Watch Stephen Conroy Defend The Filter On The 7PM Project

Stephen Conroy was on The 7PM project last night defending his mandatory internet filter. Seriously, if that guy says child pornography one more time, I'm gonna go crazy.

As good a job as the hosts did of bringing up the main issues involved with the filter, watching this really makes me long for a proper debate between Conroy and someone who actually knows the intricacies of the technical aspects related to filtering. Because it's so easy for Conroy to get away with saying "Mark Newton from Internode was wrong" in an eight-minute segment without getting challenged as to HOW he's wrong (which, incidentally, I don't believe he is. Somehow I trust an engineer's knowledge of the internet over a politician's...)

Still, it's good that this is starting to get some mainstream coverage, even if it didn't really challenge Conroy too much.

[via Open Internet]

WATCH MORE: Tech News


Comments

    I think someone just needs to point out that the main stream internet (that he is proposing to filter) isn't where the child molesters live any way...they use other connection mechanisms within the internet (most that would avoid the filter) to do there dirty work. I'd think even the federal police would even know that

      He actually admitted that this filter WILL NOT affect P2P networks in any way at all.

      Great spend of tax-payers money Conroy!

      Let me just preface this by saying that I totally disagree with the filter, both beacuse of its intent and application. But you are dead set wrong to presume that either Conroy or the federal police are unaware of how child pornography rings exchange their pornography. For instance.

        Which of course raises further alarm bells on what the government's real aim in introducing a net filter is.

    no one asks the simple questions:
    "why does the list have to be secret?"

    "because if we made it public, we would be giving people access to the illicit sites"

    "but if your filter is so perfect, how could you really be giving access? I mean what harm is there in telling everyone the sites they can't visit if your filter will stop them from visiting them?"

    the secrecy of the filter is an admission that it doesn't work.

    and it's pointless to say "oh, there will always be people who will find a way through"

    well yeah! ALL of them will find a way through!! its not like people just casually brows for illegal content (for instance, Google already filters such content from their searches)

    EVERY single person looking at illicit content on the net would have the know how to overcome this little hurdle, and if they don't, the sites and people supplying them with the stuff (all most certainty for a fee) would probably sort it out for them!

    more and more I am less worried about the slow down and the breach of freedom of speech ect, and more concerned about it just being a MASSIVE waste of money!

    Isn't this really about the government enforcing it's secret ACTA deal with the US

      I wondered this too. The way they seem to be ramming this through and ignoring all the *valid* arguments against it makes me wonder if it's not just to put the infrastructure in place so that *surprise* ACTA *double surprise* we've now added all those naughty torrent sites to the filter list because lucky us we had a filter here already, aren't we smart.

    I highly doubt he has anything new or interesting to say, I'm not even going to watch the video. I've heard his poor arguments before and seeing his face will make my blood boil.

    Who do I believe on what will slow down the internet? A network engineer working at an IS level or a politician trying to spin his campaign?

    It will be a sad sad day if this ever gets implemented.

    I'd much rather watch a debate between Simon Hacket/Michael Malone and Stephen Conroy than a bloody health debate. The Libs should get one of the big 5 ISP CEOs on board as the opposition minister!!!

    Honestly, what do you expect from Channels 7, 9 & 10? Conroy gave the 3 tv stations a $250 million tax cut (between them) and ever since, the 3 stations either ignore the filter or only provide positive coverage.

    So Labor and Conroy have effectively paid off the TV stations to filter the news so only positive news coverage is given. If Conroy is willing to do this with TV stations, you can imagine what will get filtered on the internet!

    When Conroy first flagged the filter, he was going to ban all material that was currently being put on the ACMA blacklist. That included federally classified X rated material then, and despite Conroy's assertions that X rated material will not be filtered under the new proposals, X rated content is still being added to the ACMA blacklist today. Even if he keeps his word on this, he knows full well that 80% of adult material that is imported into Australia on DVDs has to be modified to make the strict guidelines of the Australian X category. So to say that X rated content will be legal under the filter, still means that 80% of the sexually explicit content on the web will be filtered, Adult content that does not make the Australian X rated category includes material where there is 'assaultative language'. This means you can say 'fuck me' on an X rated film but 'fuck you' is often enough to push an X rated film into the dreaded Refused Classification (RC) rating. As for consenting B and D, foot fetish, small breasts, female ejaculation, tickling, mild spanking etc etc these will all be filtered under the new regime even though they are legal acts in themselves. He should just say that all legal acts will not be filtered.

