According to ABC News

“The child protection group is one of several organisations including Civil Liberties Australia, and the National Children's and Youth Law Centre who have today released a joint statement opposing the proposed mandatory internet service provider (ISP) filter.

The statement says the filter will neither work to shield children from explicit material nor stop child pornography from being distributed on the internet.”

Child rights advocate and activists say that the filter diverts funds from programs that actually help fight online predators.
Simon Sheikh of GetUP-an organization that seeks to build a progressive Australia-said to Australian IT

“Around $33 million each year will be wasted on a futile and fundamentally flawed scheme.” Mr Sheikh estimates the sum could fund 300 extra police officers to fight online child pornography.”

Over at YouTube, Australians are voicing their opinion-most oppose the internet filter. Here AngryAussie-aptly named-expresses his concerns that filtering the internet is not that simple and the government is wasting time and energy attempting to police people online.

Bloggers are also chiming in. Robert H Mercer doubts if Communications Minister Stephen Conroy-who proposed the filtering, will heed the facts that point towards his scheme’s very slim chance of succeeding.

“A group of mainly smaller internet providers are now finishing their trials of the Government’s internet filtering scheme and Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has said he expects to release results in six to eight weeks.
Senator Conroy has said the results will determine whether the Government proceeds with the controversial election policy. Oh yes, I am sure this ponce will give heed to the results……….that’s all pie in the sky………..these morons have already made up their minds!”

Alas, a growing number of nations in the West are examining the possibility of censoring sites that allegedly harm society. France and Germany are leading the way and the United States is not far behind.

We can now add Australia to the list.

The OpenNet Initiative reported this week:

Australians will be unable to opt-out of the government's pending Internet content filtering scheme, and will instead be placed on a watered-down blacklist, experts say.

Under the government's $125.8 million Plan for Cyber-Safety, users can switch between two blacklists which block content inappropriate for children, and a separate list which blocks illegal material.

Pundits say consumers have been lulled into believing the opt-out proviso would remove content filtering altogether.

The government will iron-out policy and implementation of the Internet content filtering software following an upcoming trial of the technology, according to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

A spokesman for Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the filters will be mandatory for all Australians.

Ever since Australia elected a new Prime Minister in late 2007, leader Kevin Rudd has openly discussed introducing such proposals (something I explained in more detail during my speech to the Global Voices Citizen Media Summit in Budapest this year.)

The primary problem with the proposal is its inefficiency and lack of flexibility (something already argued by watchers.) To make matters worse, the government has trailed this web filtering in certain states and failure was the result.

So why move forward? Leading Australian blogger on this issue, Somebody Think of the Children, says it best:

Criminals accessing child abuse websites will still be able to do so and the horrendous production and distribution of child abuse material online and off will continue. Why does the government think censors are the ones who can fix this and not law enforcement? Mandatory ISP filtering is about protecting votes, not children.

Disturbingly, the proposals have received virtually no media attention in Australia though ISPs are reportedly unsure whether to participate in the program, “depending on the nature of the trials”, according to one major player.

Vigilance on internet censorship is required across the globe, even in “democratic” nations.