A user from Brisbane measured 17103kbps @ Broadband Speedtest.
4 minutes ago, Click here to find out how fast your internet speed is.
Breaking News: eBay, Trading Post help catch tax cheats
ZDNet / Filter / Story
80% of Aussies support filter
Top related stories
update A survey commissioned by the ABC's Hungry Beast, has found that 80 per cent of respondents supported Labor's proposed filter.
The poll, conducted by McNair Ingenuity Research, chose 1,000 Australian phone numbers to call regarding the Federal Government's proposed mandatory internet filter.
Other findings included 91 per cent disagreeing with the government's current plan to make the list of restricted content (RC) websites secret, with respondents preferring the list be made public.
The season return of Hungry Beast (which airs tonight on the ABC) will also include an interview with Senator Conroy addressing the proposed digital filter. In the interview Conroy acknowledged that filtering, when applied to YouTube, "would slow the internet down".
Conroy told Hungry Beast that the Federal Government was in discussions with Google to outsource the filtering of YouTube.
"What we're saying is that in Australia these are our laws and we'd like you to apply our laws and so that we think that where we can reasonably work with them, we're able to do it. I mean Google at the moment filter enormous amount of material on behalf of the Chinese Government," Conroy told Hungry Beast's Dan Ilic.
Conroy also stated in Senate Estimates yesterday, "Google were very happy to block China's material right up until they found out they had hacked their source code and suddenly discovered that censorship was a bad idea — after they had hacked their source code. But they block in a number of other countries. I understand Thailand is one. There are a number of other countries where Google complies with laws. We are in discussions and they are ongoing."
However, Google has repeatedly opposed the Federal Government's filtering plans in the past.
"At Google we are concerned by the government's plans to introduce a mandatory filtering regime for internet service providers (ISP) in Australia, the first of its kind amongst western democracies. Our primary concern is that the scope of content to be filtered is too wide," Google said on its blog in December.
Google released a statement this week that said while it supported the filtering of abusive materials such as child pornography, "we can't give an assurance that we would voluntarily remove all Refused Classification (RC) content from YouTube".
"The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information. RC includes the grey realms of material instructing in any crime from graffiti to politically controversial crimes such as euthanasia and exposing these topics to public debate is vital for democracy," it said. Google also said it would not do deep packet inspection.
The full findings of the survey will be released on Hungry Beast's website tomorrow.
The government is planning to introduce legislation for mandatory internet filtering sometime before the end of March.
The exact questions asked of the 1,000 people were:
Would you say you are in favour or not in favour of having a mandatory Government Internet filter that would automatically block all access in Australia, to overseas websites containing material that is Refused Classification?
This question followed a definition of 'refused classification' material, as images and information about one or more of the following:
- child sexual abuse;
- bestiality;
- sexual violence;
- gratuitous, exploitative or offensive sexual fetishes; and
- detailed instructions on or promotion of crime, violence or use of illegal drugs.
If a mandatory Internet Filter is established, are you in favour or not in favour of the community being advised which websites have been Refused Classification and the reason why they have been refused classification?
Related stories
Talkback
Interesting...
I'd like to know exactly how the survey questions were worded.
I doubt whether it was worded "Do you want the government to be able to censor what you see on the internet?"
It was more likely to be "Should the government filter out child porn".
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Admission
It is refreshing to hear Conroy admit that it would slow down the internet (a total reversal of his previous statements) and that this is akin to China's suppressive and totalitarian filter.
A last he's nailed his colours to the communist flag pole for everyone to see.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Hang on...
Wasn't there an online survey that said 96% of 28000 respondents disagreed with the filter?
Did they just phone the other 4% or something?
Anonymous February 10th, 2010()
There was, although the amount of respondents was over 24,000, not 28,000.
http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/form.html
Pretty damning and more credible than the statistically invalid one commissioned by Hungry Beast.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Credibility
Actually, I think you'll find that telephone surveys are more credible than online polls. 1000 people is also a statistically valid sample size.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Observer
Clever. You answer the question but avoid the subtext. Yes, 1000 is a credible sample SIZE but you can still distort a survey in the way you select your sample, the way you ask the question, the way you treat outriders, etc. The real issue is not the sample size but whether the survey methodology itself is credible. I would argue that based on what we know, it is about as credible as the ENEX report, which is to say it has no credibility at all to anyone who is actually informed.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010No Credibility
Erm. No.
The result is most likely heavily skewed towards people that have a landline, and then only people that are listed in the phonebook. There is a typical demographic attached to that (older and less tech savvy).
It's the reason why political polls in the US, for example, have increasingly been missing the mark.
A lot of people don't have a landline anymore (they have a mobile only), or can not be found in the phonebook (VOIP number - not in phonebook). These are more likely to be people from a younger generation.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Lack of knowledge
Credibility is also skewed when the people being polled have no background information on what they are being asked about. It's like walking up to 1000 random people on the street to ask each one whether they can explain what nuclear fission is.
Newspaper polls are quite good because they come with an article of relevant information.
Anonymous February 11th, 2010The responses were DELIBERATELY skewed. If you didn't have a child living in your house, you were culled from the results. You could be a school teacher dealing with 300 kids per day, but if you don't have your own child living at home your opinion is NOT included in the selected 1000.
Most of the phone calls were out in the bush where the unsuspecting interviewee is statistically less likely to be informed on the true nature of the filter.
Treknology July 22nd, 2010Wasn't there an online survey that said 96% of 24000 respondents disagreed with the filter?
I'm guessing that "online" is the key word here. People arriving at the web site probably have a reasonable idea of what the filter does and does not do.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010there were two
at least i know of with very similar figures, both in sample size and the percentages. SMH did one as noted. the Age had one too. i recall channel 10 or someone had a phone-in poll and after talking up the filter had to hurriedly walk it all back after receiving an overwhelming no vote.
normally online votes arent worth the electricity to drive pixels to show them. however at a multiple of near 30 times the HB sample population and a very high weighting to one side of the debate i think it was possible to infer clear dissatisfaction with the policy among readers of those online outlets. i dont have a problem wit the credibility there.
while the survey questions are also important and have not been published, i think it instructive that even if you do accept the conclusion that 80% support the filter THEY DO NOT SUPPORT IT IN ITS CURRENT FORM with a clear 91% saying the list should not be locked down and there should be transparency as to what has wound up on the list. i personally hope that would be by the mechanism of judicial oversight.
taken in that context the HB survey is not necessarily good news for Conroys policy, though some may trumpet otherwise.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010China
I love how Conroy turns the fact that Google filter stuff for China into a positive: they do it for China, so why not for us as well?