    Dear god, I hate this guy so much... he dances around the issue and never really answers any questions.

    There is an active petition to fight this at Electronic Frontiers Australia.

    The effort to block these sites is futile, why aren;t we focussing on real problems in society like drugs and metal health. I mean speaking of mental health, the people accessing these kind of sites need mental health not pidly little attempts to block it entirely.
    With vpn's into sweden and many other circumvents around, why don't we just focus on real goals rather than ones we cannot fix?

    Has this guy ever used the internets before

    Telstra may have said that the filter was 100% accurate but they add some caveats that were so convienently left out

    Telstra believe that the solution trialled would be satisfactory and fit for purpose in Telstra’s production environment with the following caveats:
    • The size of the Blacklist doesn’t exceed 10,000 entries
    • The Blacklist doesn’t contains pages from “heavily trafficked” websites

    I also liked this particular statement

    The content of any blacklist is assumed to be determined by relevant government authorities (ACMA). Internet traffic patterns are largely predictable.
    If the proxy server fails due to overload, the blocking system fails as follows:
    URL’s which have a domain portion which is on the blacklist but a RHS which isn’t would be inadvertently blocked because the proxy server would be unable to process traffic.
    Example:
    If the URL somesite.com/really-bad-stuff appears in the blacklist, all somesite traffic is directed via the proxy server.
    Video clips from high traffic sites are very popular with typical Internet users, accounting for up to 10% of traffic. If any content from sites distributing these video clips were to appear on the blacklist the blocking solution would fail because 10% of 40Gb/s of traffic is greater than the 1Gb/s capacity of a proxy server.

    http://exchange.telstra.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/TBT-final-report1.pdf

      oh yeah, this is the biggest spin ever... when they say 100% accurate, what they really mean is 110% accurate. it blocks all sites that are meant to be blocked, but it also blocks some sites that aren't meant to be blocked! this is what was ACTUALLY said by the telco he was referring to.

      now, to me... that ISN'T 100% accurate!!

    Wow p2p bypasses the internet! does that mean i can discontinue my plan with my local ISP??!

    So they admit to 5ms (1/70th of blink of an eye) added delay for each request. Does anyone have statistics of how many requests an ISP services per day? Any indicative round numbers?

    The only way to fight the "Child Porn" argument, is using the same kind of argument... So using the same logic as Mr Conroy:

    "Supporting the filter is supporting Terrorism"

    "Mr Conroy's filter makes Terrorism easier"

    A director for a security vendor stated publicly recently: "it will make the already difficult job of monitoring Internet traffic and communication [signals intelligence] for the purpose of Australia’s national security significantly more difficult."

    So drawing on the same kinds of arguments made by Mr Conroy, supporting the filter is supporting terrorism.

    I wonder if the track selection was deliberate.. Radiohead - Idioteque then Daft Punk - all around the world.. a message this this is "idiot tech" globally?

    ..don't ask me to verify Chemical Brothers - Block rocking beats, my tinfoil hat abilites only extend so far.

    The one statement that shows that Conroy has no idea of what he is talking about is where he "suggests that the list be checked over every 6 months". 6 Months in Internet time is a long time. Does he not comprehend the length of time it takes to make a new site, change servers or change address? He really has no idea.

    And my concern is no longer focused on the loss of civil liberties but the waste of money. It's really a big waste.

    every single time this knob opens his mouth about the filter, the criteria and how its implemented changes. what a douche. please, someone, figure out how we can get this douche bag out of office and someone in with a clue!!!

      If you live in Victoria, make sure you don't vote for him on the Senate ticket. Even if you want to vote Labor, then fill out (all) the preferences so that you can put him last.

    So time for alternate internet yet or when will that happen?

    "There is no difference between the distribution platform of TV, there is no difference about newspapers, there is no difference about libraries and DVDs. There's nothing special about the internet as a distribution platform."

    Wow. And this is the guy making the big decisions about the internet industry in this country?

    Let's make sure this government's crazy filter doesn't come to fruition.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now