Factsheets
Senator Conroy responds to net filter fears
1. What is the primary goal of the internet filtering plan?
We currently have laws about the sort of material that is acceptable across all media - television, film, publications, radio, computer games and the internet.
The National Classification Code determines content against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults.
The aim of the Government's Cyber-safety policy is to make the internet a safer place. We have allocated $128.5 million for a comprehensive cyber-safety program that focuses on education, research, ISP filtering and law enforcement.
The filtering aspect is just one component of the plan. We are seeking international co-operation to expand the blacklist of URL's which contain the worst of the worst content - child pornography, cruelty or real violence, and sexual violence.
This material is illegal across any medium so we do not believe it should be accessible on the internet.
2. Does the senator believe or have evidence [the plan] can be rolled out without reducing net speeds?
This material is currently being filtered by a number of ISP's in countries such as the UK, Sweden, Norway and Canada with no impact on network speeds or performance.
We are aware of these claims and that is why we seeking to conduct a real world pilot trial with the internet industry.
The pilot trial will assist to gather further information about a range of technical solutions and their impact on performance.
3. Has the plan been achieved in any other liberal democracies?
Countries such as the UK, Sweden, Norway and Canada (amongst others) have already implemented ISP level filtering of this sort of material.
4. How does the senator respond to accusations by Sunrise viewers that this is a threat to free speech/democracy?
This is not an argument about free speech. As I have already said, we have laws about the sort of material that is acceptable across all mediums and the internet is no different. Currently, some material is banned and we are simply seeking to use technology to ensure those bans are working.
---
Senator Conroy's spokesperson also tells Sunrise the examples of euthanasia and anorexia sites were not mentioned by the government but by Greens Senator Ludlum at a Senate Estimates meeting last Monday.
It is believed these categories would not not fit into current definitions of banned content.
More info
netalert.gov.au - download filter software
Senator Stephen Conroy - official page
nocleanfeed.com - activism website
IT expert gives the industry perspective here
latest videos
today's thought
Destiny decides who you meet in your life, but it's our heart that decides who stays in our life. - Gale, TAS
soapbox
Kurt Fearnley: I was relief teaching in Blayney when I met Kurt as a young school boy. The first thing that struck me was his smile and contagious positive outlook at all times. I see nothing has changed with this outstanding Australian. Although I never saw him again, it is a testament to the power of his personality that I have not forgotten him more than 15 years later.
Email SunriseSunrise Asks...
with Nelson Aspen
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Pty Limited. All rights reserved.
Advertise with Us - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Help
I think this policy is a big fat load of BS (cont. in next comment)
Conroy is straight out lying and misleading in his comments.
Experts in the field have already confirmed this will slow everything down and introduce large overheads.
The 3% failure rate for filtering is also ridiculous, imagine if 3% of your emails never got through..
In all seriousness:
#1. It surely is going to cost more than 128.5 million to set up and MAINTAIN the network. (cont)
Sure conroy can state 128.5 million, but who is going to pay the continual cost of network maintainance? I'm pretty sure it won't be Conroy of the Federal Government. The costs are going to be beared by the ISP's who will then pass the add. cost to us consumers
(cont)
#2. Actually, live trials have already been done in Tasmania, and it has shown that filtered sites are up to 88% slower. He hasn't told the whole truth. What about game latency, video conferencing, VoIP? They're all going to suffer dramatically if the filter goes up.
(cont)
#3. As from my first post on the first page, the filtering techniques are radically different from the one proposed in Australia, i.e. users are able to opt out of EVERYTHING.
#4. The internet is the last avenue of free speech for us Australians. (cont)