We should be trying to be LESS like China (at least in the case of government censorship)!
Dean February 10th, 2010A load of crap
This survey is a load of crap just like conroys filter.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010survey is crap
What was the question asked? Did the people understand the actual impact of the question?
I bet of those 80% who said they are in favor of the filter, only 1% of those actually understand what they are being asked.
John February 10th, 2010This survey is perfectly valid
It's interpretation that is flawed...
What it shows is that 80% of Aussies do not understand how broad reaching RC material is.
It also goes on to say that 90% of these people belive the blacklist should be made public, so they obviously don't 'get it'.....
Anonymous February 10th, 2010They're given a definition of RC
Actually, reading the article you can see that the respondents were given a definition of RC material.
The problem is that RC is much broader than that defintiion. For instance, it doesn't mention video games considered inappropriate for anyone under the age of 15.
I could write a similiar survey question.
Where the definition of "free money" is that the Australian government can take all of your money with no recompense to yourself. Do you support the government's plan to introduce "free money"?
I'd bet my house that would result in a survey where 99% of Australian's do not support free money.
Anonymous February 11th, 201080% of aussies?
ZDNet why are you reporting such invalid stats?
Just trying to drive traffic to your site???
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Publicity
I think Hungry Beast are releasing these damning figures to try and get people to watch their show tonight. I'll be interesting in seeing the full survey results tomorrow.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Government lies again
When has the Rudd (and before that Howard) government EVER told the truth?
They have become like the Americans, lie, lie, lie, and if that doesn't work lie again.
The same for their state sponsored, bankster controlled, media mouthpieces.
If you want the truth, just put the word NOT after what they are saying, that is how consistently they lie.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010ABC about as credible as dog***
Shame, shame, shame ABC. There was a time ABC could have been thought to be independent in it's views, not being a commercial station...
But alas, it goes to show the sad.... very sad state of affairs Australia is in, a Western country that is no more democratic than a third world country like China in how opinion is filtered and moulded and spat out as a bunch smelly old pile of c*** that stinks to high heaven.
Australia nothing more than the Western test case for further international expansion of the Censorship agenda.
ABC nothing more than a propaganda machine.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Oh Please
Even if this was a constructive poll. The most likely reason people voted that way is because most parents are quite happy for ABC to play babysitter for much of the day........why can't the internet do the same for the children (because it's wrong lol)
There is no need for this filter as long as parents play an active role in supervising their own children.
Since when did we become so lazy? It's just not Australian to pass the buck.
Personally, if they put this in place I'll find a way around it, there's always a way around it.
Parents: Take a good look at yourselves, if your children are looking at innapropriate websites or getting bombarded with popups.....what did you do to prevent it? Most of you......nothing.
All this filter will do is waste your tax dollars. So who are we to blame when taxes go up......blame yourselves and your complaining about the internet.
Not Impressed February 10th, 2010So
80% of those polled are idiots then?
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Re: So
I'm not surpised 80% are technically idiots!!
Gerson February 10th, 2010Education
If anything it indicates the need for a massive education campaign to inform the GP of the implications of the filter.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Did they phone during work hours?
If a survey company called me at work I, like most others, would not be able to participate so those that did answer are likely to be retirees and unemployed. These people are likely to be the ones who either don't understand the issue or are not overly concerned about slow internet.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010This is Conroy
This is just how Conroy operates. Note: he said: "I'm 100% certain that putting speed bumbs on highways every 100 m will save lives" The statement is more then likely correct but so far to the stupid side that he should of been slapped.
Now turn it down on the stupid side a bit.. okay "i'm 100% sure that noone will be affected by the filter on less then a [#] connection.."
So he will keep going to companies to get some sort of a survey result that he can work with, skim the numbers off the top and then adjust it to be a fair representation of the population and then he's right... but not right, more like a liar.
I don't believe these type of politicians are good for australia at all... He's basically mocking the intellignece of the people who pay his wage..
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Umm, no.
...you honestly think Conroy said "I'm 100% certain that putting speed bumbs on highways every 100 m will save lives"?
Please give a source. That quote has been printed before -- in a *satirical* piece. It wasn't a real quote.
If you can't tell the difference between humour and news, I doubt you're at all informed about the filter either.
Anonymous February 11th, 201080% of Aussies support filter
Oh what a misleading heading!
Just some more of Con-Roys bullshit!
Yes I am sure 80% of Aussie want their freedom of Information CENSORED to the level of an 8 year old?
When the truth comes out of how the so called Poll questions were asked, it will be revealed for the farce it is.
Say NO to Internet CENSORSHIP!
Anonymous February 10th, 2010"commissioned by the ABC's Hungry Beast"
ABC is owned by the Federal Government.
We cannot trust them in this matter.
JEFFERYWANG # February 10th, 2010thats crap
whoever did the survey needs to be given a running down, and kicked out of the game.
Thats got to be the biggest pile of **** ever.
I havent spoken to ONE person who supports the filter.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010A few things
1000 numbers were called - they do not explicitly state how many of those 1000 responded.
They should have matched the result with internet usage to get a better sample.
If you want to get better results request a newspaper like SMH or Age to include the question in their next political poll.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010What phone?
Damn, who has a home phone these days?
My line just runs ADSL. So instead of asking my opinion they got the housebound geriatric conservative down the street.
The real poll is called the Federal Election. Expect a statistically significant increase in the Greens vote.
Anonymous February 10th, 201080% of surveyed Aussies
If you are going to sensationalise a heading at least put a little qualification in it.
Also I add, without knowing the way the question was presented to the people who were called there is no way in knowing how informed their answers were.
