Some of the best posts on the content filter trial

If the private sector has a solution for the problem that works, then the government shouldn't step in and take control. We are too dumb to realise what rights you are giving up for the sake of children. You don't want them growing up looking and smut but you don't want to risk them having to grow up with an increasingly oppressive government. Sex or dictatorship, what would you prefer?

Accept that fact that the internet is not a place for children. You wouldn't let them run around on the street unsupervised so you shouldn't do it on the net either.

The use of children in many debates is a cop-out especially when it comes to the situation where people are demanding the government to do things they should be doing (like supervising their children).

All I can say is that all pro-censorship comments show a complete lack of understanding of the technology and how poinless and easy to circumvent it is.

Want to know how to protect your kids? Put you computer in a common room and supervise them and educate them.

Parents saying 'i don't understand the internet' is no an excuse. The internet is just as important these days as the car or the telephone. Stop burying your heads in the sand and take control of your own childrens welfare. Don't put our society at risk (of censorship) because of your own ignorance.

This isn't about porn, it's about censorship, and the steps we're taking toward it.

Ah yes, the superiority of them all...

Interesting comment:

"All I can say is that all pro-censorship comments show a complete lack of understanding of the technology and how poinless and easy to circumvent it is."

So I get it, the "pro" guys must all be technology ignorant, and the "anti" guys are all technologically, ethically and morally superior...?

I just love people who approach the debate based on the merits of the individual positions and their potential expertise, and do not simple generalise and stamp people with some predjudice...

And then move right on to slagging off at parents... Nice one.

The article is just an excuse to fill some space and get ad revenue, that's very clear.

The problem with the whole "internet filtering" debate is that it is technically impossible to filter the internet. You can 'attempt' to, but much like search engines which only attempt to catalogue the internet, filtering it is only ever going to be one failed attempt after another.

If they want to filter something, filter some more police force into the affected locations, and that should put a lid on it altogether.

Filters assist, no doubt. But they aren't effective at reaching 100% blocking, and this makes them a complete waste altogether. No one is going to accidentally view the content that is going to be blocked. It's not exactly common stuff such as adultmatchmaker, this is really obscure stuff that anyone who does find - will have tried hard to find.

Mandatory filtering, as proposed so far, doesn't even have anything to do with children per se; it's to do with enforcing the censorship system already in place. The fact is that once technology is available to filter in an efficient and scalable way there's no reason the government shouldn't do it as it's simply enforcing the censorship rules that already exist. If we're to argue against mandatory filtering it's the *existing* laws and regulations that need to be changed...many seem to think maintaining the status quo is the solution, imagining that because there's nothing physically preventing them from accessing something (e.g. Saddam Hussein's execution) on the internet it's actually "OK". It's not, it's just unenforceable. So even if it doesn't happen now, internet filtering will just come up over and over again as long as we have mandated censorship - which, by the way, we do, and always will. The question is just how much?

Mandatory Filtering is not the answer.

Who is to say that if the government can add anything to the list without scrutiny by a public that cannot at their option bypass the filtering, that any of the following won't happen after it is implemented:
1. That a future government will ban anything they see fit, that they disapprove of, that doesn't meet their 'view' of the world. Basically, the classic censorship regime, which generally fails eventually, but causes a lot of issues in the short term.
2. That someone with access to modify the list won't sell access to add/remove sites for monetary benefit. Seems we are assuming that bribery and corruption are not possible, despite decades of history that proves otherwise.
3. That a criminal organisation won't find a way to add/remove said items to the list via computerised (hacking/virus/whatever) means inside the government network. Blocking necessary legitimate sites for public exploit purposes (eg: Anti-virus updates, so they can infect more PC's comes to mind) with no means to circumvent the blocking to fix the issue.

Sure you want to protect the children. But we have to protect ourselves as well. Mandatory filtering is not the way to do that. Education and supervision are.

1984 - George Orwell

The government loves to come up with reasons to suppress and control its people. That's what it's always tried to do. It's exactly the same with "The War on Terrorism". They want you to believe that they will help and protect you, but the real purpose is as much control and power, and hence revenue, as possible. They are not interested in protecting you and your rights, so YOU need to look after yourself, ie minimise the government's control. As been said before, the government has no idea about how to implement an efficient method of blocking disturbing content anyway, so it's a complete waste of money. Look after yourself, your freedom, your privacy, your right to democracy etc. Say NO to these sort of idiotic ideas coming from an always incompetent government!

