After yesterday’s announcement that Conroy’s internet filter trials were a rousing success weren’t a failure, Telstra, Optus and Primus have all publicly announced their support for the policy.
Below are the press releases from each of the ISPs. But before you read them, consider that as much as they talk about preventing child pornography, back in May when the ACMA blacklist leaked to Wikileaks, it was made clear that only 32% of blocked sites were related to child porn. The other 68% included legitimate sites, YouTube videos and political sites.
Telstra:
Telstra welcomes Australian Government’s online safety measures
15 December 2009 – Today’s Federal Government announcement of new online safety measures provides greater clarity on the government’s approach to cyber-safety, Telstra said today.
Telstra’s Group Managing Director, Public Policy and Communications, David Quilty, said that the Government has taken on board input from a number of leading Internet Service Providers (ISPs) including Telstra, in developing its policy response to this important but complex issue.
“Telstra is supportive of a Refused Classification (RC) content blacklist of URLs compiled from the combination of a complaints-based system and known child abuse websites passed on by expert agencies in other jurisdictions,” Mr Quilty said.
Based on the results of its own technical evaluation, Telstra believes that blocking of URLs on such a blacklist is feasible and practical to implement, without noticeably impacting on network performance provided it is limited to a defined number of URLs. A report on Telstra’s evaluation is available at http://exchange.telstra.com.au
“It is important to recognise, as the Government has, that there is no silver bullet which will make the internet 100 per cent safe. The blocking of a blacklist of RC sites is one element of the multi-faceted approach that is required to create a safer online environment.
“Other factors critical to internet safety include user-based PC filtering, the creation of safer learning and social networking environments, appropriate supervision and involvement by parents and teachers, education, law enforcement and international cooperation.
Mr Quilty continued, “We support the fact that the Government intends to legislate its approach, thereby ensuring that it applies across the industry, is clearly spelt out and is enforceable by law.
“We also welcome Senator Conroy’s commitment to consult further with ISPs on the details of the Government’s plans. Continued industry collaboration will promote online safety through practical and efficient implementation of the Government’s strategy.
“Telstra is committed to continuing its strong leadership across all elements of cyber-safety so that families can be confident that they have the tools and the knowledge to protect their children online,” Mr Quilty said.
Please visit http://telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/advice/internet.cfm for more information.
Optus:
Optus welcomes Government initiative to promote cyber-safety
Optus believes the internet should be a place where Australians can browse and express themselves freely and safely. Consistent with this, Optus announced today its support for the Federal Government’s enhanced cyber safety measures.
Maha Krishnapillai, Director of Optus Government and Corporate Affairs said:
”Optus has always supported measures that will protect its customers from illegal content, and give greater peace of mind to those using the internet. This initiative supports the blocking of access to the worst types of online content such as child abuse and sexual violence.“Optus discussed the development of the new measures – in particular the filtering policy position – with Government and other major ISPs, and looks forward to further consultations with the Government around the implementation of filtering arrangements.
“The Government’s cyber-safety measures include mandatory ISP-level filtering of Refused Classification (RC) content. Through its participation in the Government’s filtering pilot, Optus confirmed that it is technically feasible to block a finite list of illegal content without significant impact on the customer’s experience or network performance.
“The mandatory blocking of RC content is important, but must be complemented with a broader Government approach to cyber-safety and the protection of children on the internet, including initiatives to promote education, awareness and counselling.
“Optus acknowledges that it is the Government’s responsibility to strike a balance between protecting Australians desire for freedom of expression and access to information, with the need to improve online safety and limit access to illegal RC content.
“Optus is supportive of efforts to protect children online and is a participant in the Internet Industry Association’s ‘Family Friendly ISP’ program. Optus Internet proudly exhibits the Family Friendly ISP ‘ladybird seal’ indicating its commitment to compliance with the IIA Content Codes of Practice. The Content Codes of Practice are registered with and monitored by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
“Additionally, Optus provides information to its customers about how to purchase the Optus Internet Security Suite — an all-in-one internet security solution which includes features such as anti-virus, anti-spam, firewall and a parental control / content filtering options,” Mr Krishnapillai said.
Primus:
PRIMUS TELECOM APPROVES MEASURES TO BLOCK CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ONLINE
Primus Telecom announced today that it is in full support of the Federal Government’s policy to block online child pornography and welcomed the opportunity to work with the Government to further develop and implement its policy.
