- NEWS.com.au |
- Fox Sports |
- Newspapers |
- CareerOne |
- carsguide |
- TrueLocal |
- Real Estate |
- MySpace AU
Government rejects negative internet filter report
- Font size: Decrease Increase
- Email article: Email
- Print article: Print
- Submit comment: Submit comment
December 23, 2008 11:00pm
A REPORT showing a mandatory internet filter will not work has been dismissed as untested by the Rudd Government.
Senator Stephen Conroy yesterday made available the ISP Level Content Filtering Feasibility Study he received in February, commissioned by the Howard government.
The report found content filtering as proposed by the Rudd Government would not work or be economically viable using current technologies, will slow internet speeds, block legitimate websites and be easily circumvented.
One of the report's key findings said "it could be expected that allowed content would be blocked".
"If all pornographic content is to be blocked, other content with a 'resemblance' in features will also be blocked; eg. sex education, medical information, erotic content etc," the report said.
However Senator Conroy's office said the report's findings "involved no empirical testing of filtering technology", and was nothing more than "a literature review of existing studies as well as interviews and surveys".
"The Government is aware of the technical concerns raised in the report, and that is why we are conducting a pilot to put these claims to the test," said Senator Conroy, the minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
"The pilot trial will not begin until mid-January and an announcement regarding participants will be made at that time."
Dr Bjorn Landfeldt, of the University of Sydney and one of the industry experts contributing to the report, said yesterday a major problem with a mandatory filter was the difficulty in distinguishing between "blacklisted" and sanctioned content, which could see educational websites blocked.
"It is therefore difficult to distinguish between different types of content where there are similarities. For example, if a web site contains information about sex education or erotic content," he wrote on his website.
Civil libertarians and internet action groups have criticised the filter as censorship on a par with that undertaken by Iran and China.
Previously, the minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy had announced a Christmas Eve deadline for the start of live trials with internet service providers.
Specifically, the department website still says "the pilot is expected to commence before the end of 2008", but "preferably before 24 December".
Just last month a NSW Parliamentary Research E-Brief on censorship and mandatory filtering found serious issues with the plan, including "the potential impact on internet speed and the indiscriminate blocking of innocuous material".
Also of concern in the E-Brief was that the proposed method of filtering can only block access to pages on a pre-determined list, meaning "access would only be blocked to material that has been identified as prohibited by the ACMA."
Dr Landfeldt yesterday said the many problems associated with an ISP-level mandatory filter could be solved by making the scheme voluntary.
"If such a scheme is voluntary many of the difficult issues become obsolete or at least manageable," he said.
Share this article What is this?
Also in National
- Bank terror: Heroes hold hostage-taker
- Travel monument: Coffs to get big Slurpee
- Wrongfully charged: Bligh calls for Haneef apology
- Record texts: New Year message blitz tipped
- New Year: Don't quit just yet, smokers told
- Cashews: Thieves take $100,000 in nuts
- Incompetence: F-word teacher let kids run wild
- Fashion icon: Gillard's changing head of state
- Caring gesture: Police show heart in rare gift
- Pizza dough: Girl stuck in kneading machine
- Lake collision: Teen charged over boat death
- Turbulent year: Good riddance, 2008
- Debt: Taxman chases 'Dipper'
- In the stands: Jess adjusts well to the pace
- Pregnancy: Age no baby barrier
Have Your Say
Latest Comments:
I know this rubbish is all about the governments wooing of family first senator Fielding. Why doesn't Conroy just tell him it's not a goer, will piss the electorate off totally, and get on with some serious internet work, such as the national high speed broadband network and leave the porn filtering to the people who should be doing it....parents.
Posted by: BundyGil of Bundaberg 1:02am today
How can Kevin 747 possibly think this is a viable option? Anybody who knows the slightest thing about computers and internet traffic will KNOW it is impossible to filter the internet unless it is implemented by EVERY country in the world, and even then it would stlil be questionable. Get over it, move on, find another way to opress the people.
Posted by: ben jones of brisbane 12:54am today
Glad to see that most people here are against censorship. This idea seems to change it's spots on a pretty regular basis. First it's got an opt out clause. Then it hasn't. First it's illegal content, then it's undesirable - which could be anything. Then it's file sharing. How can people be in favour of something that no one understands or can explain clearly? If you need a censor, then you should hand your internet P plates in and unplug your PC.
Posted by: The Voice Of Reason of Nodding knowingly. 3:37pm December 24, 2008
Like so many other Krudd policies, this one is just another dudd. This mob is so full of plans with no research basis as to actually implementing or having a possitive effect as a whole it beggers belief. Certainly the negative effect of this one far outway the positive. Who voted for this bunch or nerds anyway?
Posted by: Richard Daniel of Brisbane 1:52pm December 24, 2008
If this scheme was completely opt in/voluntary, there would be far less problems and far less anger, particularly concerning civil liberties. If voluntary, it'll then just be a giant waste of money because no one would use it.
Posted by: Markus Cirillo of Adelaide 9:56am December 24, 2008
Of course he rejected it. This filter is doomed to fail like every other Labor government imitative. How are they going to monitor encrypted Internet traffic? Answer, they can¿t. Labor should change their slogan to ¿be seen to be doing something¿. Come on the next election so we can get rid of these idiots.
Posted by: Craig of Brisbane 9:55am December 24, 2008
Read all 30 commentsI agree with your entire post, but have one technical part to point out - it wont filter bit torrent. So their entire reason for putting a filter on, will actually be immediately nullified.
Posted by: Les of Perth, Australia 9:50am December 24, 2008
We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. The location field is optional. Read our publication guidelines.
Submit your feedback here:
Search for more stories on this topic on Newstext, our news archive service. Click here
