Stephen Conroy told journalists yesterday that he expects the government’s plan for internet censorship filtering to hit parliament by the end of this year. Great.
When pressed on when we would see the filtering legislation introduced to parliament, Conroy stated:
“We are prepared to spend as much time as necessary to make sure we get it right. The discussions we’re having behind the scenes with various players are more interested in getting the implementation and the actual policy right rather than saying it’s got to be done by some artificial deadline.
I expect it (the legislation) to be this year. I expect that we will table the legislation this year sooner rather than later. If you’re thinking ‘does that mean December?’ – No, I wouldn’t think it would be December, but there could be intervening events that I am not in control of.”
Jenna Pitcher over at Delimiter managed to score some footage of the Q&A session (embedded below) – skip to the 4:30 point to see him respond to the filter timetable questions.
Lincoln squirrel
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 9:58 AMAll depends on when they call the election… Guaging from this it will be before the year end… We can only hope Julia and Co. don’t get back in if this is the case.
StevoTheDevo
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 12:17 PMAn election has to be called by October at the latest… So it is 100% certain that we will have an election before December!
(unless there’s a Military Coup or other unforeseeable event)
Jeff
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 1:29 PMI suggest we rally the Giz troops and put those Call of Duty skills to good use!
We’re coming for ya Conroy ;)
normandy
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 10:01 AMonly one word… Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Nicholas
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 10:30 AMI was thinking this as I read it, you beat me to it…
Bjorn Rostron
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 2:35 PMditto
White Mike
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 10:20 AMThis really is depressing. I could care less about NBN if this is the price. A filter next year for NBN in maybe 10 years? No way….
Expect the term “Mandate” to be thrown around after the election. Hope the Libs and Greens hold the balance of power in the senate.
Seamus Byrne
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 2:24 PMThat’s the key point I want to stress with people. The filter can’t pass without Senate support. From now until July 1 next year, the government cannot pass a filter without the opposition’s support. Greens are against it, so even Fielding and Xenophon can’t help the government unless the Libs do. And the Nationals have already said they are against it. So… I think a key push is getting the Liberals to make it a policy that they will not support a mandatory internet filter.
Troy MacDonald
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 10:22 AMWill this really be that bad? What sites are they planning on blocking? And will it be easy to work around, like a basic proxy or what? Cos that should probably be looked at now, before they block workaround sites
Rappo
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 10:52 AMThe material they use as a strawman (child porn) does not realy exist on http, the filter will only block web sites, not P2P or BBS, and wont stop people using TOR or other anonymising proxies, and therefore will NOT do the job they claim it will. What’s worse it allows the government to controll access to information, deciding what the public can see without any oversight (and before anyone claims “it won’t be the government, it will be a independent classifications board, I would like to point out that this board would consist of government employees).
This is the problem, it cannot address the problem they like to claim it will, and it opens itself to abuse, and will limit information that could be used to argue against the govenments existing policies (they will be blocking information on drug use and euthanasia, which will hinder disscussions on these topics).
matt
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 11:13 AMto be honest, thats not the point. the point is that this is THE WORST policy that I have ever seen in my life and they should not be able to get away with it.
at very least is will be a complete waste of the hundreds of millions its going to cost to implement. if it does slow down the net – which it will if they want it to have any functionality at all – you have to also think of it as cutting into the whole point of the NBN. i.e: the NBN is $43 bln, if the filter slows the net down by 10% that’s 4.3bln WASTED on it. not to mention even just the power wasted powering the COMPLETELY USELESS policy! as others have said, it won’t stop people getting illicit material, they will be determined enough to get around it (which as you say is NOT hard) so the only possible purpose it could hope to serve is to block information from getting to the mainstream that THEY don’t want them to see.
they say it isn’t censorship. THE ONLY think it could be even the slightest bit useful for IS censorship.
so here is the deal: if your number one priority is to see this policy destroyed, vote for the greens at the next election (except any who may personally be for the filter as some have mentioned). we don’t need them to win, we just need there to be enough of them for them to BLOCK THIS P.O.S!
in the meantime write to labor AND LIBERAL (I would really like to get a strait answer from them on this issue (giz?) ) members, and independents, urging them not to support it.
DoctorOwl
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 1:03 PMThey’ll be blocking almost every free porn site in existince – youporn, youjizz, redtube, tube8, thehun, asianthumbs – you name it. None of those host models under 18, but that’s irrelevent right?
stevothegoddamneddevo!
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 10:35 AM“there could be intervening events that I am not in control of”… Yeah, like the federal election!
