Christian lobby slams "incomprehensible" filter block

How can we filter The Australian Christian Lobby? That's a filter I'd like to see.

“On every level arguments against ISP level blocking of RC material have been disproved or shown to be illogical,” Wallace said.

Talk about being in denial....

I'd also vote for a filter which would filter the likes of the ACL and Family First.

This Taliban ACL should be <censored>!!!

In the words of a famous game developer, "Suck it down".

Will Abbott ever come out and say the Libs are against the filter? You know he wont, ever.

Thank the Lord that this incompetent doesn't SPEAK for all Christians - just his own brand of extremist weirdo.
I'm a christian, and I'm insulted that this guy says he speaks for me. I wouldn't have this guy speak for me even if I was dying.
I will be voting AGAINST this filter, and will vote for any party that chooses NOT to implement it. And I will let all my christian friends know as well - so we can vote this incompetent into the gutter.
BTW to Atheist - have a look at FF's stance, they're actually now doing the classic 'fence sit' - rather than advocating or not advocating the censorship filter.

I wish the Australian Christian Lobby would stop trying to force their views on others.

@Jamin: The Liberal's policy has been made clear. Unlike Labor - that leads from the top (jahwol herr beloved furher) - reads: gets dictated and goes in lockstep from the top...
Liberals are allowed conscience votes, and can (sometimes do) cross the floor... any labor MP who does that will be ostracized et al. Abbot won't say yay/nay to anything, as he doesn't want to commit on it - but the majority of the party is 'NAY' so thus policy is enacted... :-)
thank God!!!

in the words of the ACL themselves when they thought the filter was a sure thing.....get over it Jim.

I vote for the ACL to go away.

who are the ACL?

and why do we keep hearing about their loony ideas?

Jim Wallace's stubborn belief in ISP filtering in the face of so much evidence that it's pointless, is what is truly incomprehensible.

The proposed filter would (almost) be effective if:
a) Peer to Peer networks didn't exist;
b) Virtual Private Networking didn't exist;
c) Nobody used Instant Messages or email;
d) Nobody used forums, messageboards or Usenext;
e) Webmasters couldn't be bothered to change IP addresses or URLs of any webpages that were blocked by the filter;
f) ACMA hired 100,000 employees to review and classify web pages;
g) Nobody made any new websites for the next 10 years;
h) There was a magic box that could actually handle the volumes of traffic required to censor 10's of millions of URLs for a whole country's internet traffic at 100Mbps speeds;
i) Youtube, Google and all of the other internet companies agreed to voluntarily filter their own content, and;
j) Nobody had any motivation to attempt to circumvent the filter.

If ALL of that were true, then Conroy's plan might be effective. Unfortunately, NOT ONE of the above is true, and every single one of them is a fatal flaw in the filter.

It's so full of holes, it's a massive joke...a joke that Jim Wallace just doesn't get.

There is a difference between working and working effectively.

The filter does not work effectively.

Even if we assume that everything the filter would block is acceptable, the filter will not prevent people from accessing said material. It will only block http traffic (and some other protocols, but mainly http).

HTTP isn't the major protocol used to transmit said material.

You can, as easy as using Google, use a free proxy or vpn and still use HTTP and get through.

Therefore the filter does not work effectively, and effectively it doesn't work.

People actively seeking the material will get it. If you're worried about your children or yourself seeing the material, then educate yourself and your children and supervise.
If you're worried about the actual illegal material, fund police organisations in order to prevent it from the source.

Don't enforce new policies when education and investigation are far better alternatives.

Disprove this, thanks.

I tried posting this reply to the original post on the ACL website, but is was refused approval. Please keep in mind this is a copy/paste of a direct reply to their original article.

"I have no doubt that this, and many other comments written about this post will not see the light of day, but the Liberal Party must be commended for using evidence and public opinion to base their decision from rather than the belief that, contrary to what the Industry is saying and the finer details of the filtering trial, that it will actually work.

The filter as I'm sure you are aware will not block R18+ or even X18+ material online. This makes the goal of child protection unachievable from the get go.

The filter will also not stop child pornography or protect children for (at least) these three reasons,

1.) The children have already been abused in the production of the material and hiding it from the Internet will not protect the children already abused. The funding should go to offering support and counselling to abused children and to the AFP so they can find and prosecute those sick people who create the material, not just pretend it doesn't exist so you can sleep better at night.

2.) The filter won't be able to stop access to material it tries to block and for the most part won't filter the areas of the Internet where genuine child abuse material might actually be if it exists at all, that being peer to peer, newsgroups etc.