Shannon February 10th, 2010What a joke!
How about calling 1000 people who use the internet daily or use the internet as an integral part of their employment, The results of this survey should be ignored completely.
It's like surveying 1000 teenagers and asking them if the government should reduce pensioner payments, completely out of context.
If you look at the numbers of people who have signed the petitions against the filter, the 800 or so people who answered yes to the filter in this phone survey will seem significantly insignificant.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010googles position
I hope google stand firm and refuse to partake in this lunacy. There is a big difference in respecting the cultural differences in a foreign country and pandering to the demented propositions of some newly elected wowser.
Anonymous February 10th, 201080%?
I would say 80% of the people who responded don't even use the internet. After all they are too busy sitting by the phone waiting to answer stupid surveys with their expert opinion.
Kevin Bloody Rudd February 10th, 2010Satire
Hungry Beast is a satirical program, about to return for a new season.
Seems they have some publicity!!!
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Filter wouldn't be based on actual RC status
The question actually asked was "Are you in favour or not in favour of having a mandatory Government internet filter that would automatically block access to overseas websites containing material that is refused classification." Except that it was all in capitals. That doesn't appear to be what Conroy is proposing, which is more along the lines of blocking material that (someone thinks) would be refused classification if it were to be submitted to the classification board, and where there will be no scope for review. Had the survey sample been asked the correct question, I dare say a different result would have been obtained.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Hungry Beast a waste of time
I watched 1 show and was put off by this show.
They are only twisting things to make it seem they are correct.
They had a bit about Australian's being racist toward middle eastern people and spent 5 mins towards this then at the end.
it's comments from the herald sun in Melbourne about middle eastern terrorists, to which no one likes them even the middle eastern people as they end up having family member killed by these people.
The whole show is a complete joke run by UNI students who probably think a Communist government would be the best government to have even though they all be killed or locked up under such a government simply because they have a UNI degree or maybe not due to dropping out and never getting a job in the real world.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Your Kidding
Is this article a joke or what?
Ever person I know and ask, are against this filter. Is this another Steven Conroy setup job?
Get rid of Labor, Rudd seems to be content with what is going on.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010ICT Professionals Understand
Simple, Aussies who do not have a clue about the implications of Internet Filtering (which would be a majority) of course will support filtering. Unlike us ICT geeks here, who fully understand the technical and ethical issues!!!!
Anonymous February 10th, 2010The survey got it right
Well I actually think the survey got it right. The doom and gloomers are in the minority on this one I'm afraid.
As for the quoted "online" survey - these are just too easy to rig. i'm sure the anti filter mob engaged a group to sit there and vote against it all night. Easy enough to do - just keep deleting the cookie.
Move on people - the country has bigger things to worry about than a filter. Such a non issue.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Re: The survey got it right
You do realised Sen Conroy is comparing the system used in China, i.e. he admire and respect the filtered in China and want the same in Australia.
Have you ever been to China and tryinig to access an oversea sites?
The real issue to me is really whether he have poltical agenda other than CP, which i have no problem for them to filtered, but realistically none of the CP are from HTTP sites.
Imagine this, you want to express your opinions whether rightly or wrongly, however you have been IGNORED TECHNICALLY by the filter!!
How would you felt? Really the govt is trying to tell you to STFU, we won't be listening to you!!!
Most scary thing is there are 80% like you with the mind set the filter is a "non-issue" and it'll be right!!!
Anonymous February 10th, 2010trust the geeks
The general public rely on us geeks to fix their computers when they get full of spyware or when anything else goes wrong, but do we know best when it comes to IT legislation? Of course not.
I'm sure when the filter is actually put in place they will realise we were right, but by then of course it will be too late.
Anonymous February 10th, 2010Re: Trust the geeks - NOT THE LAWYERS!!!
An IT infrastructure run by people with parliamentary priviledge and lawyers skills.
Great visions for this country!!
I can see the country will be Chino-Australia in the next 30-50 years!!
Anonymous February 10th, 2010NoNetFilter
The punch line of this article is deceptive - and this is what causes people to read it. This is a complete farce and designed to pull the wool over our eyes. I know for sure I was not contacted, and only 1000 people - this is a FN conjob - who are these 1000 people - employees of the filter company / testing organisations, religious groups, family advocates - all the usual bunch of indoctrinated fools and the technically challenged? Hell there are 23,000,000 people in Australia and over 4 million use the Internet, so how is 1000 people relevant at all? The low number is used to make the percentage positive look more favourable, and an attempt to make people belive the majority support the net filter.
StephenConroy February 10th, 2010The thin edge
Of a very dangerous wedge...- because once it is in place, it will expand, stealthily, and aligned with the political interests of those in power- then one day, if what YOU have to say is out of line with their beliefs, then you will be wiped off the web, filtered out of existance.
Censorship of any sort should be avoided... and people can filter anything for themselves- why not empower them to make that choice?\\
Edward Bassingthwaighte February 10th, 2010Guidelines
IMO, if the RC category was really expanded to include that type of content, we have a far bigger problem than internet censorship.
If the RC category is too broad, fix it, I say.
Anonymous February 11th, 2010*MY GRANDMA GOT THE CALL*
here's the transcript:
ABC "Hi, My name is Mary, I'm commissioned by the ABC's the Hungry Beast to conduct a brief survey on the Internet Filter to implemented by the Australian Government, do you have a minute?"
Grandma "Yes, sure"
ABC "Thank you. I need to confirm that according to my info you have little knowledge of the Internet and rarely use it. You see we're trying to get data from average Australian's, tech savvy individuals may skew the results."
Grandam "Well actually, don't you need a computer for that? I don't have one of those."
ABC "No that's perfect. I can now continue, there are just three more questions. Firstly, can I confirm that you have 3 children."
Grandma "Yes, and 5 grand children too"
ABC "Check. Now please tell me, do you love your children? Would you want your children to get hurt in any way?
Grandma "Oh dear, of course not!?"
ABC "Ok, here's the main question. Please answer YES or NO.
Our chief Mr Conroy and the Government wish to implement an Internet Filter.