Senator Conroy announced new Government legislation to help protect Australian families online, with new cyber-safety measures designed to filter undesirable content. As anticipated, Senator Conroy also announced the introduction of mandatory ISP-level filtering of Refused Classification (RC) rated content from overseas, after a pilot trial involving Primus Telecom and another eight Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
“Primus Telecom believes that the introduction of an ISP filtering regime into Australia requires a balance between protecting Australians’ rights of free expression and access to information with the need to improve online safety and the need to take action against the providers of objectionable content,” said Ravi Bhatia.
Leading up to the Government’s announcement this afternoon Primus Telecom had worked constructively with other leading ISPs in informing the Government on a set of principles that should underlie its policy on filtering, and at this afternoon’s press conference the Government announced it will undertake further consultation on some of the measures.
Primus Telecom believes the scope and operation of an ISP filtering regime for on-line safety needs to be governed by a set of clear and focused policy principles, use efficient and effective processes in determining and removing prohibitions on content, and operate in a transparent and accountable manner. Primus Telecom welcomed the chance to expand on these matters in further consultation with the Government.
At the press conference in Melbourne today Senator Conroy also released the Enex Test Laboratory report into the pilot trial of Internet Service Provider (ISP)-level filtering. The press conference was attended by Primus Telecom’s CEO Ravi Bhatia, who felt it was important for the ISP to be involved in the trials and also in regular consultation with the Government so the company could help the Government form its Cyber-Safety policy.
“The internet filtering trials Primus and its customers voluntarily took part in demonstrated that blocking of a designated URL list can be done with negligible impact on network performance and with 100 per cent accuracy,” said Ravi Bhatia.


















Adam
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 9:40 AMI was just about to sign up with an Optus home phone internet bundle tomorrow. I’m glad this came out today, I’ll be looking elsewhere now.
hoodoo guru
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 9:53 AMyou do realise the censor will span all service providers.. It’s a sad day for Australia. Well looks like i’m moving to another country.
Daryl
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 9:55 AMyou realise if it ends up as legislation, it won’t matter who you have signed up with? You’re better off using the company that gives you the best value and then complaining to your local representative
Ash
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 11:12 AMHoodoo I think you’re right on getting out of dodge, with this and the R18+ debate raging, it’s a wonder we’re actually allowed to choose what roads to drive on going to work.
Nick T
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 1:38 PMYes, they will all have to censor if this gets through. However, we can still support our ISP’s views in the meantime.
If Telstra & Optus are behind Conroy & his abuse and lies, then so be it.. but I won’t be funding either of them.
If they lose enough customers over this from now, then maybe they may kick up more of a stink against it.
WaveOfMutilation
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 9:52 AMThats it when I finish my degree I’m leaving this country.
RG
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 9:55 AMWhat have the ISP’s been promised in exchange for their cooperation (can anyone spell NBN?) or are the ISPs going for the ultra conservative consumer?
Either way, I won’t be choosing these as my ISP anytime soon and Labor has lost my vote.
Jonathan Brown
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 10:25 AMApart from the overuse of the word “censorship” I’m yet to see a definitive argument for why this is so bad. I’ll consider the argument against when someone comes up with a detailed, backed up and sensible response, but right now all the arguments against are just way too emotional with way too little substance…
MDolley
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 10:43 AMHow would you feel if you were a small business owner who’s site is blacklisted incorrectly?
What about that fact that the implementation of this creates the misguided notion that children will now be safe to use the internet. Completely ignoring the fact that it doesn’t affect things like instant messaging where predators prey on children.
Your Mate Alex
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 10:52 AM@Jonathon Brown – The problem is that you have monkeys in government aligning the internet filter with whatever personal and often religeous agendas. The groups that use the internet for terrorist/child porn/cyber crime etc don’t generally google for it. They have far more complicated methods to hide their tracks. Those who don’t hide their tracks get found very quickly. So any time there’s a website that offers a non-christian view point on something, pro-abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, criticism of political process, there is an easy and secret off button for the government. Despite it being completely flawed in it’s approach and misrepresenting it’s purpose, Conroy has still pushed it through. Even though all providers will need to have it, Telstra, Optus and co have publicly supported it obviously because he has the NBN as leverage. Optus is going on record as supporting the filtering and that’s why Adam should go elsewhere.
Political spin is not capable of protecting my own kid from the internet. I can do that job just fine.
Ryan
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 10:53 AMI guess my 3 main concerns are:
1) It will slow the connection down, there is no way that is can remain the same speed.
2) The evil people that this is directed towards can easily by-pass it by using foreign servers/proxies as well as it can’t stop torrents or P2P which is also a method they use.