Reuben Brickell
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 10:59 AMhttp://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0a2e1Q1CA1qbxq29o1_500.png
Rob
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 11:04 AMThe problem is that it doesn’t matter if you vote ALP or Liberals. Both will push through with the filter.
Sure the ALP talk about it, but the silence from the Liberals is deafening. I guess neither party wants to upset the fundamental christian lobby groups like the Australian Christian Lobby.
Simon Reidy
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 11:18 AMEveryone who’s thinking of now voting Liberal, do you really think they won’t have their own nasty filter to implement? They are conservatives with a Christian leader FFS! They have the full support of the ACL. Tony Abbott has already publicly declared that he supports the filter, but they just don’t have a timetable for their policy yet.
Not only will Liberal almost certainly introduce something just as nasty, but they plan to roll back the NBN as well! Not to mention all their other horrible right wing policies which you’d be supporting with your vote. Do you really want to turn back the clock with IT development? Liberal don’t give a stuff about funding the IT sector.
Either vote Green, or Vote Labor for all their other more sensible policies.
This filter is coming whether we like it or not. The only hope we have is that the policy is softened a little, but a vote for Liberal is not a vote for an “unfiltered internet”.
Steve M.
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 12:44 PMMy thoughts precisely. One’s vote should never be determined by a single policy regardless of how monumentally stupid it is (unless that policy is something like, I don’t know, “Let’s kill all the Jews”). I’m against this filter as much as anyone, but declaring you’ll be voting Liberal based on this one policy – which the Liberals are highly likely to follow up on anyway – shows the kind of shallow approach to politics that’s a good argument against compulsory voting. I’m not saying everyone should vote Labour, but the amount of people instantly jumping to “I’m voting Liberal” with no deeper thought is quite frankly a little frightening.
I remain hopeful that the Australian public won’t let this happen. There’s a point to which the government can force laws through without our consent, but there’s also a point at which the government has to bend to the will of the public. If there’s enough outcry – and if everyone understood what this filter actually meant, there would be – it would take a very arrogant and very stupid government to enforce it.
Joeyjoejoe
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 11:38 AMUrrgh i’m soo sick of this Conroy guy, haven’t they fired him yet?? Hey Julia Gillard, if you want my vote and many others in the 20 – 40 years age bracket for this upcoming election how about ditching Conroy. He will be costing you a lot of votes. I don’t see how some sub religious group should be inflicting their warped sense of morals on the entire populace. Julia this WILL cost you the election, can you not see he is a liability??
I for one wont vote for you unless he is removed from this position, he’s an incompetent technophobe, and this filter stands to only impact legit users internet speeds, those doing dodgy stuff already have many options that will bypass this filter entirely, so its really quite pointless and a total waste of taxpayers money.
If this filter is implemented, Australia is no longer is a free country and the filters would be open for abuse by Gov, (eg don’t like an opposing parties comments blacklist their website) we might as well be living in China.
If this filter implemented was a Opt in system, then its a better middle ground, as then the parents trying to protect their kids from nasties online, it may be of some assistance, but its not entirely Kid proof, the only way to protect kids from the internet is sit down and surf with them. This may at least sedate the religious groups because then they get what they want, and the majority of the general populace does not have to suffer pointless filtering. It should just be an option when you sign up to a isp, not a gov mandated thing that everyone has to endure.
As they say, Whats good for the Goose, isn’t always good for the Gander.
I’m an atheist, I vote and work in IT, and I know my opinion to be shared amongst most who work with me in IT.
I really hope your reading this Julia! Kick out Conroy and get rid of this everybody gets filtered scheme and you will get mine and many others vote.
Simon Reidy
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 12:15 PM“I really hope your reading this Julia!”
Yes I’m sure the Prime Minister spends her day reading tech blogs and adjusting her policies accordingly..
Kif
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 12:31 PMIt’s possible. How many pollies actually work?
matt
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 2:31 PMwould that really be to much to ask? seriously?
I mean, at least SOME consultation with the industry it will effect the most, and people who know the most about it would be nice? I mean she seems happy listening to some crazy right wing no nothing Christian group that has nothing to do with the internet?
Bjorn Rostron
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 3:02 PMHere Here, i’m with you!!
simulacrum
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 11:45 AM1) Vote for greens in the senate.
2) Vote below the line and put Conroy LAST (after the election is announced and group voting tickets are published you will be able to download how to vote Conroy Last cards here: http://filter-conroy.org/ballots.html)
JonBOY26
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 1:33 PMI’ll be doing exactly that mate! ie, voting for the Greens by numbering every box below the line with Conroy numbered dead last!