Say NO if you would NOT like the filter implemented, which means that child molesters will run rampant and attack children on the Internet, perhaps even your children.
Say YES if you would like to prevent any harm to your children.
In brief please answer NO if you support child molesters or YES if you love your children. What is your answer?"
Anonymous February 11th, 2010Skewed
Totally skewed result. There is noone i know in my town except for the one religious lunatic family that supports internet filtering. Granted most of them dont know much of what is being filtered beyond child porn, but they dont support the filter regardless.
ABC did what they always do, they walk out onto the street, pick the nearest 1000 people to their studios and ask them the questions. No random spread, no picking, just grab the first 1000 that walk past their studios.
If you think, "Hey, that's fine, that is pretty random", ABC's Wagga Wagga studio is right in the middle of a residential suburb two blocks from a church. I'm sure many other ABC studios including the ones in Sydney are not placed in an area that gets a "truely random" population distribution in terms of ideology.
Anonymous February 11th, 201080% Carefully Selected...
This is a farce. Those who understand might be one percent of the 20% polled but they were only polled by mistake. The other 19% against weren't expected but were added in to give credibility. As for the other 80% these were carefully selected at the bottom rung of the digital divide who believe everything they hear on tv & don't trust or use computers at all. This is crap!
Rex Alfie Lee February 11th, 2010Perhaps someone should run this poll?
Do you support mandatory Internet filtering?
If so, for what reasons? (check all that apply)
- It will prevent children from accessing hardcore pornography
- It will protect children from child predators
- It will prevent paedophiles from accessing/distributing child pornography
I bet you'd get a majority response to all three options (NONE OF WHICH ARE ACTUALLY ACHIEVED BY CONROY'S FILTER!)
Anonymous February 11th, 2010There are more than a 1000 people in Australia
The poll is statiscally crap. You can't poll 1000 people (probably from one geographic area) and extrapolate that for over 22 million.
The first question to the poll should have been: Do you use the internet on a regular basis and would you consider yourself reasonably literate in it's use.
PS. How can I join Anonymous?
If you can't answer Yes to that then you aren't qualified to participate. You may as well have polled 1000 tribesmen with no internet access.
Anonymous February 11th, 2010See your username, under the comment?
You are already Anonymous.
Anonymous February 11th, 2010Steve, Hampton Park
Such a bastardisation of statistics...
If people framed a poll about abortion as:
Do you support the murder of babies?
You might get 80% approval as well.
Absolutely disgusting.
Anonymous February 11th, 2010what
"Do you support the murder of babies?
You might get 80% approval as well."
im pretty sure no one would approve the murder of babies, and abortion isnt the murder of babies, its fetuses, YOUNG fetuses, and i dont have an opinion on the matter because its not my right to decide whats right or wrong.
if you wanted to put abortion as a good measure, you shouldve said:
Do you support the removal of fetuses for which can be cases of Rape.
that would give you alot higher approval than do you support the murder of babies.
Anonymous February 13th, 2010Another phone poll.
thats odd a phone poll i did on 1 person had the oppisite results, you know thats 100% of all participants that disagreed. I think my poll had about as much merit as HB's.
Anonymous February 11th, 2010Nonsense
Wow, my opinion of ABC has just plummeted.
rick sutherland February 11th, 2010just watched the show
While 80% supported the mandatory filter, 90% didn't trust the government implement it correctly...confused much?
Anonymous February 11th, 2010filtering
There is a broader question here - does 'The State' have a responsibility to protect citizens?
Granted, this simple question needs to be properly expanded a little but within the context of the purpose of government the answer is still yes. If you would answer no, then I would submit that you are saying you are willing to forgo any benefit from governments (both state and federal) giving a stuff about (or any funding to) anything closely resembling a system that allows for due legal process, the application of law, police and a system by which justice can be served and deterrents are there, else you are placed behind bars. Of course if governments did not take on this responsibility, society would very quickly descend into chaos, basic needs would rise to the most critical (and the internet would not be one of them). Ironically if society broke down to this point, I am certain the public would swiftly accept the installation of a government model (think Iranian or Chinese) which promised an immediate heavy handed response. Granted some future freedoms would be lost but the immediate short term necessity would be a catalyst for the broader public acceptance.
Like it or not there is a responsibility on government to protect citizens and what the government is proposing is arguably only an extension of this broader responsibility in response to a capability that has been thrust upon society as a result of technological advancement in recent decades.
I think the internet is a great thing, but thing spoil, and like night and day, there is a side to it that is dark and perverse. Parents who let their children use the internet without supervision are effectively exposing their children to the worst elements of society. No parent I know would send their kids to play in the park for a few hours after school each day if they knew it was where a large group of criminals including murders, rapists, molesters loitered 24/7. The internet provides for the thoughts, opinions, perversions of such people to be delivered direct to minds children (and adults).
Sitting somewhere just inside the conservative edge of the political spectrum I am by definition generally not a supporter of a large government model that meddles in the affairs of the average Australian family. For all its faults, I would much rather accept a democratic form of government because it is far better than the alternatives (think Iran or China or countless others). This means we vote for the officials who best represent our views and it also means accepting government policies we may not like, after all we have the luxury of the opportunity to vote the government out at the next election.
If you are furious about this proposal (as some of you are) I hope you are not saying you think it is of no concern as to whether children are exposed to internet content depicting child sexual abuse, bestiality, sexual violence or violent crime. I am sure you are not.
P.S. I am sure the average internet consumer will still be able to get their fill of movies and porn so no need to get your panties in a knot.
Anonymous February 11th, 2010Political diatribe
"does 'The State' have a responsibility to protect citizens? "
The majority of people complaining here would probably append "from itself" to that statement.
This is the big issue here. The whole porn thing is a smokescreen used to enrage the vocal minority.
The fact that the State has the means to cover up its bad behaviour and general corruption (as exhibited already by Conroy), is the problem most people are concerned about.
Anonymous February 12th, 2010Re: filtering
Suggest you educate yourself on the realities rather than the theory.
Fact:
This in not a child protection/porn filter. It's a secret list of banned subjects at the Government's whim.
