Friday February 10, 2012 5:25 PM AEST

Atomic MPC > News > Build > Networking > Senator Conroy expands reach of net filters to "unwanted content"

Senator Conroy expands reach of net filters to "unwanted content"

By Kathryn Small
16:11 Nov 13, 2008 | 53 Comments
Tags: conroy | senator | acma | filter

Proposed mandatory net filters will now block up to 10,000 new sites that contain “unwanted material”

This article was originally published in ITnews.

Reversing his policy to restrict the filters to "illegal content", Senator Conroy has recently promised to expand them to cover online gambling sites, and sites discussing euthanasia and anorexia.

Senator Conroy explained to Parliament today that the 10,000 banned websites would expand on the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s current blacklist of 1300 websites.

Live tests on the filters are due to start on December 24, at a time when most ISPs are winding down for the Christmas period.

“The pilot will specifically test filtering against the ACMA blacklist of prohibited content, which is mostly child pornography, as well as filtering of other unwanted content,” Senator Conroy told Parliament.

“While the ACMA blacklist is currently around 1300 URLs, the pilot will test against this list as well as filtering for a range of URLs to around 10,000 so that the impacts on network performance of a larger blacklist can be examined.”

The filters will be tested by public volunteers in participating ISPs. So far the only ISP to commit to testing the filters is iiNet.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Managing Director Michael Malone said he would be part of the “ridiculous” trials to provide the Government with “hard numbers” demonstrating “how stupid it is”.

“Every time a kid manages to get through this filter, we’ll be publicising it and every time it blocks legitimate content, we’ll be publicising it.”

Malone concluded, “This is the worst Communications Minister we’ve had in the 15 years since the [internet] industry has existed.”

Behind the scenes with Mass Effect 3! GTX 560 VGA round-up! Essential Skyrim tweaks to improve your game! Plus reviews, news, hardware, more games, and easy to following modding guides for PC builders. ON SALE NOW!

