"Australia needs to voice an opinion towards the government should things turn for the worst. After all, we are a democracy, and if the system fails, we elect a government that can make it work. If that government cannot do the job, then we should deny the system, but we shouldn't just jump out straight away and say "no," when we haven't even given ourselves a chance to make it work!"

Numerous industry experts, several trials and demonstrations have all come out to show that a web based filter based on the proposed technology will fail on technical grounds.

The federal police body responsible for combating the materials that the filters stated goal is to block have come out and said that such materials are not even traded on web pages and in the few cases that they are can be destroyed by the AFP in less time that it takes to have the page reviewed by the ACMA and blacklisted.

There are numerous concerns about expanding censorship later.

"we shouldn't just jump out straight away and say "no,""

Tell me. WHY should we introduce this policy, KNOWING all along, based on sound evidence, that it will not work, and would not achieve it's goal and damage our internet even if it did somehow work.

"most people may already have anti-virus software installed on their computer; this doesn't stop everything from getting in. Adding the protection of an Internet filter, we can instantly cut out the majority of sites which do and may contain harmful software. See the relevance yet?"

No, i don't. A web filter doesn't affect virus's, most are spread by email and file sharing, not looking at a webpage. Even if it did, virus carrying websites are beyond the scope of the policy. Again, get anti-virus software, keep it up to date. Virus's have nothing to do with a national web filter. and as i already said, most search engines already warn you when you click through to a site believed to contain virus's.

"If we began to filter out specific sites that do not handle cyber bullying, then we begin to send a clear message to online predators; things are changing, so make the change."

So if anyone doesn't handle things the way the government thinks they should, they just block them? Awesome. I think that sums up one of the major points against the censor.

" BUT, you gave mention to the fact that conferences have been called with the minister in charge in regard to public questions; this proves that people know, and soon enough the entire country will know."

On the contrary, it proves that a few people in the media know about it, that is all. They are constantly cancelled, hence their viewers/listeners never get the information.

"Now, the government can "try" and be a cunning and quiet as they can, but as a democracy, they need to accept that Australians will get a say soon enough as to what happens with the Internet and the Internet Filter."

Have you heard the government offering to hold a referendum on whether or not we get the internet censor? We don't get a direct say. It goes: House of representatives -> Senate -> LAW. People play no part in this role. All we can do is write letters to labour senators, which get a token form letter reply, and ignored as labour senators lose their position if they vote against the party policy. Where's the democracy in that. They're supposed to represent their electorate, not their party agenda.

Yes, we voted in the kRudd government. We voted in a KRudd government who at the time had no plans to introduce a mandatory censor. They threw in something about an optional filter at the list minute before the election, that was it. Then changed it to be a mandatory censor as soon as they got in.

"Then I would have to say that Australia has the power to vote a government in or out of parliament, and that sooner or later a change is going to be made if Australia is unhappy."

Yep, just like what we did to Howard over workchoices. You'll also notice that KRudd is taking a real beating in the opinion polls. He may just have the 1st government in a LONG time to fail to secure a second term. Unfortunately, we don't vote on individual policies, we vote for a party in general. No-one voted for kRudd to introduce a censor, people voted for him to get workchoices removed. No-one knows the censor exists, probably won't . So how can they make an informed vote at the next election.

"I would suggest to the government that a blacklist is the wrong way to turn, and that a 'categorization' method would work more effectively. Blacklisting would still be an option, but at least we can trim the fat and then begin to work on the core, if you get my meaning."

The government has taken no public input on the policy. They have also ignored any and all technical input from the industry. They don't care what you suggest. If you had seen the input, reccomendations and reports yourself, you would know that a categorization system for the internet is technically impossible.

You cannot classify 1 trillion + webpages. Even china with tens of thousands of censor staff working around the clock can't keep up with the new webpages being made every day, never mind the trillion that are already there.

Software cannot dynamically classify webpages fast enough to keep up with access without destroying internet connections and pretty much brining down the internet in Australia.

The handpicked blacklist of 1,000 pages is the only approach that will even come close to being technically feasible and even with that it's not properly feasible, as the (poorly conducted and biased) government trial showed.

"Do you seriously believe that?"

Yes

"Do you seriously believe that the government what to push Australian rights away?"

In general? No. In this instance? Possibly, it's hard to say if it's deliberate or due to incompetence. Regardless of whether they want to, are they? Yes.

"If you believe in a country where no rights exist for its citizens"

We don't have a bill of rights, if thats what you mean. You have no right of free speech in Australia. Which is why the government (more specifically, sen Conroy and pm Rudd) can push through policies like this that in any country with a proper constitution would have been stopped (America and France have already rejected internet censors based on their constitutional right to free speech).

"then perhaps you should consider moving to China or Iran. You may be happier there..."

If you want your internet censord to only show you what the government feels is appropriate for you, maybe YOU should consider moving to China or Iran. You may be happier there..."

"1) Online Law Enforcement is no longer a major requirement, and therefore, no longer requires major funding."

An online filter will not replace law enforcement. That's like saying because we have speed cameras we no longer need police cars on the streets. Because we have alarm systems, we no longer need security guards. The filter actually does nothing to prevent online crime, it blocks a few pages selected by the government because they contain controversial information.

"2) Unnecessary websites are no longer needed, and therefore are not wasted upon or created."