It will result in even slower internet & is easily bypassed by the tech savvy (which most kids already are).
This is NOT about protecting citizens, more like a Big Brother attempt at control of information to the population!
Anonymous February 12th, 2010So what?
Of course you do an online poll gets 96% against it and a "land line" phone poll gets 80% for..
You notice that the question is a very specific and assumes the technology works.. without thinking through the implications. It was worded to a achieve result.
But it doesn't really matter what the survey says.. VPN is all we have now.. Unless Aussies finally stand up for themselves nothing is going to happen.
Anonymous February 11th, 2010You mongrels!
If you don't like it, consider stop whinging about government and consider running for government.
Note - this will mean less time sitting naked in the bean bag, eating fatty food, watching porn, downloading moves, getting an education etc!
Anonymous February 11th, 2010Internet Censorship.
As an ordinary Australian I have never really felt the need to stand up and protest on any topics until now, to me its more about power/control and justifying their existence than anything else. all I have to say is see you at the protests in canberra on March 6th?
Daniel February 11th, 2010Filtering
I always thought that labour was more communist than Russia and the filtering plan is proof of it. Anyone with close links to China should be banned from parliament i.e Kevin Rudd. Good luck to the hackers that made titstorm, that has to be the best prank I've seen so far. Btw 100% of the people in my town oppose Internet filtering, I'm guessing vpn's will be popular here.
vaestanfors February 11th, 2010phone polls outdated.
I think a phone poll is unkind of out dated. The poll should be on the internet so that it involves the people who its going to effect most. This way we'd see some real numbers.
Anonymous February 11th, 2010Mat
Obvious push poll is obvious.
Anonymous February 11th, 2010Who has a landline these days?
How viable are answers coming from landlines? Most people who understand what the filter is probably do not use their landline at all.
And yes 1000 numbers is statistically significant, however the sample is not random. The method of the survey was done using telephones is not viable for this debate. I mean wasn't it 3 days ago or something that Telstra has shown something like $53m decline in their fixed line market?
So that leaves the question, how does a survey done on a skewed biased population somehow end up representing 80% of Australians?
Anonymous February 12th, 2010Relief!
Oh Boy - am I relieved!
So the intention is only to classify content that depicts gratuitous sexual fetishes?
I wonder when all will be revealed regarding the criteria against which content is to be assessed. I'm looking forward to the definitions of gratuitous, exploitative and offensive as well.
Anonymous February 12th, 2010Yes, Minister
Very clever.
First line of the RC list presented is child sexual abuse. How could almost anybody surveyed say they were not in favour of banning it?
It's totally irrelevant whether the sample size is statistically sound or not. With that kind of spinning in the preamble there can only be one (cunningly arranged) outcome.
Anonymous February 12th, 2010yes all ministers
umm they are all the same. if you think this is new, wake up. pollies word surveys and referendums to get the answer they want.
remember howard with the republic referendum?
instead of asking the obvious question any normal person who wanted a truthful answer would, do you want a republic, yes or no, he asked if there was a republic would you want the president elected by parliament.
with the straight question he, the anti republican, knew he would lose.
so he worded it to divide the opposition position. those who didn't want a republic would of course vote no, those who *wanted a republic* but didn't want pollies determining the pres, also voted no and those who wanted a republic either way, voted yes.
so all he did was split the yes voters and of course no won. now they say, australians voted against a republic. cr@p!
Anonymous February 12th, 2010Freedom Of The Net
Give us a break with your 80% BS. Look out of 209 NEWS websites i could only get 13 the rest are being blocked by the government.
GOOGLE has angrily rejected a call from the Australian government to filter YouTube videos, after the Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, said if the search engine could censor material for China, it should do the same in Australia. Well well comrad Conroy you should go and live in China if you hate Freedom so much.
Anonymous February 12th, 2010Unknown Breach Laws
I have already once been threatened for breaching copyright by sone crew called "Media Sentry", for allowing my 12 & 13 year old Grand sons to bitsteam a you tube clip called " the making of Michael jacksons This is it", which person, or persons, unknown placed on You Tube.
I have a Kid Filter as part of my Security Suite, and as many as 10 times a day, have to override it to read the news papers delivered to my computer.
This reminds me of the old Movies "1984", and "Big Brother", ( not the recent stupid series).
Maybe i had better go out and buy these movies, before they too become illegal.
An unknown list, and $11.000.00 a day penalties, this does smack of the kind of thing that the Coalition would bring about.
Anonymous February 13th, 2010Internet Filter
If it was going to be effective, there would be no reason to keep the list of RC sites secret. The problem with censorship is always "who decides". If they male a mistake, they incur a legal liability. This fiasco is going to cost taxpayers a bundle. And, when service providers pass on the cost of implementing the filter to their customers, I hope everyone remembers who is responsible.
I wonder if the filter will even work if an offshore public DNS server is used.
Bob Gaudette February 16th, 2010ABC bias much?
So i suppose there is only 1000 Aussies? According to the title of this article 80 percent of Aussies support the filter.
Not to mention that the ABC conducted this survey and being a swinging voter, I have not valued the "opinion" of the ABC as they seem to be in bed with labor.
Anonymous February 16th, 2010It is the question that decides the answer
It is perfectly obvious that when presented with a list that includes 'child sexual abuse' sites the vast majority of respondents would agree with filtering the net.
I strongly suspect that the majority would say no to filtering out sites that discuss things like the movie V for Vendetta because it promotes terrorism, or the 60's classic Easy Rider because it promotes illegal drug use, Sites discussing euthanasia, safe drug use, abortion support etc might also recieve a no response.
Hey a significant proportion might not even restrict an adult viewing puppy love, black leather or female orgasm sites. But the fact is that once you bring the kids into it the answer is a guaranteed Yes.
Anonymous February 18th, 2010Ingenious argument Mr Conroy
That's awesome Conroy, I hope we follow other Chinese and Thai political and cultural practises.
Let's also kill our non economically productive girl children, have a one party system or a multi party system with bi-annual coups.
Yeah google do it for China and Thailand, what an ingenious argument Mr Conroy!