3.) Once the filters are in place and they are found to be so utterly ineffective the screws will be tightened with a lot of pressure from minority groups such as yourselves trying to impose what ever moral standard they (and you) live by on all Australians.

Tell me, would you accept the filter is it was based on a Muslim set of morals?

So you support a filter that will not protect children, but you claim it will which only serves to give parents a false sense of security which will only put children in more danger from online predators and other real world dangers than also exist online because parents will be less vigilante because the ACL said their children are safer online because of the filter.

Who ever said that the Internet should become child friendly anyway? Is your next target Libraries? Are you going to go burning all books that are not suitable for children? And what does that even mean, suitable for children? 17 year olds? 15 year olds? 12 year olds? 5 year olds? It’s up to parents to decide what content is suitable for their children, something that is not compatible with ISP level filtering.

If you support a filter that doesn't block access to X and R rated material online, does that mean you support and condone all that pornography that is aimed at an adult audience that is R and X rated on the Internet?"

(End pt 1)

Come on folks - they believe there is a sky fairy, despite not having any evidence.

How much of a stretch is it to believe they can filter the entire internet?

My problem with Family First or the ACL is their authortarian style of censorship anti porn, anti gay marriage etc (see the sunrise, asp party vs family first interview) simple fact is they do not retort with factual replies but rather distort the truth.

People have a right to do what they want Family First do not own the marriage code, and it doesn't apply only to Christians but to people of all religion.

Anyway with the censorship i certainly had not got that they were sitting on the fence from that recent interview with a representative from them, they sounded like they were 100% behind it and I'm yet to see anything to the contrary.

Also the filter on saying the word se.x (remove the dot) is rather annoying, it's a dictionary word and I see no reason for it.

@Lachlan, you do realise the very freedoms you are supporting also give freedom to the ACL to lobby for what they want right? The very freedom that gives any lobby group (cigarettes, chihuahuas etc.) the right to voice their opinion.

The only way to ensure that this filter is not implemented is to force the real information out there for people to decide. The filter is ineffective. The filter does not provide value for money - there are much better ways to police child pornography with undercover officers.

For a country with no state religion the Christian lobby certainly likes to stick its nose in.

Dear Christians, get bent you lost bastards.

ACL? Who?

Apparently completely out of touch not only with community expectations but also completely clueless about technology.

Wallace is the same loon who declared seriously that they could solve child abuse in the church if they could keep the gays out. That Labor counts the ACL as a stakeholder in this mess and meets with them regularly on it makes our government appear to be part of the lunatic fringe.

For all we know he's a pedophile, i mean more religious figures have been pedophiles than anyone else, and yes I know that's unsubstantiated as much as the person who accused Michael Atkinson.

Jim Wallace you have no authority to tell people how to look after their children. We'll happily install Net Nanny and monitor our kids surfing habits to keep them safe. We don't want or need your nosy dictatorial interference and bloated sense of self-importance. Get the heck out of my yard.

Now they may have to take personal responsibility for their own offspring!

Where is your God now?

ACL = Australian Christian Lobby
ACL = Access Control List

Coincidence?

Dear Jim, why don't you put as much effort in to finding and prosecuting pedophile priests as you have cramming this communist filter down everyones throats? We are not all believers in your fairytales (its not even that really, its just lame) religion. Do something good for man kind for once and let us move forwards and not backwards as the church has been so darn awesome at doing over the years with the burning of books, etc, etc, etc. Facts before fiction i say!

Matt, as a developer myself I also found have wondered that myself.

Why is it that this government and every extremist around think they can raise my children better than me? I had them, and its my responsibility to look after them.

I all recommend you see the TV series "The Pillars of the Earth"

He clearly doesn't understand how futile this measure is! He may be thinking its a foot in the door to fight some of the obscene content available and leading to other more effective initiatives?

The only initiatives that will make use of the filter will be anti piracy advocates AND corruption working under the guise of government incompetence (ie: "Oh, there was an error with the blocking of the current oppositions web site, but we thankfully had it fixed shortly after the election").

Victorian Transport authority already blocks the Australian S.ex Party website inside their departnment

Jim Wallace forgets that most people just do not want the internet censored. RC material is not illegal.

You can disable the filter with a single keystroke - press the "s" key on your keyboard. Dead filter.

http://porn.site.com + s

equals

https://porn.site.com

I'm offended by all religion, I would like it censored and removed from everyday media.

And now the true supporters of the filter raise their heads. Everyone knew it was the ACL, but because of this little ACL backlash, they've gone on the attack.

