I recently emailed Christopher Pyne, my local federal member, on his views on senator Conroy’s proposed internet filter. Here is his response:
Dear Peter,
Thank you for contacting me and providing me with your views regarding the Rudd Government’s proposed mandatory internet filtering system. I note your opposition to the proposed plan.
The Federal Coalition supports sensible and workable measures to protect children from inappropriate online content. Obviously, it would make sense to prevent access, if this could be done, to material that would be a crime to possess. When looking at ways to protect children online, the main issues are – what is effective and achievable, and what approach will deliver the best results.
The previous Coalition Government provided all Australian families with access to a free, optional PC-based content filter, which could be specifically tailored to assist parents in protecting their children from being exposed to inappropriate content.
The Rudd Government cancelled this program at the end of 2008 without putting in place any alternative.
Experts say that most predatory risks to children lurk in those areas of the online world that are largely immune to filtering, such as chat rooms, email and peer-to-peer networks.That is why, in relation to unlawful online activity, it is essential that our nation’s law enforcement bodies are adequately resourced to tackle it in the most sophisticated way possible.
The fact it has taken the Minister two years to produce his plan and release results of filtering trials highlights the complexity and problematic nature of his proposal. The Coalition is yet to be convinced that mandatory filtering will be effective.
The Coalition would like an independent audit of the trial results and we hope this can happen as soon as possible.
The Coalition will continue to consult extensively with the telecommunications industry and other stakeholders to enable a fully informed response, if and when the Government puts forward any formal proposal or legislation.
Yours sincerely
Christopher
So it doesn’t look like the coalition will support an internet filter and they seem to be supportive of giving people tools to filter unwanted content if they wish although they have made no real comittment. I hope they don’t resurrect the free software trial though, by all reports that software was pretty easily circumvented.
GeoURL
Subscribe
#1 by andymurd on April 9th, 2010
| Quote
I find this view scary:
“Obviously, it would make sense to prevent access, if this could be done, to material that would be a crime to possess”
As I understand it, possession and viewing of RC content is not a crime, although sale and distribution is.
I have little confidence that any MPs are sufficiently clear on the differences between:
1) Content that is inappropriate for viewing by children
2) Content that is classified as appropriate only for viewing by adults
3) Content that should be submitted for classification before distribution
4) Content that has been refused classification
5) Content that is illegal
Both sides of the debate are guilty of confusing these categories.