Anonymous March 2nd, 2010censorship
I believe this poll was as rigged totally. Like all this govermnents 'promises'.Atotal load of manure
Dee March 7th, 2010Why hasn't the governemnt been filtering already
What the hell is taking the government so long to filter the Internet. Kids are on it everyday. If Jack or Jill want to look at some porn- they can buy it from a newsagent. I am sick of trying to block internet sites. I don't know what I'm doing. I can't find a list of sites to block and I'm sick of being told I'm a bad parent if I can't monitor my own computer. I don't know how. Who cares if adults can't view porn on their computer. I bet most viewers who are parents will be happy to see it go if it means their kids won't be looking at it. GET IT OFF the net. The jids are here to stay and the porn needs to go. Let the kids be kids and parents be parents -not cyber police. The government has a duty to filter this crap. GET RID OF IT!!!!!
Angry Parent March 7th, 2010Let Kids be Kids
Ok, we will let kids be kids and you can be a parent.... However, Not being a parent yet, I may be incorrect, but i'd imagine one of the responsibilities of being a parent is to supervise your children, correct?!?! You don't know how to block sites you say!?!? Maybe you should Learn to install a net nanny, maybe... You know, when u don't know how to do something, but you learn how to do it, and presto, all of a sudden u can.... if u can't maybe u shouldn't be near a computer or the internet until your are aware of how to properly utilise such tools... do u often go mucking around with things you don't know how to use?!?!?!
Tomuss Radkens March 11th, 2010Ask if they want future govt to shut opposition
The problem, as Justice Kirby and others have noted is that there is no protection to limit what is blocked. So any future government COULD shut down all opposition, and use the threat of blocking to 'manage' traditional news sources.
The questionnaire should have asked "Are you happy that future governments will be able to shut down web-discussion opposing government policies?" I'm sure they would not get an 80% approval to that question. This is why the judiciary and those who worry about our democracy fear the filter. Democracy is a delicate thing, and can be destroyed easily - best not to give wannabe dictators the tools to achieve totalitarianism.
Graeme Harrison (prof at-symbol post.harvard.edu) March 9th, 2010since child porn is illegal and they alrewdy know the site shouldnt they block them.
theminter April 18th, 2010If you don't want to supervise your kids, because you believe "somebody else" should do it, then there is one absolutely fail proof thing you can do to filter the internet. Pull the plug!
Also there is something else you can do to protect your kids, though I know it's not a thing this generation of parents do these days, you can say NO to your kids having an internet connection in their rooms. If they need to do "homework" then they can do it in a public area of the house.
Hoobee May 1st, 2010Power Centre Useful content from our premier sponsors
Resource Centre Useful content from our premier sponsors
-
Email is Dead, but can anything take its place?" Win one of 5 tickets to be part of the audience at this exclusive ZDNet debate
Find out more! Join the conversation and enter now to win. -
Get BlackBerry® Enterprise Server Express for Free
Click here to learn more about BlackBerry® Enterprise Server Express.
ZDNet Australia Live
US govt sues Oracle http://itrau.com/cDxM90 via @ZDNetAustralia
5 minutes ago by AUTechNews on twitter
Top 25 Android apps: The best of the best http://tinyurl.com/25tvcel
5 minutes ago by BizDomains4Sale on twitter
tip @techmeme @scepticgeek ZDNet headline: BlackBerry encryption 'too secure': National security vs. consumer privacy http://zd.net/daRQHJ
6 minutes ago by zackwhittaker on twitter@jfp Experience noted! Like at ZDNet, the salary is good (very good) - but it's not my main objective :) Writing, representing, engaging! :)
6 minutes ago by zackwhittaker on twitter
SQL Server is one of Microsoft's 8 core businesses. http://bit.ly/bPd8kV #TnSqlDc #sqlp****
6 minutes ago by mrdenny on twitter
RT: @ZDNet: Court rejects class action status for Intel antitrust suit http://zd.net/dyhmnc
6 minutes ago by japha on twitter
First impressions of Apple's refreshed desktop lineup http://bit.ly/cFScu9
6 minutes ago by ipodcaradapter on twitter
zdnet: Court rejects class action status for Intel antitrust suit - http://bit.ly/9QtyIw
10 minutes ago by processoria on twitterRT: @ZDNet: Real cuts losses amid restructuring, still misses analyst estimates http://zd.net/a5VrGg
11 minutes ago by japha on twitter
Top 25 Android apps: The best of the best: TED is a fascinating event that features a meeting of the minds of some... http://bit.ly/dnBx1F
11 minutes ago by lindsymiles on twitterRT: @ZDNet: McAfee acquires tenCube; Second quarter mixed bag http://zd.net/9NpzpY
11 minutes ago by japha on twitter
Research: Google reaches malware milestone, while 'true' Twitter users increase - ZDNet (blog) http://url4.eu/6ZLjb
11 minutes ago by bombayhosting on twitter
Research: Google reaches malware milestone, while 'true' Twitter users increase - ZDNet (blog) http://url4.eu/6ZLjZ
11 minutes ago by secureonline on twitter
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-we-are-focusing-on-eight-core-businesses/6937 focusing on eight anything doesn't sound right
15 minutes ago by nlpcourses on twitter
RT @superglaze: A photo-gallery report of #ORGCon, featuring @doctorow @newsbrooke @thepublicdomain and more! http://bit.ly/dbkP7n #acta #deact
15 minutes ago by DalSoft on twitter
Court rejects class action status for Intel antitrust suit http://bit.ly/bZUp31
15 minutes ago by inbeing on twitter
Apple unveils Safari Extensions Gallery for extensions, updates for security http://zd.net/aSFW2b (via @ZDNet)
16 minutes ago by aceimage on twitter
http://bit.ly/dnVmvs Aurora opens Small Business Server to the cloud | Servers | ZDNet UK
16 minutes ago by gskye3psg9 on twitter
Court rejects class action status for Intel antitrust suit | ZDNet http://shrten.com/4klr
16 minutes ago by HotInHardware on twitter
RT @HeathClancy: EPA: Yup, greenhouse gases still unhealthy http://bit.ly/aZkizM #greentech #green
16 minutes ago by TheGreenMerrie on twitter
http://bit.ly/9SnE7Q Database Toolbar Icons - Free Software Downloads - ZDNet Asia
20 minutes ago by carebearrhgbo on twitter
ZDNET: Court rejects class action status for Intel antitrust suit http://bit.ly/9yAlXu
20 minutes ago by KERUFFTech on twitterRT: @ZDNet: HP announces a containerized datacenter sale http://zd.net/d47SR2
21 minutes ago by japha on twitterRT: @ZDNet: Steve Ballmer: Microsoft has been focusing on cloud for 15 years http://zd.net/9cv0US
21 minutes ago by japha on twitter
RT @johandenhaan: Nice example of difficulties of release management: Oracle rebrands Java, breaks Eclipse http://bit.ly/aN1jaI #yam #fun
21 minutes ago by wmartinez on twitterThere are a couple of points in the story where David's digs at Telstra are offmark: firstly, an inference that the current broadband...