3) There is no consultation on what is put on the list, I don’t see why this list wouldn’t be managed by the AFP but from my understanding (and I maybe wrong) Conroy is the one that has the power to add sites to the list.
Rappo
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 11:05 AMThe reason it’s bad is that whilst it does block some illegal content it may also be used to block legitimate content, because some-one has taken issue to it. Further it is a secret black list… if the list where open and we could see what has been RC-ed and why, and knew that it was only this content being censored, their would’nt be as much of an issue.
Further it won’t prevent access to those who seek this content, as it won’t block torrents or the “dark nets”, and doesn’t stop the use of offshore proxies.
Families would be safer by simply using Net Nanny software.
The Govt has spent millions on something that gives them control of the information that we can access, and actually does very little to achieve the stated goal.
It also makes more overheads for the ISPs (costing them money, and therefore raising connection rates) and will slow net access (though no-one seems to know just how much).
Then they will need people to censor the net, these people will need to be paid… so our tax money goes on that instead of otherthings (like for example Police on the streets).
Any of these reasons do it for you?
matt
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 11:14 AMI’m confused how the word “Censorship” could possibly be overused in this issue. They are creating a Filter so they can CENSOR the internet!
look how fantastically that has worked for games!
and they are basically using the exact same argument here “oh its to protect the children” what makes you think that it won’t end up like games; if its not suitable for children, it will be banned?
moreover, I’m yet to see a detailed, backed up and sensible argument as to WHY we need it.
oh, and excuse people for getting emotional when freedom of speech is a stake.
and its not 100% success rate, its more like 105% success rate, it blocks legal sites as well! thats not perfect success.
they are just lying and being vague. they sell it as a way to filter child porn. FINE then ONLY use it to filter child porn!
basically, instead of them having to do the hard work by hunting down people who access child porn, they want to transfer the hard work over to us, by just blocking everything and making it so we have to complain when they block something wrongly.
these blanket solutions that make life worse for everyone just because of lazy parenting and lazy policing.
China has an excuse, they have over A BILLION people to manage. and we have 20 million yet we need to resort to these same tactics.
Peta
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 3:54 PMI also agree with the points that have been offered to you in response, though here are some more reasons to oppose the filter:
-The filter does not work to protect children. Most children are targeted and victimised on the internet via public online chatrooms, which will not (and should not) be censored. Chatrooms also serve a legitimate purpose of providing social interaction and support on every topic imaginable.
-The filter does not work to prevent the creation and distribution of child or bestial pornography. The vast majority of this content is exchanged using p2p networks and malware which will not be covered under the censorship.
-The ‘Refused Classification’ (RC) guidelines we have in Australia were written for media like television and film – not the internet. The internet is a global discussion about some issues that the easily offended will not tolerate in film and television (and thus are not allowed). However, the internet provides the only media forum available for people to discuss these issues (e.g. a bdsm forum where people discuss their fetishes would be censored – why shouldn’t Australians be allowed to have access to this kind of support?)
-The government has not engaged in a campaign to get parents to take responsibility for their childrens internet consumption. Many parents put an internet connected computer into their child’s room then cry foul when they discover them looking at porn. Like the governments’ current campaign to stop parents giving alcohol to their children, parents must regulate and supervise their childrens access to the internet. To not do so is negligent and this fact has never been focussed on.
General Mui
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 10:28 AMWhat is this Commuist China, i thought this was a free democratic society. Now it looks like we have no freedom at all. Im all for safety of children. But how about we give the money to the police to help catch child sex offenders instead of a giant internet filter that will be used at the govenrment will to infringe our rights.
Namarrgon
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 12:24 PMIndeed. Nobody wants child porn on the internet, but this doesn’t help.
1) Ineffective: the Government’s own report states that it doesn’t block anyone who deliberately tries to circumvent it, not for a moment (even the web filter can be trivially bypassed, let alone via torrents, FTP etc). And I dunno about you, but I’ve never just happened across a child porn site, not in over 20 years of heavy net access. Those still concerned about accidental exposure already have many options including installable software and “family-friendly” ISPs.
2) Abusable: the secret block list means (short of “illegal” leaks) we can never know if we’re being denied access to completely legal content too, like harmless commercial or controversial political sites – now, or in the future. Will the filter at least divert to a clear “access denied due to filter” site? Is there a complaints-based process in place for *removing* incorrectly-blocked sites from the list?
3) Misleading: the filter is and will be marketed as “making the internet safer”, but in view of 1) above, that’s not the case. Those who forgo more effective methods as a result of this marketing may be in for an unpleasant surprise.
