's like having a solider with a gun stand outside your house and say.. now you're safe.. instead of actually spending the money on dealing with the 'troubled ones' with education, awareness, and developed proven solutions. The 'troubled ones' may be living next door and just jump the fence ignoring the solider anyway.

Thanks!

I totally agree with what you are saying. This is possibly the worst single solution to this perceived problem that the Government could have come up with. They continue to plough on regardless. It's obvious the vast majority do not want internet filtering, take a look at this SMH poll - http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/results.html. As of right now it has over 12,000 votes with 95% of the voters against it!.

I congratulate you on speaking out against this disastrous and expensive policy!.

The mention of:

There is no known objective of this filter.
Objectives that make sense.
Ways to deal with those objectives.
Coming from a ALP member.

make this a great piece of text.

I'm surprised a Labor Party member like yourself has openly disagreed with Senator Conroy's insane attempt to censor the web. From what I have read about Rudd et al, disagreement is not an option.

This whole attempt will blow up in Rudd and Conroy’s face and will turn away a generation of voters from the Labor party unless something is done about it now! Stop listening to right wing fundamentalist religious groups like the ACL they are no better then the Taliban. What gives them the right to influence policy and what was Rudd doing being their keynote speaker a few weeks ago at their conference. We are not a theocracy but Rudd is taking us in that direction.

The fines of $27,500 per offence for non compliance will send small ISP's broke and create a single point of failure for the internet at the ISP. They are not going to risk those fines and will have to just shut down access if the filter fails. The legislation has not been thought through and the report is just rubbish.I have plenty more to say but I will leave it to other posters.

Please help save Australia from this nightmare.

Regards
Brett Anderson

Thank you for having the guts to speak out against your own party.

Would that certain Federal senators had half your courage - Federal Labor seems to be a tinpot dictatorship these days, with previously-outspoken members now too scared to stand up for we mere plebs.

Again: thank you!

Thank you for having the bravery, integrity and the principles to stand up against this failure of a policy.

I sincerely hope that you do not become political 'roadkill' for not toeing the party line, because we desperately need politicians from either side of the house who are willing to look at an issue analytically without bowing to party pressure or opposing just because the other mob came up with something.

Good understanding of the utter uselessness of this 'censorship' proposal. If parents think ATTEMPTING to block maybe 1-10k URLs will protect their children online than that is a huge risk and pure snake oil.
Last estimates by Google have the number of websites up to 1trillion+ the amount of content that could fall under 'RC' is astronomical.

The trial was just an exercise in political spin. The highest speed that they tested was 8Mbps, yet many homes/businesses already get more then 8Mbps+ and the NBN is meant to be 100Mbps (how will the filtering hardware cope with this?).

Circumvention is also DEAD easy, you don't need any technical know-how only the ability to follow instructions. This is the equivalent of locking the front door but leaving the backdoor open (or locking the door but there's no walls to the building).

What a giant joke and complete waste of taxpayers money that should be directed towards the POLICE to stop crime at its source.

I have to agree with what you say, except to point out that it is NOT "a move towards censorship" - it is censorship, and any other term for it is Newspeak.

With a web of over a trillion pages, anyone who thinks that a blacklist of "up to 10,000 pages" (or any other list compiled from complaints) will have a noticeable effect on the web experience is simply innumerate. This is quite apart from the ease of circumvention.

The fact is it will not do what it is intended to do, and the only possible use for the scheme is to hide from naive users a small number of politically sensitive pages, which will somehow find their way onto the list by way of "caching errors" or "the Russian mob". Now, while I am sure that the present government would not stoop to this, are you sure that no future government would?

Already we are seeing a stream of overseas headlines that make me ashamed to be Australian.

+1 for this.

Agree with you on everything, surprised to see some common sense from the ALP..

Well said Penny, its great to see a Labor MP showing some common sense and acknowledging this inherently flawed plan, instead of simply toeing the party line.

I think you are extremely brave for going against the current Labor party plans.