29 minutes ago by gromit on Is Telstra the scorpion or the frog?David, you've completely missed the point. This has nothing to do with consumer value. You mentioned that "Telstra is supposed...
45 minutes ago by M.N.M on Is Telstra the scorpion or the frog?Yup! They're pretty and look real nice but, as one who qualified in 1963 - on a Diesel Boat - and retired in 1982 - after 6 more die...
48 minutes ago by willyjon on Get wet with submarine tech photos
MasterChefs launch iPhone 4 in Sydney - http://dld.bz/prSR I really want 1, would you get 1? http://dld.bz/prSS
1 hour ago by SaigonBay on twitter
"Not greatly dissimilar to the public jubilation felt at the end of the second World War, Sydney-siders ..." http://bit.ly/cTvyuB #reallysad
2 hours ago by ronsondalby on twitter
Hilarious coverage of the iPhone 4 launch from the CNET guys. http://bit.ly/cTvyuB
2 hours ago by joshgnosis on twitterWhat a sad way to live if the only joy in your life is to queue for a piece of defective technology sold by a vendor who accused his loya...
2 hours ago by fred9999 on iPhone 4 Australian launch: pictures
@Jetttje: outlook-alternatieven: http://www.zdnet.com.au/top-alternatives-to-microsoft-outlook-339295046.htm
6 hours ago by hansstavleu on twitter
RT @NASAWatch: NASA photos mooned in abandoned Maccas (LOIRP) http://bit.ly/arFI4Y
6 hours ago by Stratocumulus on twitter
http://bit.ly/9y8rsU Multimedia Toolbar Icons - Free Software Downloads - ZDNet Australia
7 hours ago by mpzcosehpamq4 on twitterI am happy to know I was right about predicting Symantec's stock price and the furture trend. As I have pointed out a few times, I th...
7 hours ago by strelaoz on iPhone midnight launches across AustraliaJust weirdly found out Michael Yell - Country and Regional Director for OEM, XSP and Services Business at Symantec Asia Pacific and Japan...
7 hours ago by strelaoz on iPhone midnight launches across AustraliaAs I have reported to Symantec Ethics about David Freer’s (VP, Symantec – Norton, APJ) misconducts (fraud, having dissented sex with ...
7 hours ago by strelaoz on iPhone midnight launches across AustraliaDavid Freer (VP, Symantec Consumer Business Units - Norton, APJ) is a BIG LIAR! He lied to me for more than two and half years for my tru...
7 hours ago by strelaoz on iPhone midnight launches across AustraliaMy speed is 33 807 I'm with bigpond cable
10 hours ago by francoo on Broadband SpeedtestThat is a beautiful boat,but, I'd still rather go to sea on a first flight 688 boat.Preferably the 689 if Clinton hadn't decommis...
10 hours ago by rogue689 on Get wet with submarine tech photosFor many other reasons, than just the net filter, the current has to go. Still, I wouldn't trust Abbot either. There are however chec...
11 hours ago by ian_from_oz on Conroy's filter masterstrokeRT: @zdnetaustralia: http://bit.ly/cJU6Mf We've added Virgin to our iPhone 4 pricing table comparison.. See which telco has the best deal.
11 hours ago by japha on twitter
Apple to look at iPhone 3G iOS 4 problems - Software - News http://bit.ly/cmaTAJ _ that's nice of them
12 hours ago by tim_butcher on twitterStop trying to dodge the filter issue, Conboy; it'll bite you in the **** whether you like it or not.
14 hours ago by Hyperion on Conroy pledges NBN map, same policies
Facebook va lansa un serviciu de răspunsuri la întrebările utilizatorilor http://bit.ly/aS4kLC
15 hours ago by adrian_silimon on twitter
Survey proves #AUS e-health demand http://j.mp/ah9Iwf /via @ZDNetAustralia
15 hours ago by ej_butler on twitterA "profound cultural change" is required for a truly open government http://bit.ly/bTht86 /via @zdnetaustralia #gov2au
15 hours ago by ej_butler on twitterAs one who has been as critical as any of the Sol era Telstra...as long as Telstra are leaving feasible room for profit margins for their...
16 hours ago by RS on Is Telstra the scorpion or the frog?David, while the popular opinion, at least in the eyes of Telstra opponents, is to use every devious argument to stifle the operations of...
16 hours ago by sydneyla on Is Telstra the scorpion or the frog?Question two: What is stopping.... "AUSTRALIANS could save up to $1.9 billion a year in travel costs, petrol and time if they spent h...
