Greens dismiss Internet filtering discussion paper
- 16 December, 2009 11:29
- Comments 4
The Greens party has taken a swipe at the Internet filtering consultation paper and criticised the Government’s restrictions on public contribution to the proposed legislation.
Minister for Broadband, Senator Stephen Conroy, released the results of the Internet filter trial yesterday and announced intentions to bring a mandatory ISP-filtering bill to Parliament. The Government also released an Internet filtering consultation paper which asked for public input on ways to regulate refused classification (RC) content.
“Despite the release of a discussion paper that tacitly acknowledges the huge concern this proposal has raised, and the flaws in the existing blacklisting process, the Government is intent on ploughing ahead,” Greens Senator, Scott Ludlam, said in a statement.
While the discussion paper encouraged the public to provide input, Senator Ludlam claimed the filter appeared to be a “done deal”. The public consultation process only addresses one aspect of the policy, which is the how the RC-list would be compiled, but the Greens are imploring people to communicate a broad spectrum of concern to the Government.
The Greens also questioned the viability of the ISP clean-feed, highlighting results from the Enex Testlab report which showed filters are not failproof.
Senator Ludlam said his party will seek significant amendments to the legislation if it is introduced to the Senate in its current form.
The Liberal party has also doubted the efficacy of an Internet filter and objected to the Government’s proposal. In a statement by shadow broadband Minister, Senator Tony Smith, the Opposition is demanding an audit of the trial results and will consult extensively with ISPs and relevant stakeholders to examine the legislation in detail.
Come socialise with us! Facebook | LinkedIn
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email ARN
- Follow ARN on twitter
- Spectra Logic and Australian National University Success Story - March 2012
- Market Potential-Strategy Guide to the Active Archive Market
- In Search of the Long-Term Archiving Solution —Tape Delivers Significant TCO Advantage over Disk
- In Search of the Long-Term Archiving Solution —Tape Continues to Be a Major Player
- Red Light In the Control Centre Saves Hours of Chaos
-
Tech Watch: Who watches the datacentre?
-
Facebook scammers host Trojan horse extensions on the Chrome Web Store
-
Webroot: Growth in security
-
Sice quits Acronis, joins Staples
-
Sice quits Acronis, joins Staples
Get exclusive access to ARN's news, research and invitation only events. 
Comments
Anonymous
Idiocy!
Which part of "it won't work" does the government fail to understand? Bypassing any filter with an offshore proxy or VPN is trivial. This is such a flawed policy.
Roddy
Who cares, have fun bypassing. Your cost mate
Anonymous, the vast majority of the internet users in the UK have no problems with their filters, and 95% of them are filtered. They seem to work and have results. Are you saying our ISPs are dumber than the UK ISPs, and cannot get these systems working...
Who cares if you can bypass? Bypass what? Who needs to bypass the filter? Why would you need to bypass the filter?
Anonymous
How to complain
If you fire off an angry email to Senator Conroy about filtering, all you'll likely get is an automatically-generated reply giving you the standard words on the issue. Don't waste your time, waste theirs instead! http://is.gd/5pjGo
i.am.not@this.address
@Roddy
UK blocklists do not cover the same quantity of content the Australian filter will cover, RC means _anything_ which cannot be given a G/PG/M/R rating. Government loves to use the spin of 'child porn and bomb making' but we all know it will encompass anything else which contradicts Australian legislation.
Like perhaps game developer websites which were refused a MA15+ rating because there's no R18+ rating (unlike the UK), or websites which don't comply to Tasmania's election laws regarding full name and address and postcode to be posted when making comments about electoral content such as a site like this one. (South Australia only just repealed a law which would have required full name and postcode).
Then there's also the concern of what they mean by filter, a blacklist if IP addresses fair enough, but if they want to start blacklisting URLs and content within websites that will require deep packet inspection which is a privacy concern.
Post new comment