Australian Internet Filter Enters Trial Phase

blake writes "News.com.au reports "The Government's plan to have internet service providers filter pornography and other internet content deemed inappropriate for children is going full-steam ahead. [...] The trial will evaluate ISP-level internet content filters in a controlled environment while filtering content inappropriate for children." It all sounds in good taste, and we are told that you will be able to opt out at any time, but will putting this filter in place simply give the powers that be the ability to block access to content for their own agendas. Censorship may be necessary, but should it be overseen by Government."

Comments

Re:No, no, a thousand times no.

[HemmingSay]

Apparently the Australian government have already tried this on a PC-level...and it was pretty much viewed as a massive waste of money, the guy from dansdata has an interesting piece on the cost/usage but hey, children - somebody won't think...

Re:No, no, a thousand times no.

[hool5400]

The stupid thing is, they already provide free filtering software to download. The government has paid for it, on our behalf.

The licence for the filter software cost them $AUD 85M, with only 145000 downloads of the software, and no doubt even less active users. Those that want it, have it. But it seems not many people care.

Dan Rutter brings some light on the insanity here.

Re:No, no, a thousand times no.

[Arccot]

*WHO* decides what "must" go in .xxx. We may be straying a bit off-topic here but, IMHO, there's no reason to force anything onto the .xxx domain. Just make it available so that "legitimate" pornographers can opt-in. Then, those who are offended by such content can filter it easily and ignore it. And, it would be easier for concerned parties to focus on sites that remain on the .com side that are acting irresponsibly (failure to do age verification / illegal content / etc.) Filtering is easy to do now using the PICS system. PICS has many different categories you can filter sites on, from violence to sexually explicit. Why should there be a TLD for porn, and not one for violence, hate speech, or any of a dozen other potentially offensive aspects of speech? The .XXX TLD is a too small band aid to an already solved problem.

Re:No, no, a thousand times no.

[cheater512]

Actually that was from the previous government.
This latest move is from the new government.

Re:Censorship Is Never Necessary

[anto]

The Liberals tried to do the same thing to get Harridene on side - and it was only lobbying from the ISP industry that managed to get them to step back from the edge and 'mandate' filtering for all ISP's via the incredibly ineffective (and massivly tax-payer funded) filter download program.

I don't think there is much of a difference between any of the parties on this. Can't-you-think-of-the-children (and terror) is an easy sell, massive financial burden on low profit margin ISP's and reduction of network useability takes a little more thinking...

Re:Censorship Is Never Necessary

[cammoblammo]

The Australian Labor Government, shortly after being elected, decided that the impossible task of making the internet pre-school safe was a better solution.

I hear this, and I've also heard all of Steven Conroy's announcements, but the TFA seems to suggest this has been in the pipeline an awful lot longer. Tenders for companies to provide the filtering system closed in July last year, and the Australian Communications and Media Authority waited until after the election to announce the successful bid.

I suspect that Helen Coonan would have had a similar announcement to make if the Coalition got up.