Ads by Google

53 Comments

.:Cyb3rGlitch:. Nov 13, 2008 4:33 PM	Does this mean this page will be blocked too? http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/ I'd say it has objectional material.
majestic975 Nov 13, 2008 4:46 PM	If anything his picture should be banned. He looks like a paedophille !! Kids should be scared of him not the internet.
Genisis X Nov 13, 2008 4:47 PM	Good on iinet for having the balls to prove to this idiot once and for all that it is a waste of time and money. -X
tailgunner Nov 13, 2008 5:01 PM	If it goes ahead it will mean I have to leave the house to gamble! This stinks.
Taranthor Nov 13, 2008 5:05 PM	It's the way of the current government apparently. Announce that you are going to do something to "better the community" amongst complaints, eventually get everyone accustomed to it and then increase the scope of whatever you were doing before it even comes out.
LordBug Nov 13, 2008 6:05 PM	I'll gladly help out my ISP by telling them everytime I visit a CP site. Wait... Good on Malone though. I hope he does what he's saying, and helps shoot down this filtering farce.
HeavyLancer Nov 13, 2008 6:53 PM	I would encourage anyone capable of hacking/bypassing this ridiculous proposed filtering system to sign up for the trials and bypass it. Thats how we can show them how idiotic this whole idea is.
colganaitor Nov 13, 2008 8:36 PM	God Damnit! We can't be censored. Censorship is for countries living behind the red curtain. That's just stupid .. . i do wish to strangle this minister for doing something mutilating to the interwebs . .. . /begins montage
Mordecai Nov 13, 2008 9:07 PM	"Conroy has recently promised to expand them to cover online gambling sites, and sites discussing euthanasia and anorexia." Yep because as we know, getting help while you are anorexic is illegal and you should be left to try to get better on your own. Grr bad people wanting legitimate help from people online who have suffered from things like that. How dare they want to help others get better!
MedicineBaby Nov 13, 2008 10:01 PM	I understand blocking child exploitation but this is just getting ridiculous now. Will Kevin Rudd's myspace, facebook and twitter pages be blocked as well? Just another overtly conservative religious guided muppet trying to enforce his religious morals onto society. Who's he to dictate how I die (euthanasia) or how and where I gamble. He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.
dbevis Nov 13, 2008 10:44 PM	btw the anorexia thing is about the sites which are setup to help people stop eating, not the ones to help people start eating. It sounds weird but they exist.
HSV Guy Nov 13, 2008 10:55 PM	So is there actually anyone who thinks this is a good idea other than those pushing their own agenda to have something blocked??? Because I'm yet to come across that person.
SceptreCore Nov 13, 2008 11:08 PM	I am in full agreement with MedicineBaby. It's a good cause to stop Child Porn... but this is not the way to do it. If sicko's are cut off from it, they will find other ways of getting it... so they need to be stopped at the source. Currently police monitoring for such online activities are doing a fair job and have rounded up numerous people. And this is how it should be done.. however the time effort and money should be put into furthering the effectiveness of this process. Euthanasia: Knowing ones options, of how they may shuffle off the mortal coil shouldn't be restricted. Some people who who are suffering from terrible illness and endure severe pain often should be aloud if they so wish, end their lives. So finding information about it shouldn't be restricted. Online Gambling: Just let the bloody idiots lose their money and get conned. It's not like it will help improve the economy. However MB, I don't believe it has anything to do with religious conviction, more misguided ideals to make revolutionary (and dare I say abusive) changes that may or may not make him more popular with the ignorant and misguided public of Australia (So I reckon he just a political suck arse who wants to make a name for himself. But hey if anyone here feels that they need to do something they can email or write to the Prime Minister if they like: http://www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm
ahsoka Nov 14, 2008 6:40 PM	I am fully against this filter. It's like China. Recently someone on this very forum pointed out that the government would end up blocking stuff that disagrees with them. And now the government has admitted to it. This is pure evil. :-( If the government wants to stop pedophiles, it should be spending this money on catching them, not filtering the internet. Come to think of it, I saw this bill being discussed in the senate the other day on Question Time, at about 1:00 AM. I am very very angry about this filter. Public protest time!
emccat Nov 15, 2008 9:13 AM	FUCK I HATE LABOR I DON'T WANT AUSTRALIA TO BE LIKE CHINA
scootre Nov 15, 2008 1:34 PM	Quoted from the article above: "According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Managing Director Michael Malone said he would be part of the “ridiculous” trials to provide the Government with “hard numbers” demonstrating “how stupid it is”." Managing Director of what? Yet another article posted here that is short on facts / incomplete. Do journos actually bother proof reading what they are writing - or in this case, copying and pasting? Apparently he's MD of iiNet. Google to the rescue again.
