Let’s not forget that those who sacrafice freedom for security will NOT get and do NOT DESERVE either. If you want to live in an information vaccume then bugger off to China and let the rest of us make up our own minds on what is ’safe’ for us and our kids thank you very much.

Furthermore, it’s OBVIOUS where this is headed, you only need to visit some of the not so ‘lucky’ countries, this has all happened before and ignorance is NOT an excuse. People get the governments they deserve.

That’s how effective Senator Conroy’s proposed Mandatory ISP Filter could be according to the ACMA[1][2].

Senator Stephen Conroy’s mandatory ISP filter could be as low as 87 percent effective at blocking ‘unwanted material&#8…

The first point I should make is that there is no such thing as the ‘public interest’. There are the interests of individuals only. Be wary whenever you hear the term ‘public interest’ used in defence of a proposed measure or law.

Second, the censorship of online content, however effective or not, is an encroachment on individuals in society to exercise their own judgement, and indeed directly assumes that our elected representatives and their respective departments are able to exercise superior judgement to those whom they represent.

I think the following quote by Ludwig von Mises in Human Action sums this up quite well:

But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.

The mere fact that a nationwide Internet filter is being discussed as a real possibility in coming years is of grave concern, and I believe we are on a slippery slope. The idea of a filter that prohibits content, deemed by the Government, as too sensitive for the public, is clearly totalitarian in nature, and especially for the ‘Lucky Country’.

Child pornography, which were told is the reason for this filter, is indeed already too far ‘underground’ to be affected in any way by the Government’s proposed Internet filter. The filter will filter only unencrypted material, and naïvely assumes that those in possession of, and involved in the distribution of, such material, would not attempt to cover their own tracks. Prohibition of alcohol in the US in the early 20th century gave rise to moonshining and other dangerous practices, and prohibition of illicit drugs has increased their potency and danger many times over. This filter, a form of prohibition, will also have unexpected consequences.

I agree with Mike Fitz. The money for this misguided filter is better off given to the Federal Police, instead of squandered on a totalitarian Internet filter paid for by the public who do not want the filter twice: first by their taxes used to create it; and second by the increased costs of Internet access, passed on by ISPs forced to pay for implementing the filter.

Second point: MikeofMelb, I understand that there may be commercial concerns preventing you from declaring which ISP with which you are involved, but try linking something to substantiate your technical claims at least once.

Third point: I’m with Mike on this one, I’m sick of people spelling the word paedophile incorrectly. It is NOT pedophile. It’s not even the americanised spelling, pedophile is somebody that loves feet!

We’ll start with one of two things deemed important, but we won’t know when dissenting political opinions disappear.

And don’t say “oh this government would not do that”, because governments change ( as we have seen), but legislation to control the populace is rarely repealed.

Why did your company not participate in the mickey mouse trials?

Should have been a slam dunk for you if your product is a good as you say it is.

As I understand it all filtering solution vendors where able to setup their platforms to ensure they were operated in the optimal manner.

I can only conclude that your company did not want to subject itself to a formal evaluation?

Awaiting your response, Cameron.

Thanks for this comment and thanks for confirming your e-mail address.

“our product does 100%” - That’s good. Are you able to tell me your product’s name? At this point, all I have to go on is the ACMA’s June 2008 report into the products it tested, none of which scored 100%.

(And BTW4: Am I correct in assuming that you are in line for a substantial financial gain if your product is selected?)

Good luck — Mike