I really do hope other ministers and Labor party representatives follow suit and would love to see a large number of Labor party members vote out this bill (i know it'll never happen).

Anyway just wanted to say good on you - although i'm sure Chairman Rudd and Vice Chancellor Conroy will ensure you are punished for daring to question their plans to censor their sheeple.

Thank-you for sharing your views. I understand the the ALP puts a gag on dissent, and you are very courageous for speaking out against this idiocy.

Nice to see you look at the bigger picture Penny and can see this won't work.

Hi Penny,

Thanks for standing up for common sense and the people of Australia. Sadly though I think as an elected Labor Party Representative you are a lonely voice of sanity among a bunch of imbeciles who are more preoccupied with Censoring & Stifling political discussion in this country than delivering effective measures to protect both children and adults on line.

I call on all elected Labor Party Representative to stand up & denounce this lunacy of Krudd & Conroy as I'm sure that failing to do so will see Labor as a whole branded as an extremist zealots who can lo longer be trusted to hold elected office.

Make no mistake if Krudd & Conroy proceed with their efforts to CENSOR the internet and destroy free speech in Australia then it will be a cold day in Hell before Labor will ever be trusted to govern in Australia again.

Penny, stalking and bullying online are no different to that in the real world just because people add "cyber" before them. Both are social problems and cannot be solved with technology just because people use technology to stalk and bully.

But I agree with almost all of your points. Plough the money into policing. Fraud is a major problem online due to the fact that banks and other institutions don't seem to take it all that seriously. Even the courts give pretty lenient sentences to those who steal identities.

Also getting around censorware will be dead easy. Senator Conroy seems to think only those with the technical know-how will do this, but see many mainstream users illegally download films and TV series. People in my office who can barely use Word and Excel are downloading the latest US episodes of "Dexter" through BitTorrent. Info on how to do this stuff spreads like wildfire, and so will methods to circumvent the filter.

It's all very expensive waste of money, time and public resources as will as putting an added burden on ISPs (phone calls from angry customers rightly or wrongly saying that a site has been blocked, more work because of the filter). Also the end users will end up with the burden of the cost of this thing. Senator Conroy has already said the government isn't going to pay for it. The only thing I can guarantee from this mess is that no child will be protected from a 1000 url blacklist in a world where there are over a trillion urls on the internet and it increases by a billion urls a day (according to Google).

During this time it's comforting to know there is a champion of free speech and rational, long term thinking who is willing to stand up and make her voice heard.

Our government, and in turn our country, would be far better with MPs like you.

My hat goes off to you Penny for your stance on this issue. I only wish that other Politicans researched and understood the basics of this proposed policy to realise it is a white elephant, a waste of tax payer money and will not address any of the points it aims it will fix.

It was a sad day for Australia when Conroy stated that this will go ahead, and I hope that with your support and like minded individuals who can make a difference - we can see this empty and clearly politically motivated policy squashed for good.

Australia has just become the laughing stock of the modern western world. Lets not go down this dark path and instead invest in educating adults on how to supervise their children online and law enforcement who track down the scum who would do these terrible things to our children.

Penny, Thankyou for seeing this proposal for what it really is - a waste of money and attack on the rights of free Australians.

I urge all of you to contact Senator Conroy and make the case.

To change the views of MP's on this issue you need to talk to them directly about the alternatives that will allow them to address the community and their own fears about childrens access to and harm caused by inappropriate material online. These need to be concrete and achievable.

Appeals only to anti censorship arguments are part of this story but will only appeal to a limited number of elected reps already well versed in the arguments for and against.

Finally, a personal explanation. I am not brave for speaking out about this issue. I am a state MP who does not actually have to make the decision. Without going into chapter and verse about the way parliamentary Labor caucuses work, just because there is not public dissent does not mean that there is no dissent.
In the meantime, get your letters (NOT just emails) to Senator Conroy.

Thank you Penny for standing up for what YOU believe in and not towing the party line.