^Faldo^ Nov 15, 2008 8:59 PM	@scootre: Quoted from the article above: "The filters will be tested by public volunteers in participating ISPs. So far the only ISP to commit to testing the filters is iiNet. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Managing Director Michael Malone said he would be part of the “ridiculous” trials to provide the Government with “hard numbers” demonstrating “how stupid it is”." RTFA.
NiNJAHAX Nov 16, 2008 7:05 AM	As if the Australian internet scheme wasn't bad enough. First off we are the only 1st world country to know what these terms even mean; download limit, shaping, a connection less than T1, more than $30-50 per month. So first we are getting dominated and ripped off before we even get on the net, and now once we are on, we have some stupid national proxy???? This dog wont hunt, next they will be blocking all violent media including video games.....and as if there are 10,000 CP sites, that's a load of crap as far as I'm concerned.
antifunker Nov 16, 2008 9:56 AM	Next it will be goodbye TPB :(
CptnChrysler Nov 17, 2008 1:28 PM	Is this going to be a hand edited blacklist If so it'll fail to block most of the 'Objectionable" material out there. If not it'll need to be some kind of rules / heuristic filter. Then will we will inevitably have legitimate sites discussing euthanasia, animal euthanasia, problem gambling, anorexia, fundamental Religion etc being blocked in error by the filter. I'm not even going to go into the ethics of one "responsible adult" censoring another "responsible adult's" access to information. This is wrong on so many aspects.
davidald Nov 18, 2008 10:14 AM	If they do publicise kids getting past the filters then the Govt will simply waste more taxpayers dollars wielding a bigger stick. This clown should be the Chinese comms minister.
beatshoes Nov 18, 2008 10:57 AM	"So far the only ISP to commit to testing the filters is iiNet." boooo! ..."Michael Malone said he would be part of the “ridiculous” trials to provide the Government with “hard numbers” demonstrating “how stupid it is”." oh! not booo! woooo!
disenter Nov 18, 2008 11:52 AM	Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think the issue is greater than a few "objectionable" sites. Sure, kiddy porn is bad, 99.9% of the country will agree with that, and how we 'choose' to die, or where we gamble should certainly be a part of our own free will, its just the tip of the iceberg really. If this kind of thing gets passed, is it not the first step towards a dictatorship, or utalitarian type government? Owning the media, only allowing citizens to 'see' what the government chooses us to see? How long will it be before we are a slave to propaganda fed to us by our wonderful government? to whom does it fall to decide what is, and what isn't 'objectionable', and who would know if it was done to something that isn't objectionable, but the government or a particular senator feels our citizens should not see. I object to some things I have come across on the internet in my time, but its quite simple... close the browser window, open a new one and don't go back there again.
darklife41 Nov 18, 2008 1:24 PM	I'm not totally against censorship. But I'm against a politician telling me what can and can't be censored. That's what we have laws for. Child porn is one thing, but already they're expanding it to what they deem inappropriate. What's really inappropriate is that this guy got into office in the first place.
Nath84 Nov 18, 2008 3:20 PM	um, I'm thinking V for Vendetta, Anybody with me?
joeydude Nov 18, 2008 3:39 PM	WRONG WRONG WRONG email your objection to senator.conroy@aph.gov.au I have
p_francis_bennett Nov 18, 2008 9:11 PM	Good on stephn conroy,we don't want pornoroi graphia pornogrphy = devils pictures on the internet thank you very much, i'm glad the internet is being censored at the ISP level.
p_francis_bennett Nov 18, 2008 9:21 PM	euthenasia takes away God's control over life and death, so to say euthenasia is good is wrong.
darklife41 Nov 18, 2008 10:31 PM	"Good on stephn conroy,we don't want pornoroi graphia pornogrphy = devils pictures on the internet thank you very much, i'm glad the internet is being censored at the ISP level." "euthenasia takes away God's control over life and death, so to say euthenasia is good is wrong." p_francis_bennett, You're missing the entire point. So I have a kid who is considering euthenasia or is suffering from anorexia... and now I can't google the topics to find help or advice? That's crazy! I can't think of a good reason to search for kiddie porn. But I can sure think of good reasons to search for topics about euthenasia and anorexia. Personally, I'm not a gambler, but I respect other people's rights to gamble. The point is that the communications minister is obviously no more in a position to think these topics through than you are, and he's certainly not in a position to dictate to me what I can and can't search for in a free country when there aren't laws preventing it. You're allowed to feel however you want about these topics. But you're not allowed to make rules out of the blue without laws to support them, and frankly, those laws would never be passed.
