Conroy will 'shortly' release filter report

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy late yesterday said he had received the report from Enex Testlabs into trials of ISP-based internet filtering technology, and would release it "shortly" as part of a public consultation process.

Answering a question from a Senate committee (of which Shadow Communications Minister Nick Minchin is a member) yesterday afternoon, Conroy said the government would release the filter report to the public "as soon as is practicable".

He said the government expected to conduct a public consultation process into ISP-based internet filtering after the report's release, with a period of about a month being appropriate.

If the Rudd Government's policy is implemented, Australian ISPs will be forced to implement mandatory filtering of illegal internet content, based on a list of sites administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

The policy is highly controversial and has stimulated both illicit internet attacks and political activity aimed at the government.

For example, public objection to the policy has acted as a spur to the registration of the Pirate Party in Australia, which champions issues such as intellectual property rights, free speech and data privacy.

And in September, a loosely associated coalition of online activists attacked the websites of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and ACMA, taking the PM's site down for a short time with a glut of traffic.

Advertisement

Talkback 12 comments

    Will be an interesting read John G -- 20/10/09

    It will be interesting to see what it really says on close reading. I hope it's not like that fancifull ACS report, which was obviously written by people with little understanding of how the Internet actually works. The issue though, is poeple only read the headlines and assume the content is factual.

    Mandatory internet filtering is so fraught with Danger, that i am truly concerned about Australia's future as a true democracy if it goes ahead.

    ACS Report Anonymous -- 20/10/09 (in reply to #320388956)

    I think the ACS report was written more for people who _don't_ understand the way the internet works.

    The joe public who is interested in this issue could actually understand the majority of the contents of the report, I think that is quite valuable.

    Democracy in danger? Anonymous -- 20/10/09

    John G, do you seriously believe that an extension of existing censorship laws, which have been around for over 100 years, to now also cover the internet, are in some a danger to Australian democracy?

    Give us all a break son, that is fanciful to say the least.

    re Democracy in danger? Anonymous -- 20/10/09 (in reply to #320388968)

    Nothing is fanciful, where the Rudd government is concerned.

    Democracy in danger? Anonymous -- 20/10/09 (in reply to #320388968)

    The lack of clarity around the 'blacklist', of the results of the ISP trials... this is what is concerning.

    Nevermind the fact that the RC classification is woefully out of date and out of touch.

    Extension of what? Toejam -- 20/10/09 (in reply to #320388968)

    To claim that "existing censorship laws... have been in place for over 100 years" is disingenuous at best.

    * Censorship laws vary wildly across different media (Films, TV, Radio, etc)
    * Those laws have hardly remained static over time, eg Noddy was once banned nation-wise, and the ban on Lady Chatterly's Lover was lifted years ago.
    * The proposed Internet Censorship laws revolve around a blacklist that is kept secret from everyone, with no public or judicial oversight, and no avenue of appeal - sounds like the epitome of anti-democracy to me.

    A nanny state intervention that seems to be going unnoticed by Joe Public.. Anonymous -- 20/10/09

    The problem in Australia is that freedom of speech is not a right nor really technically protected (apart from the right to vote democratically) in the way it is in the US, for example. The government therefore has no checks and balances in place and is, instead, yielding to commercial pressures applied by the likes of the film industry and to its self-appointed role as protector of our moralistic development. It feels it should have the right to maintain a secret list that prevents you from seeing anything it determines you should not see. But it doesn't seem that the public of Australia is aware of the power this gives the government to control our internet experience - pretty much the same powers as China has. Will we soon see the Australian government demanding an Australian version of search engines like Google in the way we've seen in China? Whilst perhaps a little exaggerated, I am in no way confident that a government given these powers of state media control will not ultimately abuse them...

    re: A nanny state. . . Anonymous -- 20/10/09 (in reply to #320388974)

    Yes, very well said. Perhaps somebody could send a copy to the benighted ACS for their enlightenment.

    It's not merely "an extension of censorship" for the government to give itself the power to secretly ban anything that this or a future govt considers "inappropriate" from their point of view.

    Whether the secret censorship is carried out by the govt itself, or by a committee of stooges appointed by the govt, is immaterial in the context of the outcome. The opportunity for secret political corruption will always be fulfilled in the absence of public scrutiny.

    Democracy is overrated Anonymous -- 20/10/09

    Don't think that democracy is the same thing as self determination, or automatically excludes tyranny. Check this out:
    http://mises.org/story/3768

    .... Anonymous -- 20/10/09

    "If the Rudd Government's policy is implemented, Australian ISPs will be forced to implement mandatory filtering of illegal internet content, based on a list of sites administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)."

    Please do some research before you type up misleading statements like this. The ACMA blacklist is made up of 'Prohibited Content' not 'illegal'. Look at their website for the definition of 'Prohibited'. After many many contradictory statements Conroy has made, he seems to have settled on only blocking "Almost exclusively Refused Classification".

    The discussion paper will revolve around the premise of - How far do you want to be shafted and for how long?

    We still believe what Conjob shovels our way? Anonymous -- 27/10/09

    After watching Conjob twist the truth and present stats to back his position whilst ignoring anything that contradicts him - Is there any reason for Conroy to be thought of as having any creditibility? I think not.

    I don't trust Conroy and I've lost my faith in Rudd

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Suzanne Tindal Sick of broken tender sites
    Some of the state governments desperately need to invest in more user-friendly tender sites so that looking for information on government tenders doesn't have to be a game of blind man's bluff.
  • Array Cyberwar: What is it good for?
    In this week's episode, Cyberwar. What is Australia's place in the world of digital warfare? What are the implications for the NBN?
  • Array Is wholesale-only backhaul just a pipedream?
    The potential acquisition of Pipe Networks by SP Telemedia has raised the question about whether vertically integrated backhaul providers will mean higher wholesale prices for ISP customers.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured