The Greens have sought explanations from Minister Against Broadband Stephen Conroy in the Senate. In particular Green senator Scott Ludlam asked Conroy to take back his claim that what the ALP wants is like what is done in Britain, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand; in these cases the filtering is voluntary and restricted. Moreover, Conroy refused to say what "unwanted content" was defined as, and who would make that determination.
Michael Malone of iiNet called Conroy the "worst minister ever". In the meantime ISPs are being asked to trial the filtering. What effect a bad experience would have on this is unclear. So far all the evidence has been ignored.
- Log in to post comments
....what the ALP wants is like what is done in...Canada....
I was unaware that we had national-scale, mandatory Internet filtering in place here. But I am notoriously oblivious to reality....
There's no mandatory filtering in Canada. I think, from time to time, it's been floated, but it's been rejected as unfeasible and unnecessary.
Considering how easy it is for those who want to get past the filtering to actually do so, it's completely pointless, and is simply a punishment for those without the technical know-how. It certainly isn't going to stop pedophiles and terrorists.
Um, I guess I need to make my ironic mode more obvious ;-).
There's reality and there's Conreality. You need to be sure in which universe you are making a statement.
I think, from time to time, it's been floated, but it's been rejected as unfeasible and unnecessary.
A perfect example of unwanted content can be found here:
the minister's parliamentary website
With no clear definition of what "unwanted content" is, we might be in with a chance of convincing the ACMA to make another addition to their 'blacklist'!