Did someone promise you something for your votes a few years ago. Bet you didn't count on everyone else to push back. Buring your head in the sand hoping for a technical solution that won't work to a problem that has nothing to do with IT is your crime. I suggest you ACL people briefly put down your bibles and pick up an introductory guide to the internet to realise the futility of what "solution" you think you are supporting.

a non partisan group...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

oh that is funny, so, so funny...

"the Government's policy also included additional police funding to intercept illegal peer to peer material and find the perpetrators"

Does Jim know something we dont? This is news to me. If Conroy had a plan for any peer-peer interception of child porn as part of his cyber safety policy we would have heard it over and over again

The scariest thing I've seen is Wallace and the ACL. He doesn't think parents are the best way to protect kids from things on the internet? Does he realize that because something is RC doesn't mean it's illegal? These people such as Wallace and the ACL who want to control what other people see and do - they are the ones to be afraid of. They can't stand up against a logical argument so resort to grandstanding and pulling out the old child porn card. Get over it Wallace, looking to God as a moral compass has caused wars, death and hatred against others. If there was such a thing as a God, it would probably cast lightning bolts against people like Wallace who attempt to shove their bullcrap morals down everyones throat. Or maybe that was a priest and an altar boy I'm thinking of.

Does anyone else think it's a little strange that he believes that parents aren't smart enough to filter what their children can view, but the government is?

He sounds like a communist.

@Lachlan:
Not that I'm in any way supportive of any kind of Internet filtering, but if you want to filter out the xtians, you might try this:
http://godblock.com/

Don't you just love zealots

I don't need to know anything about the filter except that the ACL support it, to know that I don't want it, and Australia doesn't need it.

I suppose one can describe the ACL as non-partisan when you consider their goal is to destroy democratic rule of this country and introduce a theocracy in its place.

I detest fundamentalists, I'm glad their stupidity has been snubbed. The last thing we need is people taking the Christian Taliban seriously.

People are certainly entitled to their own beliefs, but religions participating directly in politics (even if it is through front organisations like the ACL) is utterly unacceptable to me. Remove their tax exempt status, I say.

I cannot stand the ACL Australia would be a better place without the wowser factory.

The Internet is already filtered in many ways. For example when I edited at dmoz, lots of submitted "questionable" sites never got listed. You wont find many of those sites on Google, either.

AOL were well known for their site filtereing way back in the late 1990s, but they still became one of the largest ISPs in the US. AOL never really caught on in Oz even though they spent more on advertising than any other ISP.

In my experience with filtering (censorship), it is always a minority censoring the majority. The concern I have with that is who is censoring the censors?

Sigh, why do Christians always want whats worse for the majority?

Bloody Christians telling us how to live out life and force there stupid beliefs on us, go stick to reading your fairytale of a book called the Bible!

Sure with the cult aspects of many christian groups, then a complaint should get many Christians groups put on the blacklist. This would include Brethern websites and such surely. After all they believe in discrimination and post hate mail which is surely illegal in this country...

Looking through the comments, I feel that I should say that the ACL doesn't equal Christians (certainly not the mainstream that the ACL like to claim for their own when they talk about our Christian heritage).

They're pretty extreme and nutty (they were handing out a book on how Muslims were taking over the world via their finance practices at their latest national conference... this was at the ACL's stand)

The ACL are in the lunatic fringe. It's probably not wise to bash all Christians for the mandatory ISP censorship though, since many Christians are against it... including some priests.

I find the ACL totally incomprehensible, they need to butt out of peoples lives and they are sending a strong message that all Christians are wowsering idiots.

NOT RIGHT!

The ACL is an evil presence in our country.

I am a Christain, and I am totally against internet filtering for many reasons. It won't protect children in the slightest from anything.

I am a christian and I am against the goverment internet filter. Just because some christians are for the internet filter does not mean we all are. The minority can give the majority a bad name.

Can't we vote to ship the Australian Christian Lobby off to America to wait out The Rapture with all the other fundie bigots while we all get on with our lives?

"Incomprehensible" is how any person with a brain can believe that there is an "all seeing, all knowing" being out there despite there being not one bit of evidence to suggest it, and a mountain of evidence against it. It's like somebody saying "I believe in the tooth fairy. Now TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!" Idiots.

SERIOUSLY??!?!

Anyone who's delusional enough to believe in Santa's cousin (God) has about as much authority as Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz when it comes to political matters!!!

It's far from incomprehensible, Jim. Nobody but you and your small band of nutjobs wants it. Well, and Stephen Conroy, but I think he fits nicely into the category of nutjob, too.

I wonder what the creator of the universe thinks of all this?