Elephant Fresh
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 12:38 PMVoting for the greens will not prevent this from going through – they don’t have enough seats or influence to prevent this. Voting for the Liberals won’t do anything either, they are clearly for it. The fact is, it appears that the majority of Australians are for it – http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/10/2815232.htm
We are a backward country of dumb, myopic fucks. Get used to it.
Joeyjoejoe
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 1:17 PMWhat they fail to cite in the ABC news article is where this sample of “australians” was from? Were they all located in a hardcore christian community? Were they all people over 65? and did they just hear “would you be in favor of blocking all the bad porn and nasties on the internet?” ect, how clear did they really make it to this sample audience? You can use statistics to prove anything 72% of all people know that ;)
Wish we could actually all just vote on this and then they would have a hard and proper figure to decide it.
matt
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 2:11 PMyeah, I mean lets imagine how that goes down:
“hi sir, are you for or against an internet filter?”
“wtf is an internet?”
yeah… the BIGGEST problem is the confusion around the issue, to which the gov has played to their advantage.
most people, even technically minded people don’t even know how this policy is meant to protect children. if you said “it will protect children who brows the internet from seeing nasty things” you are WRONG! the point of THIS filter is to protect children who are USED IN child porn, by starving the industry by making it impossible for people to see/support the content. which we all know won’t work and will sooner be used for political censorship. the nasty trick they are pulling is leverageing this confusion by tacking this horrible mandatory filter on to the optional ‘net nanny’ filter that’s purpose IS to protect children from seeing nasty things on-line! many people DO want that an I can see why! but the two ARE NOT THE SAME THING! they should be sold as two separate policies! the optional net nanny that helps protect kids online. and the mandatory filter that WILL NOT WORK and as such is just a big waste of money, bringing absolutely NO benefit to anyone, except the gov who want to LOOK like they are doing something to stop child porn, and may one day want to use the filter for their own political gains.
then we would see how many people support the mandatory one…
JonBOY26
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 12:39 PMConroys behavior is nothing but arrogant and condescending, which is rather ironic given he clearly has very knowledge about the digital communications sector.
Conroy = FAKE IT ‘TILL YOU MAKE IT
MDolley
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 12:47 PMHas anybody thought to convince the Australian Christian Lobby that the filter is a bad idea and that it won’t protect the children?
Rob
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 1:31 PMMDolley
The filter isn’t about protecting children for the ACL, it’s about power and control over what people believe.
Jim Wallace, the head of the ACL, has been overheard at conferences to say that the ACL would like to see websites on safe sex, gay rights, abortion, euthanasia and non christian websites.
Without access to information on these topics, we lose the ability to research or debate them – exactly what the ACL wants.
Justin
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 12:52 PMThat’s a good idea simulacrum. It would be hard to claim a mandate for the filter if Conroy lost his seat.
Unfortunately I don’t think that’s likely. His seat is pretty safe and not exactly full of Gizmodo readers.
Maybe we can pick someone from his faction who’s not as entrenched?
Namarrgon
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 2:18 PMHe’s a senator, isn’t he? Not a representative, and therefore doesn’t have a seat as such, safe or otherwise.
If you just vote 1 Labor (above the line) for the Senate paper, he’ll be high up Labor’s priority list, but if you take the time to number ALL senators (below the line), you can put him last as simulacrum suggests.
Enough people do that, he’ll be out.
simulacrum
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 2:36 PMEven if he doesn’t lose his seat maybe a dip in approval would send them the message that it isn’t as popular a measure as they’d hoped or people aren’t as stupid as they’d hoped.
namarrgon
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 1:17 PMFiltering the web for child porn is just as effective as refusing people entry to Australia because they ticked the “Are you a terrorist?” box.
Your Mate Alex
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 1:21 PMThis is crazy. Whoever states that they will publicly oppose and use all their influence to shut it down will get my vote. At this point I don’t care if their other policy involves burning baby seals.
They should just spend millions of dollars testing and implementing a law that every car should have a sign on the roof saying “Child Porn Is Illegal”. Anyone who is against this idea is clearly saying child porn is okay. Get a clue Julia. You’re either clueless or weak or both.
matt
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 2:41 PMsetting up this internet filter to block child porn is equivalent to setting up Road blocks to stop something that is exclusively smuggled via Air.
Namarrgon
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 4:08 PMIt’s like introducing nocturnal cane toads to control diurnal cane beetles!
No wait, it’s like building a giant fence to stop rabbits on one side from talking to rabbits on the other side!
Maybe it’s like voting Labor instead of Liberal and hoping that we’ll get some politicians with sense for a change…
Ross Moir
Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 4:36 PMIt’s like assigning the army to stop boat people.