p_francis_bennett Nov 19, 2008 1:53 PM	"The point is that the communications minister is obviously no more in a position to think these topics through than you are, and he's certainly not in a position to dictate to me what I can and can't search for in a free country when there aren't laws preventing it. You're allowed to feel however you want about these topics. But you're not allowed to make rules out of the blue without laws to support them, and frankly, those laws would never be passed." as long as you use the internet to find that information to stop people considering euthenasia and abortion etc. then no, what the communication minister is dpoing is very wrong.
hambeet Nov 20, 2008 6:50 AM	I hope that everyone that is posting a comment here expressing their outrage is both sending an email to senator.conroy@aph.gov.au and your local member of parliament and printing those emails and sending via snail mail to both offices as well. Email's are a lot easier to delete and deal with, a bag of angry mail is a physical and tangible thing that is a lot harder to ignore. It' will take 10 minutes of your time, and $1.00 in stamps, but it is definately worth it.
hambeet Nov 20, 2008 7:16 AM	p_francis_bennett, exactly. How will this content filtering decide between sites promoting euthanasia to sites against it? There is always the opposite side of the coin that people never consider. No one will argue against the filtering for Child Pornography or other illegal content, but blocking and filtering material that the Australian Government (read Senator Conroy) finds personally objectable? I really do appreciate the right to free choice, but Senator Conroy is excercising his free right of belief to impose on others rights is rather hypocritical and wrong on so many levels. Information on Euthenasia and online gambling; these two examples are of material that is personally objectable to Senator Conroy and not illegal in any way, shape or form. If I wanted this sort of crap from the elected, I would have voted family first.
p_francis_bennett Nov 20, 2008 5:56 PM	or the DLP?
hambeet Nov 20, 2008 8:28 PM	I didn't vote for them either. :)
p_francis_bennett Nov 20, 2008 10:05 PM	Something just came to mind, use the microsoft family safety filter. you can actaully go to the basic filter settings on the microsoft website which the software uses and put in the sites you want blocked and the sites you want banned. Microsoft has alrewady got quite a large list of banned porn/adult sites but if they miss any, ones you might come accross, add them to the basic settings list. That will cover you really well. I've tested it myself and find it works excellently.
fliptopia Nov 20, 2008 11:36 PM	So we are allowed to look at the "corect" view on all these things, not the "incorrect view". When he going to hurry up and ban the blacks and gays too. Because they are getting all over the internet these days. Maybe we should get rid of those filthy working class too. They should be working the back end of the internet, not putting their own stuff on it. Lets get the internet to only Christian pro-life sites. It's the only way we can develop as a society. You can see how it's worked really well in the past.
colganaitor Nov 21, 2008 4:33 PM	aaaaaarrrrggghhhhhh . . . It's time to unleash the Internet Hate Machine, boys. Who's with me?
p_francis_bennett Nov 22, 2008 12:48 PM	Catholic/Christian pro life sites sound good :D
Squidy Nov 23, 2008 10:06 AM	"The filters will be tested by public volunteers in participating ISPs. So far the only ISP to commit to testing the filters is iiNet." And here I was about to switch to Iinet. Fuck that, I'm not switching if they support this horseshit.
imek Nov 23, 2008 3:50 PM	Squidy: was that sarcasm? or did you really not read the whole article... Will be good to see iinet's finding about how often it gets bypassed.
casperog Nov 24, 2008 11:26 AM	He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges. He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges. He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges. He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges. v He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges. He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.v He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.He just wants the filtering to go up in an attempt to block his own urges.
mark84 Nov 24, 2008 12:22 PM	I can understand a black list which prevents access to illegal material like child porn, terrorism sites etc, but using filtering on top of that I'm not keen on. They're never effective cause you always get false positives and negatives. Not only that it'll slow down Australia's already slow bandwidth speeds.
Chuck Norris(good actor Nov 25, 2008 7:37 AM	Sieg Heil! This is beyond belief. Maybe I should find out when are we gonna replace the Jack with the Swastika... I don't wanna waste money on an out of date flag for the Olympics!
chrisw75 Nov 25, 2008 1:29 PM	Did I miss something? Did we suddenly become part of China? How can this government criticise another countries censorship, while at the same time doing the same damned thing? I honestly cannot put in to words how incredibly angry I am at this. They'd be better off spending the money on a task force specifically aimed at tracking down paedophiles using the internet rather than trying to fence us all in "for our own protection". And as for blocking access to sites on euthanasia - since when has getting information on controversial topics been illegal?