There have been calls from academics

Since we're quoting dubious American research here's something of more relevance - a decrease in violent rape associated with an increase in internet porn

http://www.impactlab.com/2008/01/06/internet-porn-shown-to-decrease-incidence-of-rape/

real research findings

"Since we're quoting dubious American research here's something ..."
Since when is the research of the CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN RESEARCH CENTER - UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (Wolak, Mitchell and Finkelhor) dubious??! Because it doesn't coincide with your views? These people are some of the best in their field and their research is often quoted by our own Australian researchers, who also draw the same conclusions about the harm of exposure of children to pornography on the internet.Visit the Australia Institute website
http://www.tai.org.au
and look at the papers they have written on the subject, although i'm sure you won't - as it goes against all the misinformation that you Anti-Censorship people push doesn't it?
Accidental Exposure of X-Rated Pornography is harming our children right now and its time to do something about it - regardless of your "Government Conspiracy" Scaremongering campaign.

Since when is the research

dubious?

When its self serving

FUNDED BY THE U.S. CONGRESS THROUGH A GRANT TO THE
NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN

What - you think their research would find a case that they didn't deserve more funding? LOL

And to the other post that said I didn't care... obviously failed to read my post properly - this paper in fact shows there ARE real dangers on the net that I believe should be addressed - but they have nothing to do with someone accidentally seeing a boob. If you got your mind off the porn we might be able to address some of the real problems that exist.

- regardless of your "Government Conspiracy" Scaremongering campaign.

Hmmm... don't think I've mentioned a government conspiracy as yet... but I'll be happy to give it a go.

Lets see... Conroy says the internet is 'like the wild west' - well obviously a politician would say that. State authority extends over everything - but the internet is aberrant, like the wild west, state authority doesn't extend there. Must fix!! Must send in the Sherrifs!

Analogous with the electromagnetic spectrum - until radio technology arrived there was no need to legislate to control spectrum allocation, but now its very tightly controlled - and now we have this internet thingy - must control and allocate .. but allocate to WHOM - well lets see.. MEDIA INTERESTS of course, they're the logical ones - and theres a whole body of 'tradition' (keeping it nice) that allows the government and media interests to work together - yes thats the way to go

Media interests? The Australia Institute (from wikipedia) "largely funded by the Poola Foundation - a philanthropic organisation run by the Kantors, an offshoot of Rupert Murdoch's family[)"

Sniff sniff?

Good thing I'm not paranoid. Personally I think that those who see conspiracies are giving too much credit for intelligence to the opposition.

BTW its good to see Flood and Hamilton taking so many bullets for us.

accidentally seeing a boob?

No problem, if 'parents what something done about it NOW' then they should do something.

The parents that is, NOT the government.

If you want a filter go out an buy one, don't expect taxpayers to fund one for you just because you have an issue with content available on the net.

If you don't have enough trust in your own children not to bypass the filter then here's an idea - how about disconnect from the internet entirely? If you dont want to visit an adult store then you don't go in.

Nobody forces families online. If access is required for kids homework purposes then they can either use the (already filtered) school internet connection or perhaps go the local library, you do pay council rates after all.

On the 'exposure to X-rated porn devastates kids', you are obviously a bit lost in the wilderness there.How many of these Aboriginal communities that you use as an example would have broadband anyway? Do you also then propose that we search the property of all people that have access to kids in anyway just in case they might have some porn magazines somewhere?

Porn has been around a lot longer than the internet - just ask any male who is or ever was a teenager. Most will have seen porn however i reckon you would struggle to find any that have admit to having been 'devastated by it'.

Get over yourself. Your kids upbringing is your problem. Not mine nor the rest of us.

I was hoping their would be porn here!

You're looking in the wrong place for free porn - there's not that much on the web since the porno sites got wise to disabling sub-directory content listing.

Better off looking at P2P or usenet if you want free porn, at least, that's what I always tell the kids.

VIOLENT GAMES/MOVIES ARE ALSO DESENSITIZING OUR YOUTH to the point where they will eventually all want to join the armed forces cause it will seem to be exciting to them,especially after Aust Gov comes out with (Australia's Army) the same type of game the U.S. Neo Cons have come up with.

Blah, so says you.
If that

Blah, so says you.
If that were the case we wouldn't have such abysmal recruitment rates. If such a thing worked, great, now all we have to do is figure out how to fix retention....

video

that said I didn't care... obviously failed to read my post properly - this paper in fact shows there ARE real dangers on the net that I believe should be addressed - but they have nothing