It is very important that everyone see the opinions of both sides of this issue.

Thank you again for your advice on how us the general public can tackle this issue head on.

Simon

Thanks for your reply Penny.

I think you would find that the opponents to this 'policy' have in fact contacted Stephen Conroy on this matter (many times for some people) and all we get in reply is a bog-standard weasel worded letter. Many of the main problems with this policy have remained completely unanswered, all we get it, if we are really lucky is - "Its not a silver bullet". But yes, we will keep contacting our representatives.

Thank you for being the first and so far only Labor politician with the courage to speak out against this censorship proposal. I sincerely hope your honesty does not hurt you within the party.

If only more of your colleagues stood up for what is right instead of towing the party line.

Well done.

Thanks Penny for articulating very well how badly the federal government has run off the rails with this policy.

It seems very unlike the sort of party I thought I was voting for.

Personally, i think the best way to deal with this is simply to put the computer in the family room...

Makes sense to me... No one i know with kids would stop supervising their kid in a public place... why should the public internet be any differnet?

Thankyou again for your post...

Thanks for your courage to state your beliefs and not those of a political party out of control.

If there were more like you in the ALP, this disgraceful situation would not have developed.

I fear for the type of society we are leaving for our kids when we steal from them freedoms that we enjoy now, that they will be denied.

That is not a society I would be proud of.

If the bullies lean on you, I am sure there are other political parties that would welcome you. I suspect that you have earned the respect of quite a few people today.

Thank you so much for speaking out against this. I do hope more politicians do the same.

If this was really about protecting children they would be pouring money into the AFP and educating kids and parents.
The filter won't include instant messengers or peer2peer. Child grooming will carry on as usual.

I am not technically inclined, but i do know how to use google. I already know how to get past the filter.

What a horrible waste of money.

I support Penny Sharpe in her stance :-)

This is the biggest, fundamental change to communications in Australia's history, and yet the mainstream media (eg: TV) has not had a single thing to say about it?

I smell a rat!

Of course, it is adventagious to the Government that the general population is not aware of the significane of this policy :-(

Dear Penny
I applaud your courage to stand against it.

Penny, in response to your comment about sending mail/email to Senator Conroy, I have done this several times over the last year and I have only recieved one response; a form letter which read like a press release and did not answer any of the concerns I raised. All the other ones I sent went unanswered.

It is refreshing to see a member of the ALP speak out against this utterly nonsense policy. It is so frustrating seeing this policy inch forward because the majority of Australians either don't know about this or don't understand the underlying issues.

Thank you for having the integrity to speak out about this.

"We" didn't ask for any censorship or filtering of any kind.

Only 3% want this in any shape or form and they are the type of people who avoid or relinquish personal responsibility.

Love ya work - keep it up.

The is much content on the Internet and the rest of life that is not suitable for all people on all occasions.

The mandatory filter does nothing to protect children, it is a joke.

The correct approach is education and equipping kids with the needed life skills. Sufficiently resorourced law enforcement agencies etc. There have been reports of prosecutions being dropped due to lack of resources, http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/analysis-delays-obst...

The following webpage, Mapplethorpe ACMA decision, details some content that was determined to be PG, yet many (possibly most) parents of young children would want their kids to see it. The webpage in question is here (NSFW).

These are just a few examples of why it is a bad idea, redirect the funding to education and LEAs

Thank you Penny. As a female, a parent and a long-time internet user (from back in the mid-90s), I am thrilled to see a politician of the current government speak out against this horrifying piece of censorship being proposed. I have been following this issue for more than a year now.

It is not for government to tell me how to protect my child in the on-line world. I am more than capable of parenting him in this area, as I am in every other area of his life. Not to mention my own internet use.

Everyone knows this has nothing to do with "protecting the children". Thank you for speaking out against the spin.

I doubt you'll be winning any Most Popular awards at the Labor Christmas knees-up, but I wanted you to know that there are real people out here who admire what you have said publicly and congratulate you on having a genuine understanding of the issues.

