Get the real facts about the Content Filtering Scheme from my new web site, http://www.stephenconroy.org, and stop propagating this prejudiced information.

Thank You

One thing these puppets fear is exposure. So as long as we all talk about them and what they are attempting to do, they FEAR that.

So from the bottom of my arse Conjob, suck a fat one you tool.

Love to everyone else

free

My quick responses:

• Saying that filtering “works” depends what you mean by a working filter. A 1% false-positive rate might be acceptable in a small business where the problem can be fixed quickly. I doubt that it scales up well. Imagine a business which makes, oh, breast-feeding accessories trying to use Telstra BigPond support to get themselves unblocked!
• I have no problem with a business choosing to restrict Internet access for its employees, or a family restricting their own Internet access. I think they’re wrong — I’ll explain why another time — but it’s their choice. This is a mandatory system — where the policy of what will and won’t be blocked isn’t even defined yet! This is poor policy-making!
• Can a centralised filter can provide the nuanced access to information which I suspect, as a non-parent myself, good parenting requires? Can managing a curious, intelligent child’s access to information really be reduced to a few pre-defined levels of filtering chosen from a list? I doubt it.
• I simply do not like the idea of a government installing a mechanism for suppressing communication — especially when the rules are not clear and transparent, and when critics of the plan are accused of promoting child pornography. If people do not see the potential danger here, then they need to take a deep breath and think harder.

@Michael Meloni: Comments on Internet forums and news sites will mostly be from Internet-savvy people. I suspect that the calls for the Internet to be filtered come from people who don’t use it themselves and are too lazy to learn about it — so they want “the guv’mint” to do their parenting for them.

@Wolf: Yes, the continuation of the Coonan filtering plan could be Conroy’s trojan horse for something else. But my Crikey piece outlines what I think are the real politics here.

Bit-shift that a bit to the left and think of the ISP providing a filtered service offering, and an optional unfiltered offering. As an example; as a parent, I choose filtered. I expect my ISP to provide their best endeavours in software/live-monitoring to exclude defined content. As a parent I DON’T allow my children administrative control of our family computer, or their friends to install downloaders/proxies etc.

Those like Stilgherrian who start out by claiming that you “can’t control the internet” are dunces.

If we applied some of the available software today, viruses and malware wouldn’t be travelling untouched through ISP routers right now.

I’ve never seen so many people all agree that a particular policy is a bad idea. I’m starting to forget who even supports it besides Conroy and the AFA.

Then he goes back to Steve Fielding and Nick Xenophon and says… “hey I did something, now can you please pass our budget bills”….

Either that or I am over thinking it and Conroy is a f*(king idiot.