Conroy: I’ll never bring the filter in without a vote

This makes life simple don''t vote for Labour because if they get in, he gets in, if he gets in then he has a mandate and will vote in the filtering regardless of what you and I want. We the people don't have a say nor ever have had a say what happens in parliament. We just pick the over paid monkey to push through their own agendas like selling public assets to bank roll their pay rises, super funds and perks. As much as I don't think much of Lathem. The idea of ballot marked void has a lot of merit.

Clarification: I think the point is that Conroy concedes that if he puts the filter to the Senate it won't get through. Labor cannot vote in the filter unless it controls the Senate. It doesn't now and it is almost certain it won't after Saturday. That is why Conroy is asking ISPs to introduce a voluntary filter. The notion if Labor wins that Conroy can do anything he likes is wrong. He can't.

I would rather trust the 'devil' giving me a 'free' wish than this bull*censored* coming out of Conroys mouth.

Conroy a democrat? Are we talking about the same Comrad Conroy who is nothing more than a beurocrate, whose holds his opinions in such high distinction they are divine?
Conroy the man who would rule a communist country with an iron fist with his buddy Kevin and the ACL Brotherhood?

Conroy you are a disgrace, you are a disgusting individual. Your name makes me cringe and fills me with anger.

lol the getup ad is old, and it was true, the original report showed one of the technologies slowed the internet 80% or whatever..

But the idiot still hawks on about it like its some sort of valid way to fight the opponents....

The opponents are against a secretly controlled censorship, thats it.

He goes on about the now 400 odd sites that contain Child porn, but what has he done to remove those sites from the internet, have they been reported to the governments of the countries they are hosted in ???????!?

if not, why not? And if they have, and that country has deemed them not to be child porn, wouldn't that mean our description of it could be different or *gasp* WRONG? Considering an adult dressed in a school uniform can be considered child porn in australia, it would not be suprising.

But i understand, ministers are not educated enough to think this deeply about policies that will effect millions of australians.

And i forgot to add, WHY AREN'T JOURNALISTS ASKING THESE QUESTIONS... Why does it always stop at the lying level of conroys dribble?

WHY? Anyone could search around and find all the information they need to know why anyone would be against this filter, yet this isnt done... its always just a thin slice of questioning then a steam roll of lying dribble from the minister..

This sort of reporting is nothing short of ridiculous.

I'm voting for Labor because of the NBN, and with the Greens and the Coaltion opposing the filter, then the filter cannot possibly get through parliament.

So I don't know what you people are worried or complaining about.

"Speaking to ARN in a one-on-one interview, Conroy said he did not think a ‘backdoor’ method of bringing in a filter existed."

Of course not, he's smart enough not to shoot Labor in the foot at this critical point of the election.

Why bring in a filter that paedophiles would welcome?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCHpAN_BKK0

RL : so wait, you want a failure of a government that has interests in bringing more government into peoples lives a chance to continue what they are doing just so you can have a NBN that will be built no matter who you vote for?

Ridiculous.
Utterly ridiculous.

I'm with "Tired of government" on this one. Why aren't all these journalists pressing Conroy hard when he spew's out that line of 400+ child abuse URL's. There are just so many holes in that it's not funny and yet no one ever pins him down on it.
The only person misleading the Australian public is the senator.

For the amount of grief Conroy has caused, it is time for him and his party to go.

someone PLEASE teach conroy the difference between a ping and speed? 1/70th of the blink of an eye doesnt mean anything to speed, but international ping? it could be attrocious.

Well joe I guess the difference lies in the relativity:

If you have lower transmission speeds you wil have longer ping times.

If you have faster transmission times you will have shorter ping times.

That is under network usage conditions, as different metrics apply to an idle network.

Of course when you have an idle network you are limited by the physics of the materials, mode and distance, and the relative speed of light in that material.

Now if you were paying attention to Conroy, you may have noticed that he was referring to the delay caused by the filter.

The ping times involved in moving the packets from the ISP routers to the filter and then onto the next router will be infintesimal, wheres he was referring to the time these packets are delayed in the filter, which has proven in tests and in some live ISP networks elsewhere to be less than 1/70th of a blink of an eye.

Thus he was referring to the speed of the filtering, which can and is typically measured in the timeframe needed to filter a URL request.

So joe, say it is so.... 1/70th of a blink of an eye has everything to do with speed, the speed of the filter.

Now you can turn the words whichever you please, but that is what he was talking about and it was correct.

If the filter is a slow filter, or an overloaded fast filter, then your ping times when your ping must traverse the filter to get to the pinged address will be longer. International or local.

If your filter is inline, the ping times will be averaged longer, as all packets will traverse the filter. If your filter is not inline but is, as an example, BGP redirected, then your ping times will in the vast majority of instances be the same or up to some milliseconds longer if they are in the tiny percentage of packets that are redirected.

Great subject, we do prefer speedier transmissions and shorter pings...