Govt: Web porn blocking test will go ahead

The government has squashed speculation that its Internet content-filtering trial had been brought to an end prematurely.

Communications Minister Helen Coonan made the announcement yesterday, refuting statements by the Family First senator Steve Fielding that the three-month trial, scheduled to have been carried out in Tasmania, had "been quietly scrapped".

Family First has been campaigning for mandatory filtering at ISP level to prevent children getting access to pornography online and announced on Tuesday the government had ditched the filtering trial after both Telstra and Optus would not participate.

Coonan said one privately funded trial had been cancelled, but the planned pilot managed by the ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) will go ahead as planned. The tender for companies wishing to take part closed last week and three bids were received, according to the government.

Under the ACMA scheme, ISP-level filtering products will be tested on blocking "inappropriate and illegal content", whether such products would clog ISPs' networks and if such products have improved since the government last examined their capabilities in 2005-2006.

The federal government has already examined the potential ISP-level filtering three times; firstly in 1999, a CSIRO technical trial; in 2003-04 as part of the review of the Online Content Scheme; and in 2005 during a trial conducted by NetAlert, involving RMIT and ACMA.

Following the most recent trial, Coonan acknowledged problems with the concept saying: "Each report has found significant problems with content filter products operating at the ISP-level ... The Australian trials have also found the effect on performance of the Internet by ISP filtering to be substantial and a lack of scalability of the filters to larger ISPs."

Coonan also announced this week that the government will reveal details on the AU$116.5 million NetAlert -- Protecting Australian Families Online initiative in the coming weeks, which will include an AU$18.3 million Internet safety education campaign and the provision of free online content filters to every Australian household and public library to help block unwanted content through the AU$93.3 million National Filter Scheme.

The filter giveaway has been beset by delays and was originally scheduled to go live at the start of this year.

• Related stories

• Alerts

Add your opinion

Govt Web porn blocking Anonymous -- 26/07/07

Welcome to Australia's version of the Great Wall

Just another attempt for the government to shape our minds

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

ISP filtering Anonymous -- 26/07/07

And so the do-gooders start chipping away at our freedom from the opposite end than the terrorists. Who has the supreme say as to what gets banned and what is allowed? If individuals wants ISP filtering on their OWN lines, then it should be a service that can be provided for free but as an adult with no children using my gear, why should I be forced to have my line censored? If anything should be filtered, it should be the mountains of SPAM!!! I'm big enough to decide for myself what I want to look at. KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY INTERNET CONNECTION!!!!

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Yet another waste of government funds on parenting issues Anonymous -- 26/07/07

How about this - If you're worried about what your kids are accessing oin the net - Get your own filtering software that you can install on your own!

Or, how about paying attention to what your kids are doing when it comes to web, tv, music, video games and any other technology that older more conservative groups don't like - And making a decision on your own!!

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Ridiculous Anonymous -- 26/07/07

$116.5 MILLION on something this useless? There are hundreds of ways that money can be better spent. Whatever filters they come up with probably wont even work. If they do they will require consistent maintenance to keep them up to date. Parents should take more responsibility for their children instead of expecting the government to raise them. There is also a huge potential for abuse of this filter...who decides what is allowed and what is not?

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Optional PC filtering OK, Mandatory ISP filtering not OK Anonymous -- 26/07/07

I believe that if parents want to use filtering software on their computers, offer it to them and let them do it, although I have a problem with ISP-level filtering.

Partly because I'm unsure whether it would be opt-in or opt-out (and I'm sure groups like FF would rather it be compulsory for everyone), and partly because I believe letting governments decide what can and cannot be filtered is a breach of civil liberties (anyone heard about the filtering in China?).

I think supervision is a better option than filtering, but offering free filtering software is better than filtering out the net for everyone.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Typical Anonymous -- 26/07/07

More typical Orwellian-style behaviour from the incumbent government. How can citizens of this country put up with a half-baked scheme like this. The "protect the children" and "fight the terrorist: bogey has been used as a panacea for every hysterical vote-swinging rant. The communist governments would be proud of this censorship attempt despite it being doomed to failure. The money should be spent on infrastructure like better and faster broadband (or rainwater tanks for the next drought!) rather than squandering it on a hopeless cause. Ministers should take a pay cut if projects sanctioned by their office are wasting funds. No doubt my IP address is being noted so the Federal Gestapo have "evidence" about my lack of patriotism and the "threat" I pose... I hope that the citizens of Australia have finally had enough of this autocracy and vote the dinosaurs out.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Seconded Bruce Tyler -- 27/07/07 (in reply to #320083434)

I second all of this. Good comment.

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

Nicely said Anonymous -- 27/07/07 (in reply to #320083434)

Nice post

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

Ridiculous Invective Anonymous -- 28/07/07 (in reply to #320083434)

I certainly don't support ISP level filtering, but your paranoia does serious damage the credibility of your argument. It's reactions like this that encourage these idiotic "solutions" presented by ALL governments who simply have no idea on the topic.

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

Oh, to win the religious right vote Anonymous -- 27/07/07

Another last minute attemp to win the religious right vote prior to the ellection.
The howard government is again trying to shape our minds and control everything we do.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Great FireWall of China comparisons Anonymous -- 27/07/07

I am an Australian computer tech currently living in China. I am reading the comparisons to the Great FireWall of China with interest. Does anyone realise how easy it is to get around, using programs such as TOR (tor.eff.org)? For me, it is a just a minor inconvenience as many blogging sites are blocked, but I have full access to pretty much anything else I want to look at.

