Mike your logic here is good… I feel that Senator Conroy has hitched his wagon to something he feels will win him public sympathy. I guess he feels as strongly as he does because of the child protection aspect. The problem is that aspect is very short sighted as you so aptly point out.

There are plenty of net nanny / family protection programs available without imposing censorship. Some of them are built into browsers now days.

The good senator might take a page from history, where they burned “subversive” books in Berlin, looted art galleries to “Protect the public interest”.

Cheers Wile.

Cheers
Alex

The public don’t look, and the journos don’t expose this nonsense for what it is. Shame on them all.

Newspaper Editors are reluctant to publish comments that they perceive as containing too much technology, so my letter was brief of necessity.

A more detailed version, complete with specific arguments, can be found on my blog at:
http://computerandonlinesecurity.com/blog/censorship/a-worthy-goal-doesnt-justify-a-stupid-solution/

Keep up the good work.

It’s hard to blame folks for their ignorance. The government has done a top job of framing the debate on their terms, presenting the censorship filter as a “clean feed” forcing opponents to appear “not clean”, dirty.