Comments on: How clean is Labor’s “clean feed” Internet?

By: Stilgherrian · Budget explains Internet censorship plan, a bit

Stilgherrian · Budget explains Internet censorship plan, a bit — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:05:23 +0000

[...] vagueness of the Labor government’s planned kid-friendly “clean feed” Internet become a [...]

By: Stilgherrian · Conroy still not giving details of Internet filters

Stilgherrian · Conroy still not giving details of Internet filters — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:19:22 +0000

[...] You also say the filtering must “[meet] the needs of industry and the wider community.” But the industry has no need for filtering — it’s an expensive and irritating distraction. And “the wider community” has shown a profound disinterest in the whole thing. [...]

By: Michael Meloni

Michael Meloni — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:34:28 +0000

I agree that on point two the Government needs to walk away. On point one there needs to be considerable clarification on what sites would be blocked (it’s the ‘etc’ bit the worries me), will there be disclosure, how will ISPS be subsidised, will it impact our speeds — a lot of questions need to be answered.

I don’t forsee them backing away from either.

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:02:21 +0000

@Michael Meloni: As the discussion over on Link have highlighted (scroll down that page a bit), the real mess here is that two completely different tasks are being jumbled together:

Block a relatively few very nasty sites (child pornography etc) so that no-one can view them; and
Block a very large number of rapidly-changing sites for some users (children), while allowing them for others (adults).

As long as the two tasks are mixed together, there will never be any clarity.

Neither will there be any clarity as long as ill-defined terms like “inappropriate” are bandied about. Inappropriate for whom? In what context? As I’ve said before, what’s “appropriate” for a 5yo is probably very different from that for a 15yo, but both are “children”.

I still maintain that for Problem #2 the government should just bugger off out of it.

By: Michael Meloni

Michael Meloni — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 04:20:37 +0000

Complete the trial with just 800 URLs, announce its success, push through mandatory ISP filtering and then start adding the ‘inappropriate content’ to the list.

Even if they were to stick to around 1500 URLs, the fact still remains that all Australian Internet conenctions will be filtered and all Australian ISPs will be forced to comply.

Not all content on the current ACMA list is C/P. What’s not is what concerns me.