Tweet
Yay, finally Australia is spending their money wisely. Let's spend $189 million on protecting the people from the evil porn on the Internet
Link
Link
Australia is preparing to launch a public test of Internet filtering systems designed to block pornographic content at the ISP level even though government-funded studies from 2006 show that ISP-level filtering won't work. Plans for the filtering were first revealed last year as part of a $189 million anti-porn initiative that was announced by lawmakers at an event hosted by the Australian Christian Lobby and broadcast to over 700 Australian churches.
Filtering systems from various vendors will be rolled out for testing in Tasmania during a trial period under the supervision of Enex TestLab, which was awarded a contract for the program by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The filters will be enabled by default and consumers will have to request unfiltered connectivity if they wish to opt out of the program. ACMA's official Internet blacklist, which is based on Australia's National Classification Scheme, will serve as the basis for the filtering systems.
The Australian government spent $116 million on a different antiporn initiative in 2006 that used PC-based filters rather than operating at the ISP-level. The decision not to use ISP-level filtering for the first program was based on three separate government-funded studies which indicated ISP-level filters would be less effective than PC filters and more costly. The 2006 anti-porn initiative was rendered impotent when 16-year-old Tom Wood penetrated the filter system's blocking mechanism. Despite previous failure, the government is now thrusting deep into the public coffers in order to erect a new $89 million ISP-level version that lawmakers hope will include technical safeguards that are impossible to penetrate.
In light of the evidence supplied by the Australian government's own studies, it seems unlikely that an ISP-level filtering system will function as expected. False positives will likely frustrate users and pornographic content will all but certainly slip through the government's net. The ISP-level filters will also probably not provide parents with the same level of administrative flexibility as PC-based filters. Critics of the filtering plan say that the money should be spent on Internet safety education programs because they believe that child predators who operate through social networking sites pose a more significant risk to children than pornography.
The pilot program in Tasmania will undoubtedly expose the flaws in the program, but there is no guarantee that lawmakers will listen. The Australian government's complete disregard for the prior studies on the inefficacy of ISP-level filtering make it seem clear that this filtering plan is politically motivated rather than inspired by legitimate concerns.
Filtering systems from various vendors will be rolled out for testing in Tasmania during a trial period under the supervision of Enex TestLab, which was awarded a contract for the program by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The filters will be enabled by default and consumers will have to request unfiltered connectivity if they wish to opt out of the program. ACMA's official Internet blacklist, which is based on Australia's National Classification Scheme, will serve as the basis for the filtering systems.
The Australian government spent $116 million on a different antiporn initiative in 2006 that used PC-based filters rather than operating at the ISP-level. The decision not to use ISP-level filtering for the first program was based on three separate government-funded studies which indicated ISP-level filters would be less effective than PC filters and more costly. The 2006 anti-porn initiative was rendered impotent when 16-year-old Tom Wood penetrated the filter system's blocking mechanism. Despite previous failure, the government is now thrusting deep into the public coffers in order to erect a new $89 million ISP-level version that lawmakers hope will include technical safeguards that are impossible to penetrate.
In light of the evidence supplied by the Australian government's own studies, it seems unlikely that an ISP-level filtering system will function as expected. False positives will likely frustrate users and pornographic content will all but certainly slip through the government's net. The ISP-level filters will also probably not provide parents with the same level of administrative flexibility as PC-based filters. Critics of the filtering plan say that the money should be spent on Internet safety education programs because they believe that child predators who operate through social networking sites pose a more significant risk to children than pornography.
The pilot program in Tasmania will undoubtedly expose the flaws in the program, but there is no guarantee that lawmakers will listen. The Australian government's complete disregard for the prior studies on the inefficacy of ISP-level filtering make it seem clear that this filtering plan is politically motivated rather than inspired by legitimate concerns.
Comment