16 hours ago by Vasso Massonic on Is Telstra the scorpion or the frog?Survey proves e-health demand: NEHTA http://itrau.com/bt9f8w via @ZDNetAustralia
16 hours ago by AUTechNews on twitterRT @zdnetaustralia: Survey by NEHTA proves there is a demand for e-health http://bit.ly/bXuT1K
16 hours ago by joshgnosis on twitter
RT @zdnetaustralia: Telstra cops $18.55 million fine for exchange capping http://bit.ly/9cL91V
16 hours ago by crupaul on twitter
RT @zdnetaustralia: Survey by NEHTA proves there is a demand for e-health http://bit.ly/bXuT1K #yam
16 hours ago by johnnysd on twitter
A good read..RT @zdnetaustralia: Is Telstra the scorpion or the frog? http://bit.ly/cSgC31
16 hours ago by awmitchell on twitterRT @zdnetaustralia: eBay and the Trading Post online help the Australian Taxation Office catch tax cheats http://bit.ly/dBDXRz
16 hours ago by crupaul on twitter
RT @zdnetaustralia Tesltra tweaks its data plans for all smartphones (not just the iPhone 4) http://bit.ly/bxO0G2
17 hours ago by MacGirlUK on twitterRT @zdnetaustralia: Is Telstra the scorpion or the frog? http://bit.ly/cSgC31
17 hours ago by MacGirlUK on twitter
@mibus http://www.zdnet.com.au/commbank-dives-into-580m-banking-it-revamp-339288467.htm
17 hours ago by jamezpolley on twitter
The tech keeping Plastiki afloat: photos: ZDNet Australia brings you the tech below deck on the epic Plastiki voyage. http://bit.ly/aTj1QU
18 hours ago by tessa_alfred on twitter
http://bit.ly/cJU6Mf We've added virgin to our iPhone 4 pricing table comparison.. See which telco has the best deal.
18 hours ago by zdnetaustralia on twitterThis story has been liked 5 times in the last 24 hours!
1 day ago, Australia's iPhone 4 pricing comparedKeep up with ZDNet Australia
Linkedin 
RSS Feeds 
Newsletters 
Twitter 
| Telstra BigPond | 37 plans |  1% |
| Optus | 76 plans |  2% |
| 3 | 9 plans | 1% |
| Virgin Mobile | 7 plans | 4% |
| Netspace | 36 plans | 1% |
| Mobile Broadband Plans | 8% |
| ADSL2+ Broadband Plans | 5% |
| Cable Broadband Plans | 4% |
| Naked DSL Broadband Plans | 1% |
| ADSL Broadband Plans | 6% |
Mobile Phones | Broadband
CBS - ZDNET Australia Partner ServicesSponsored resources
- HP Conquer - Conquer IT with HP BladeSystem.
- Citrix - Download Citrix NetScaler, the ultimate all-in-one Web app delivery solution. Simplicity is Power.
- Optus Micro-Sim - The tablet ready Optus Micro-Sim is here. Register now.
- Virgin Mobile - Virgin Mobile's new Smart Caps with unlimited standard text to any mobile in OZ from $29.
- ZDNet Survey - Complete survey for your chance to win a smartphone!
- "Email is Dead, but can anything take its place?" - Win one of 5 tickets to be part of the audience -- 12th of August 2010
"Chose 1000 Australian phone numbers to call"
And just who had these1000 numbers ??
Right wing church groups ??
The technically challenged who don't know what the filter means ??
Choosing 1000 numbers out of the entire australian population is not a statistically valid representation to make any conclusions. They should try to reach at least 0.5% of the poulation so unless 110 people shared each of the 1000 phones their numbers are rubbish.
1,000 is valid
1,000 numbers is actually statistically significant, IF the numbers are chosen entirely at random.
The problem with the result is that I don't know the actual question that they asked. Most people don't understand what the government's filter is going to block, so the survey question would have to be pretty detailed.
1,000 is valid
Exactly ...
The questions are skewed. The questions show a lack of understanding of the technical aspects of the internet.
Maybe the question should be.
Do you support the government being able to filter _anything_ from the 'web' (http) without recourse, whilst slowing down your connection speeds which means you pay more in time and money, and missing entirely the bulk of the traffic in illegal content?
and if they answer yes ... encourage them not to vote ... they have already proven they do not think.
Peter:
Unfortunately, probably at least 80% of the public could be classed under "The technically challenged who don't know what the filter means".
bit suspect...
What was the exact wording of the question.. something along the lines of
"Do you agree with the government taking action against child pornography"
would get 80% of more people agreeing to it. Without knowing what biased propaganda based question was used, this survey doesn't hold much water.
If asked - "Do you agree with the government introducing a compulsory internet monitoring service on your internet line with the ability to deny you access to whatever they don't want you seeing without public disclosure or review identical to the systems put in place by Iran and China"
might offer an mirror image result in the opposite direction.
Its all about how educated the subjects are and how biased of a question is used.
haha
very very true.
and i'll bet it WAS worded like the first option
"I disagree therefore it must be biased"
If you actually took the time to have a look at the Hungry Beast website you'd see they have the full results of the survey, including the questions.
The question asked was very specific, and even included the description of RC content, word-for-word from the guidelines.
I dare say the questions were FAR less biased than those from surveys backed by various anti-filter groups and other political interests.
It seems that many people just immediately brand any research that doesn't agree with their views as "rubbish". I am against the filtering proposal, but I believe the HB survey really did represent the views of the general population, and is far less biased and more detailed than any other source you can cite at the moment.
If you took the time to read it, you'd see that people are actually very suspicious of the filtering proposal as it stands today.
To Bias or Not To Bias
The question is not as biased as expected, but it is worded in a way to lead the person to the answer the government would want...
The first question basically asks
Are you in favour or not in favour of filtering that blocks sites that have a Refused Classification where RC is generally due to child sexual abuse; bestiality; sexual violence;
gratuitous, exploitative or offensive sexual fetishes; or detailed instructions or promotion of crime, violence or use of illegal drugs?
Guess which answer would be chosen most often?
On a personal note, I'd be interested in who decided on "gratuitous, exploitative or offensive sexual fetishes" - the moral police?
Polling
Reminds me of that episode of Yes Minister where Humphrey is explaining to Bernard how he can get the response he wants from a poll. He asks a series of questions which obviously answer to "Yes" and then finally asking, "Would you support the re-introduction of compulsory National Service" and responding with a "Yes".
Polling
I was thinking exactly the same thought.
re: "Chose 1000 Australian phone numbers to call"
Doesn't matter. This battle is lost. Governments only respond to one kind of action; protests by a very large number of people in public places.
The Australian citizen isn't that motivated anymore. You are better off arranging your proxies and VPNs.
Cheers