Telstra, Optus And iPrimus Voluntarily Blocking Child Porn Websites

As part of Senator Conroy's announcement that the government is delaying the implementation of its incredibly narrow minded internet filter, he announced that large ISPs would be voluntarily blocking child porn and child abuse websites.

Telstra, Optus and iPrimus have all agreed to block access to the list of child porn and child abuse websites on ACMA's blacklist voluntarily. The list of blocked sites is to be maintained by ACMA, and will include URLs obtained from international agencies like the International Watch Foundation. It will not be a filter of all refused classification material like the proposed mandatory filter.

While there are some question marks over the maintaining of the lists and accountability for what sites are blacklisted, this is similar to the solution offered in other western democracies. However, it's important to realise that in the government's eyes, this is still just a stop-gap solution. Telstra's press release acknowledges the fact:

Mr Quilty said Telstra understood the Government would ensure that ISPs would not be legally liable for voluntarily blocking child pornography and abuse sites as determined by ACMA and that a mandatory filtering regime would be put in place following the completion of the RC review.

It's hard to argue against filtering know child porn and child abuse material. But it would be a lot better if this was the final solution, rather than a temporary measure.

[Fight the Filter]


Comments

    Agreed, I'm happy with this. I don't think anyone has a problem with this. Why can't this be enough for them?

    Instead of filtering 'known child porn sites'
    Why not spend a few dollars and take legal action to shut them down?

      That would be a good idea but I think it is unlikely any of these sites would be hosted in Austrlia so it would be incredibly difficult to prosecute.

    Why not just legislate that *all* ISP's do this? problem solved - no need for filter!

    Perhaps they should also filter the spams and scams coming through the portal?

    So there are known, running child porn websites, and the solution is to just block them and ignore then? That's horrific. Is these sites can be identified well enough to add then to a block list then they can be shut down.

      You must realise that they are not ignoring the websites. Those that are hosted in Australia are taken down and dealt with. Money is being spent on making this happen.

      It is international websites that they cannot shut down - as this is out of their jurisdiction.

        If its outside of their jurisdiction, its in someone else's jurisdiction, they can make a phone call.

    The money would still be better spent funding the Federal Police etc., who are actually trying to stop child abuse, rather than putting a screen up and telling us that everything's now safe and happy.

      exactly, its such a token thing.

      it is so easy to circumvent, if it even has to be (most of the channels they use will remain untouched)

      I refuse to believe that there are that many people who 'casually' browse child porn on the web.

      like really, people who just open up their browser and type www.childporn.com... everyone uses Google and Google already omit known child porn sites from their searches.

      its like.. they are dedicated enough to knowingly break the law, risk decades in jail, but they can't be bothered to spend the 5 minutes it would take to anonymously bypass any of this filtering??

      please...

    This is all that ever had to be done. Kill (Sorry, remove) Conroy and be done with it!.

    and this is how the UK do it.

    Is this the same as Apples walled garden approach?

    As long as they don't block 4chan, its cool.

    Just incase you forgot. The filter is not aimed at child porn... it's aimed at Refused Classification content. Such as games that would be rated R 18+ if we had such a rating, potentially blocking foreign game review sites.

    Additionally there has yet to be a single impact test, properly conducted, using appropriate parameters that will show that the filter will not be affecting my ping times on real-time 2-way traffic. NOT A SINGLE ONE. The test that were run were on out of the way carriers, using predominately dial-up, off-peak access.

    No party will get my vote, unless they absolutely and categorically oppose the filter. I don't want it being introduced mid-term.

      No party will get my vote, unless they absolutely and categorically oppose the filter. I don’t want it being introduced mid-term.

      Liberal Party in Qld and the Greens.

      Knock yourself out.
      ;)

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now