From what I have read, I understand that the filtering that is proposed will be opt-in, rather than opt-out, so those of us without children and the potential for children to use our connections, don't have to worry about the government imposed censorship.

However, I am concerned about the impact of the filtering overhead on the speeds which will be available. In China, I have a 2Mbps/2Mbps connection, which is very nice. When I get back to Australia, I will have about a quarter that speed in the price bracket that I can afford. I strongly believe that the money should be spent on upgrading Australia's infrastructure to support faster broadband speeds, rather than on filtering which will be easy to subvert anyway.

I am also a strong believer in education, and particularly self-education, and believe that the parents should be taking responsibility for their children's actions. Also, the use of software, such as Dan's Guardian, which is FREE, can be implemented to protect children, probably a lot more effectively than an ISP level filter. If the government wants to offer filters, then I believe they should think about offering a solution using that software - possibly an old or cut-down computer to be used as a router, sold cheaply, inserted at the level of the household connection. This would be a LOT more effective and place the overhead where it belongs.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

re porn Bruce Paull -- 05/03/08 (in reply to #320083456)

I lived in asiaa for many years and i did not nees pormno as the women were very willing to perform for free and i must say this i am very happy married to a chinrse lady and have no regrets , Australian women want money -- house car , as divorce happens all the time as you wou d know this does not happen in china / or not where i am tha k you for your time regards .
Bruce paull

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

What a joke... Marky Mark -- 27/07/07

How about they focus on getting rid of things that we really care about? Like the mass amounts of unwarranted advertising we are force fed all day through every medium possible. That is far more offensive than a bit of pink.

Email spam, phone marketing.

What about the companies that market unhealthy foods directly to children to the extent that if you're a parent who doesn't let their kid eat that food, it makes you a 'weird' parent and your kids get teased. That's a bigger problem.

The best thing about the Internet is its lack of 'big brother'. We have been used to it this way for many years now. It is working as it is.

When governments need to do this instead of the parents actually monitoring their childrens activities, we have a much bigger problem.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Heartening Bruce Tyler -- 27/07/07

Reading all these comments from like-minded people, it gives me hope.
But it also confuses me as to how the government was voted in term after term. Who the hell is voting for them?

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

ISP filterting Anonymous -- 27/07/07

What a cynical PR manipulation and waste of taxpayers money by the government. Anyone with a passing knowledge of networking would realise how unworkable this is at the ISP level. Filtering is far more effective at the user level distributed across the network. It is also a personal choice for families and individuals to make.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Slow Internet steve -- 27/07/07

Content filtering takes up computing resources. In Australia, the speed of internet is a slow and steady walking pace. This will only slow it down. I have no intention of opting in to this scheme, but since this will eventually be rolled out nationally, my net speed will by default be slower. Thanks Helen! I don't think I spend enough of my day waiting in front of the PC.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Simply Stupid Anonymous -- 27/07/07

I cant believe that the government is actually stupid enough to waste $116million!!!! on blocking internet porn.
This $116millon could go to better use, such as help fighting poverty in Africa, just to name one of the better options from a extremely comprehensive list.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Billiant post Anonymous -- 27/07/07

Couldn't have said it better myself :)

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

What the .... steeve pink -- 27/07/07

Is there porn on the internet ? ; )

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Lying Pollies Anonymous -- 27/07/07

Perhaps we'd do better to filter out the lies and mistruths that politicians tell ...

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Be a responsible parent Kelvin Jeffs -- 28/07/07

Try taking an interest your children and allowing them to learn about the world around them rather than keeping them in cotton wool and destroying their freedom.

I'm conservative but the religious-right has done so much damage to America. We can't let them get away with imposing themselves on our society.

If you really want to put your family first, how about making them well informed rather than making them into brain-dead religious zombies?

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Can you see the pattern forming here? Anonymous -- 28/07/07

First its the "porn blocking" then it will be the "illegal content" blocking, then they will block stories they don't want you to read IE: Truth about Port Arthur, 9-11Truth, and pretty soon the GOVT. will have control over the internet just like they have lacky-dog control over the countries **** poor media news outlets.

In an Age of Universal Deceit, Telling the truth is a revolutionary Act.
-George Orwell-

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

content blocking Anonymous -- 28/07/07

Why is porn the only issue discussed? There are just as many, or more religeous and pseudor-religeous/cilt sites that 'poison' mind. Pehaps start with 'Family First'

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Shifting the blame again... Anonymous -- 29/07/07

Just another way to pass the buck for parents who can't/won't keep up with their kids. I firmly believe there should be filtering options available as an opt in - I have 3 kids and there are things on the internet that I don't want them to see. But I've taken the steps to ensure they have their own profile and a set list of URLs they can visit - problem solved. As the account doesn't have rights to install apps and IE is limited to URLs I have preapproved and entered I don't need the $116m handout from the govt. and would prefer they spent that on education for the same kids they're trying to protect.
Of course, it means that parents need to be responsible and take ownership of the issues facing their kids - so maybe the $116m is a good idea after all.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Family First Anonymous -- 29/07/07

The problem is Family First pushing their beliefs on others. They are fundamentalist Christians trying to force their "moral structure" on everyone else. I agree with the above comments, parents should be responsible. Family First is a joke, no one should even give them a sniff of power. Get a non-biased group to offer it, it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to get websites supporting other religions blocked too.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

• Just In

• Most Popular

• Most Discussed

Reader Services

Popular Topics

Essentials