He was also one of the panelists on SBS’ Insight on the filter earlier this year – http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/59.

Scare Mongering! Remember when it used to be the term used to describe the way the Howard government used to justify the war on Terror. You know, be vigilant, the guy next door could blow you up, is it safe going to the footy or is a terrorist trying …

And then we’re taking this to the next level and attempting Internet censorship; the only way I see that this could be guaranteed is by having someone sitting at the ISP’s HQ looking at every page their users are requesting and visually assessing the content and either allowing or denying … and that is not an economical or feasible option.

And these were well informed adults who knew the workplace policies on internet access. So how can we expect children to follow the “policies” we teach them? We don’t actually, that’s why schools have content filtering in place.

This should be an opt-out system because then those who choose to have full access are then responsible for internet access in their homes. But that’s not to assume that the feed will be totally clean nor foolproof and that I should not still have measures in place in my home. But it will be much cleaner, as I’m sure the UK feed is *cleaner* not clean.

It’s about making it more difficult. When I was a teenager, getting hold of porn was very difficult because there were laws in place to make it difficult for me – like it being in plastic wrappers and not available to minors. The only porn I got to see before I was 18 was the very, very occasional mag nicked from some lax dad’s collection. But if I was a teen now on this unfiltered internet, I’d be having a field day – no matter what my parents taught me.

Re your argument about the opt-out system where you say “This strikes me as a risky approach where those that opt out could be branded as wanting access to inappropriate material”, well, in an opt-in system, those who choose not to opt-in “could be branded as wanting access to inappropriate material.”

And we don’t need an opt-in or opt-out system to find out who’s using the internet inappropriately. ISPs have access logs and they could easily set triggers for inappropriate sites if directed by a higher authority.

Should libraries give people access to any and all printed material? Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler etc? And then it’s up to the parents only – not the library and librarians as well – to ensure children under 18 don’t read or borrow anything inappropriate?

It’s not JUST the parents’ responsibility to help prevent children from accessing inappropriate material on the internet, it’s everyones. It those who run the sites, those who provide the access, those who govern us, our kids’ friends’ parents, our schools etc.

I am yet to hear any valid and rational argument from those who oppose content filtering at ISP level. It’s all just paranoia.

OK, can we then get our trusty government and ACMA to stop the SPAM I get from Nigerian scammers living on the Gold Coast; offers to enlarge my crown jewels and keep them shiny and bigger than other jewels; Phishing attempts for all those offshore bank accounts on dodgy islands in the Pacific; get-rich-quick schemes co-promoted by members of border religious hill cults.

Thanks

But please don’t block lolcats.