TeragonOmega Nov 27, 2008 7:39 AM	If this ever goes ahead to a full public release its going to be a bloody excercise in failure for possibly the most incompetent government in the history of mankind. I of course shall mention the ICCPR which is rattified by the australian government http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1980/23.html someone's about to shoot themselves in the foot... in a big way
keitaro Nov 27, 2008 6:01 PM	so just to clarify they want to stop sicko's from looking at pictures of children. which is going to force that sicko to then find another way to get his satisfaction from elsewhere. anyone else thiking child abductions and rape is going to double if not triple over a few years of this blocking being up? the government have no idea on how to tackle real issues this is exactly like DRM and EA the people doing the right thing get fucked up for it and 1 day after the game comes out it's already hacked and on the web for download while any legitimate person is making 20 calls in to ea to get another install added
Azawrath Dec 12, 2008 3:47 PM	well here is a thought, anyone heard of SSH tunneling, legitamate companies use it for securing networks across branches, thus. should u make a SSH tunnel to a "free" contry say, france or something, you could then in theroy veiw any site u wanted. sure the speed would be slow and the pings high, but it would prove that this filtering system is a bunch of crap and a waste of good money. and also, how would we be able to tell what sites are getting filtered? say what if something like tianamin square happened and our goverentment filtered it out then we would be exactly like China. and sure about 99% of people in australia dont knoe what a SSH tunnel is, but what is theis filter going to do about it? block all web sites involving tunneling, i know at least 5 of my mates who use it for WOW. btw i completly agree to filtering out kiddie pron etc, but blocking "objectional" things is against the australian way of life.
Azawrath Dec 12, 2008 3:51 PM	ps that was a work mate of mine ^_^.
deuce_23 Dec 22, 2008 11:02 PM	This whole child porn thing is getting out of hand. I am tottaly against cp. My x girl friend went to the police claiming i had child porn. The police then conducted a search warrant on my place and took all my stuff. I was amazed they actually claimed there was 2 files that were cp. I requested that they send it to the australian classification board for independent assessment and the cop said if i deem it to be cp it is. I wasnt charged but im taking the cop to court. Only a few years ago the law changed the legal age for porn was 16 and they bumped it to 18. Fair enough but i can legally have sex with a 16yr old girl but as soon as i take a pic of her its illegal. A 16 yr old can have my baby but if i was to film the birth it would be illegal. A bit off topic but they should stamp out teen sex across the board.
codecreeper Dec 24, 2008 12:11 PM	Nothing more than pure communism invading Australia. My grandfather and most of our Forefather's fought against this in WW2 and WW1. We live in a Democratic society and it OUR choice what we do and where we go in Australia.
0s1r1s Dec 29, 2008 7:08 PM	the guy's a cretin and will be laughed out of his job. Let him burn his own bridge.
xtort Jan 20, 2009 8:14 AM	if you dont like what you see dont watch!!! if you dont like what you hear dont listen!! people need to take resposability for their own lives and stop the rest of us from enjoying ours. im all for filtering the cp sites and the like but i agree the money would be better spent on actualy tracking down the offenders then putting up a challenge to free speach.what the government dose not get is if there is a will there is a way and there are plenty of people with both
Awatif Jun 4, 2010 3:38 PM	I am really surprised why the public is angry internet filtering it is simpler than they have to know what the government wants to filtering the net the first reason, which I think it's Sa solve the general public but to protect children from pornographic sites on the Internet and to protect people from fraud and Quackery in gambling and so they create a list of where all the black to be deleted At this point I'll say yes but that beyond the limits of black listed this is not fair, or such as deleting some of the sites during the many through the filtering and I do not know if there is another destination, behind the filtering net, but more importantly is to delete porn sites for children and other sites that cause harm to ordinary people

Comments have been disabled on this article.

Latest Competitions

Thermaltake kicks off your gaming year with a BANG
Thermaltake has started off the new year with a bang by giving away a Tt eSport Theron Laser mouse to not one or two, but TWENTY lucky Atomicans!

Atomic Magazine

Issue: 133 | February, 2012

Atomic is a magazine aimed squarely at computer enthusiasts, gamers, and serious PC upgraders.

Every month we bring you the latest reviews of new technology and PC components, in depth features on everything from overclocking to console hacking, and gaming previews and interviews.

What's in this issue?