4) Wasteful: some speed impact is inevitable, but more importantly, the money spent on the filter (paid for by taxpayers and ISP customers) could be more profitably spent on education and prevention, rather than on ineffective and misleading filtering attempts. Even child welfare groups have been saying this.
Send these arguments to your local federal member, to Conroy’s office directly, and to the media. Even if the Government isn’t swayed by what they will inevitably deem a “vocal minority”, it does not have absolute control over Parliament, and cannot pass legislation without support outside the Labor Party. At the very least, we can force them to better address our concerns – don’t wait until it’s too late!
Russ
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 10:32 AMHoo boy…these ISPs will do and say anything to get their snouts in the NBN trough, even support something as objectionable and repressive as Steven Conroy’s fear-mongering which masquerades as policy.
Chris O'Hara
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 10:55 AMThe filter will only block direct access to a list of URLs. You’ll still be able to access any of the blocked sites through a proxy.
Google => Glype, PHProxy, Tor, etc.
*sigh*
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 10:57 AMright…i’m moving to Canada. I hope you all enjoy the rest of your lives here in China 2.0
Namarrgon
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 12:01 PMI’ve lived in Canada. Good luck with that.
razorcat
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 8:15 PMCanada isn’t entirely off the hook either:
“Project Cleanfeed Canada (cybertip.ca) decides what sites are child pornographic in nature and transmits those lists to the voluntarily participating ISPs who can then block the pages for their users. However, some argue that they are accountable to no one and could be adding non pornographic sites to their list without public knowledge”
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship#Canada
Shane
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 11:30 AMIf this internet filtering and Rudd’s determination on pushing through an ETS isn’t enough for people to vote these controlling clowns out next election, then it will confirm what I have thought all along. Most Aussies are stupid…
K
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 11:44 AMAnd people complain about countries like Singapore being a police state…… from the looks of it Australia is no better. In fact, we’re run by wussies who are scared of EVERYTHING. 3 Cheers to Australia…. the newest member of the Backward Countries Club.
Simon Potts
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 12:00 PMI could go on and on here about the injustice of it all and how it doesnt achieve the stated goal etc etc. But I think I can sum it all up with this “What a crock of @$#%”
steve
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 12:25 PM@#$%@#^$@#$ @!#$!@#$ !@#$ @#%^ #$%#$%^#$%
take that!
Lachlan Clement
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 12:35 PMSee we wouldnt have to deal with this shit if we didnt get kevin rudd into power.
Chris Guerin
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 1:03 PMCould this day get any worse for Australia’s freedoms?
waverdr
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 1:30 PMHaven’t they renamed Victoria Square (Sth Aust)to Tienanmen Square. We are going the same slippery road as the Chinese if this comes in. I’m amazed that the Govt can introduce something that the majority of people and parties don’t want. Its unworkable and most tech savvy kids will know how to get around it (proxies, VPN etc)Senator Conroy needs to get in the real world and stop trying to push something the christian minority want onto the rest of Australia.
I’m ashamed to be a Aussie.
Oh did i mention we have a Prime Minister who speaks Chinese!!!
Nate Koelmeyer
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 1:46 PMone question… Who does the internet belong to? What right does our government have to control something that does not belong to them? This method will do nothing to control the monsters in our society… It’s similar to the argument why go after the dealer when you can go after the supplier? Cut off the source and there is nothing left to deal… The irony is… with the introduction of this filter… I probably would be unable to read these comments.
David Putz
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 at 7:11 PMMy goodness. I feel like the only option to gain freedom for regular Australians is to elect a Prime Minister who is so ridiculously incompetent all he/she will do is sit around in the office, making no decisions at all so they avoid making stupid decisions.
That way no one will decide to do anything and therefore will not pick stupid options because they are too busy learning how to turn a damned PC on.
StevoTheDevo
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 10:38 AMIt’s a sad day when corporations speak up for bad policy.
I wonder what they get out of this?
I hope the media can right this wrong…
shaun
Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 7:19 PMRemember the old days….when the government didn’t have the right to open peoples mail…or to farm that right out to some bombastic private firm with delusions of moral authority. Telstra,Optus and other ip’s are well known for blatantly cheating their customers..(claimed dl speeds,stated quality of connection etc.}….seems odd such people as our ip’s would or should be allowed to have any input as far as customers desired content is concerned. Or any authority to peruse or collect any information from private sources without explicit permission…from the OWNERS of such information..not some over opinionated government desk pilot.