Latest Comments

Podcast: Conroy explains his net censorship regime

  • Email a Friend
  • Print Page
Podcast: Conroy explains his net censorship regime
By Ben Grubb
Jan 6, 2010 4:08 PM | 3 Comments
Tags: Censorship | Conroy | Stephen | Conroy, | Regime | Podcast | Senator | Conroy, | Filter | ISP-Level
Senator Conroy takes on critics of his internet filter in an exclusive chat with iTnews.

Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy has hit back at opponents of his controversial internet filtering scheme, labelling them "frauds" that cannot accept the findings of the Enex Testlab report.

The Minister took time out of his schedule over the weekend to discuss the filter in great detail with iTnews, which is presented in a podcast (below) and features commentary from Crikey technology writer Stilgherrian and Internode network engineer Mark Newton (who speaks on behalf of himself).

 Among the issues discussed, Minister Conroy said that:

  • Opponents of the scheme were using misleading information to discredit it.
    "Organisations that have run campaigns and circulated petitions [and] advertising that there is going to be an 87 percent degradation in speed on the net are frauds. They have been exposed and they are scrambling to try and find new arguments at the moment."
  • That the ISP filtering scheme would be "scalable" to 100 Mbps, despite the maximum speed tested in the trial being only 8 mbps.
    "We have spoken to Enex [TestLab] and we are confident that this is scalable. There is no argument that it is scalable."

  • That independent tests by Telstra found that a filter could block up to 10,000 URL addresses with no over-blocking and that the impact on internet speeds was only ‘one seventieth of the blink of an eye'.

  • That the only material blocked is Refused Classification (RC) material - which the Minister insists is only the most deviant and illegal content on the internet.
    "What we're proposing to mandatorily block is not the ACMA blacklist. We're only blocking material that is illegal in libraries, in news agents, you can't buy it in book stores, you can't buy a DVD of it, you can't watch it on television and you can't watch it on the cinema. And importantly, it is currently illegal to have it on Australian ISPs."

  • That a mechanism will be put in place for webmasters to rectify with the classification board should they feel their site has been blocked by mistake.
    "We're very conscious of wanting to... greater transparency and accountability measures.
    We put out a discussion paper and for all Australians who are concerned about the thin edge of the wedge argument, for all Australians that are concerned that Stephen Conroy or any future Minister might want to secretly slip things onto this list."

  • That he does not see the filter as a 'silver bullet' to protecting Australian children.
    "We're not suggesting for a moment that this is a full-proof guaranteed way to stop access to child pornography. Nobody is suggesting that. We need education programs - we need education for kids, for parents [and] for school teachers. We need more research in this area. We need more police in this area."

Click here for the full transcript of the Minister's interview. 

 
Ads by Google
Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.
Comments: 3
tor-proxy.net is the one simple answer to Conroy. His filter is like a $30 million condom with a hole at BOTH ends.
SC Magazine - comments icon Posted by The WompJan 7, 2010 12:44 PM
Conroy is lying to the Australian public, here are links to the ads Conroy claims state the policy will slow the Internet by 87%. Check them out, there is no mention of it at all. GetUp television ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YchJlHoFCfw GetUp newspaper ad: https://broowery.com/content/getup-petition-australian The petition linked below does mention that it could slow the net by *up to* 87%. Petition: http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442 That was not scaremongering, that was straight from the government commissioned report. It wasn't even cherry picking, given the policy at the time that was the most suitable filter tested. ie It censored the most bad stuff. Closed environment report: http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_311316 Page 64 is the one you want, where Gamma's filter performance was reduced to 14% (rounded) when the filter was active. But its overblocking rates were the best. That took 5 mins to dig up that info, if you took a couple hours to look into the policy you will see many more holes and soon realise that the government is not delivering on what it says it is trying to. Ask yourself, what else is he not being honest about?
SC Magazine - comments icon Posted by cwJan 7, 2010 9:42 PM
GetUp is lying cw, not Conroy. Here are two links alone where GetUp still claims the proposed filtering will slow the internet by up to 87% (false claim: http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet&id=463 , and that it will accidentally block 1 in 12 legitimate sites. (false claim again): http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SaveTheNet/442 . Pure scaremongering, where the test results on potential voluntary, opt-in, dynamic filters have been presented, misrepresented, as the results from the tests done on the systems doing the Blacklist URL filtering. (The actual mandatory proposed filter method). It took me 2 mins to find these misrepresentations cw. Care to comment on how you too tried to misrepresent the numbers from the testing of the voluntary technology tests as the numbers from the mandatory technology tests? Pretty disingenuous mate.
SC Magazine - comments icon Posted by RoddyJan 13, 2010 4:49 PM
Report this comment as offensive:

   * Indicates information we require to process your submission.

Name: *
Email: *
Reason for offense: *
Your report will not be displayed.  
Comments have been disabled on this article.
 
 
Risk Management Whitepapers