Please don't stop speaking out about this. Don't let them silence you on it, it's too important.

Cheers.

Thank you for speaking out against this policy.

Amazes me how poorly thought out the filter is -

First don't get me started on the fact that most RC content is legal to possess and view and should remain so....

Based on the interview Conroy did to The Age 30th Jan 2009, we know 674 sites on ACMA's filter relate to child abuse. Yet we know that the UK Internet Watch Federation blocks 1,536 child abuse sites.... (Source 2008 IWF Annual Report)... So I am wondering why our child abuse filter misses more than half the sites known to the UK government?

But that's kind of a cheap shot- but no less relevant for it.

The biggest problem with the scheme is unless you know about the site you cannot filter it, and if the child abuse site is shut down there is no point filtering it. Therefore filters are useful only when governments allow known child abuse sites to continue to operate.

Shutting down these sites and arresting their operators should be the end goal. This may sound difficult but the IWF states in their 2008 Annual report, 74% of known child abuse sites are commercially operated and 75% of those operate from servers contolled by 10 domain registrars. So basically regulate the registrars to get them to stop them from hosting known child abuse sites- this will actually shut the sites down.

Very well said Penny! Good on you, and I hope that other people in positions like yours see the strength of your arguments on this issue.

Thanks for speaking sense on behalf of your party.

I'm almost tempted to move to NSW...just so I could vote for you :)

Good on you Penny! Its great to see there are some Labor MPs with a more enlightened view on this issue!

I am truely in shock, I've never heard a politician make so much sense.

If the collective labor party wants to ignore the strong, united voice of the voting public, I can only hope they listen to those like yourself within.

Now if only this sentiment could be echoed by a Labor member of the Federal parliament. Hello? Helllooooo? Anyone?

::crickets::

Penny,

The current issue with contacting our federal member is that MOST of us who have done so have either received a standard form letter which address abolsutely none of our concerns (the case if the Federal member happens to be Labor.) In other cases if our member is from another party they usually

1. Have no understanding of the policy because its been kept out of mainstream media

or

2. They have a standard form letter of their own which basically fence sits on the issue

Thank you for actually thinking about this issue rather than repeating the "fluff" that Senator Conroy blurts out whenever this issue is brought up before him. I've sent a few emails and faxes once I first heard about this scheme but to no avail.

One question - all politicians are supposed to be representing the Australian people. How does something like this get through when there is a clear majority of people that are opposing this filter?

There is a simple fix for this - optional filtering. Make it an 'opt-out' system, where you need to tell your ISP that you specifically do not want to be on the filtered internet plan. Why is this so difficult for Senator Conroy to comprehend?

censorship is an attack on our personal autonomy. informed population is needed for the democratic process. filtering is an agression on our core values, it will cause a far more serious and long term damage to the self image of the population and deviate the perceived role of the government to nanny state. i think conroy and others behind this action should be immediately removed from office and charged in court.

Thank you Penny for speaking out against this seriously flawed proposal.
It's a waste of money, and will be an imposition on all internet users.. especially business.. at a time when we can least afford to be wasting money and hurting businesses.
The Government should be concentrating on far more important issues than senseless censorship !

Penny, congratulations for taking a principled stand.

Often the argument made by pro-censorship lobby is that why shouldn't we restrict content on the internet when the same content is restricted on other channels (TV, video, film, print, etc)? Why should the internet be different? Here's the difference:

Content restriction on traditional channels is transparent, we know or can easily find out what is restricted. We can argue whether it should or should not be restricted but at least we know what we are arguing about. Content restriction on the internet is completely opaque. The public will not know what or why anything is blocked, they will not even know it exists. This is the inherent evil in this legislation. This is Kim Jong Il brand of information control.

I am a Labor voter but if the opposition makes a good case (rather than caving in to the religious right as they normally do) this issue is enough to make me swing.