I'm confused, do you understand how the internet works? The government has absolutely no control over the creation of websites whatsoever. Bocking a few webpages doesn't stop webpages being made, and why would we want it to? Stopping webpages being made wouldn't save the government any money either. Just to put things into perspective. There are several trillion unique webpages out there, increasing drastically every year. The current blacklist contains 1,000. Compare those 2 figures. And tell me just how much of an impact do you think this censor is going to have.

"3) Taxpayers are paying for their online protection, and the protection of the entire Nation. It will draw harm, but it will create far more good."

The censor provides no online protection from anything. It does not block child pornography, child pornography is destroyed by the federal police long before the ACMA can blacklist the webpage its on. In fact, its not even actually traded on webpages, most traders of child pornography use private networks and the like. It does not successfully block other webpages either. Anyone and everyone can circumvent it at will. And no-one was even forcing them to go to a "harmful" webpage to begin with.

"Well, since you're banned, I really shouldn't be bothering since you cannot reply,"

That's the spirit, way to encourage a good debate, ban dissenting opinions.

"Millions of wasted dollars."

"Incorrect; millions of paid dollars."

Incorrect; millions of wasted dollars.

The filter does not succesfuly block child pornography, since such material is illegal and is removed and destroyed by the federal police long before the acma can process a complain and block a site.

The filter does not successfuly block anything, a 12 year old has the technical know-how to get around it.

The filter makes it more difficult for the AFP to fight child porn, as they have said several times now.

The filter uses up funds that could have been given to the AFP to expand their efforts against child pornography.

The filter is taking funds away from the previous governments pc-based filter program, which gave everyone who wanted on a pc-based filter which was actually effective.

" The difference between Australia and China is that the people do get a say in how things are done in Australia,"

We're saying we don't want out internet censored.

Every poll/study/survey done has shown people overwhelmingly against the censor.

We have had no say in this policy.

We've had no say in what gets censored.

The minister responsible continuously cancels media appointments and interviews that involve questions from the public

"You cannot deny that the Government represents the people, after all, we are a democracy."

Are we? we'll see.

"In Internet Filter is basically a system that it categorizing specific sites in order to act in accordance to how it has been programed to do so. It does not necessarily "censor" all sites that have been categorized within the filter, but makes decisions based upon how it has been programmed. If the government chose to provide clear, bold warnings for certain sites, rather than block them altogether, that would not be an act of "censoring," but rather a recommendation, hence, it recommends before it acts."

Except, thats not what the national filter is for. You need to do more research before you give your presentation thingy. The filter is specifically being put in place to BLOCK all sites on the blacklist, not give warning pages for them. It doesn't categorize, the government puts into a list of all websites it doesn't want seen, this is called the blacklist. All sites on this list are blocked.

"We are putting our money into a system that actually saves a lot of time and effort when it comes to online law enforcement. Child safety is the big example here,"

The federal police divison responsible for such materials have already come out and said that the internet censor will make it more difficult to do their jobs.

"Now, the other major point would be directed at dangerous online software that is instantly downloaded from certain sites online."

What are you talking about, this has nothing to do with the internet filter. This isn't even what most internet filters do. This is an antivirus program, something every single competent internet user already has. Something that is also far more effective on the end-machine rather than the isp. If you think we can install some magic filter that will remove virus's from the internet, you don't understand how the technology works.

Forgetting for a moment, that virus's arn't even looked at by filter software, ignoring for a moment that it's got nothing to do with the censor policy:

"and give strong warnings to those sites that may contain harmful software."

When clicking through to a site that is known to contain virus's from google, it already gives you a warning box to inform you of that.

"Now, the other major point would be directed at dangerous online software that is instantly downloaded from certain sites online. We can never know 100% if a site contains harmful software or not"

If you can never know if a site is going to contain harmful software than how can you produce a blacklist of those sites to block?

" mistakes by the government will not go without a voice of opinion from the Nation."

The blacklist is completely and entirely kept secret. 0 accountability.

""Validates the censorship being utilized by countries such as Iran and China"

Validates? I would think not. Australia is a Democracy, countries such as Iran and China are not."

And we're putting in censorship technologies being used by countries such as Iran and china. Validating their use in those countries.

"Voting is what gives Australians the right to have their say, "

No-one voted for this censorship policy. It was introduced at the last minute of the last hour before the election. Most people don't even know such a policy exists.

"Yes, I know what exactly will be blocked. The government will be blocking illegal sites that you shouldn't be going on, so when it is blocking than it means they are not good for you and you won't go in there, "

And who are you (or the government) to decide what is and is not good for me to look at. And i will be going in there anyway, filter or no filter, since it's so easy to circumvent.

"and since government made this, they will be the one who will decide which one is good for Australians"

Again, what gives the government the right to decide what is good for Australians to view.

"They will decided which sites that everyone likes to go in, which sites that everyone doesn't really like to go in.. and they will blocked all the sites that is unwelcome to the people in Australia."

Every poll and survey conducted has shown that the people in Australia overwhelmingly oppose the introduction of the filter. I guess that means we won't have a filter? Or are they going to ignore public opinion and push their own interests .. hmmmm

"Then people are "children" nothing stops children when parents are not home"

On the contrary. The parents have the option of disabling the internet/computer when they are not home. The parents have the options of installing a PC-based filter on their pc, which will be far more effective, reliable and won't force their views onto the entire population.

"Why do you think Muslim countries ban all abusive media and books?"

For the same reason they ban women from showing any skin and women who are raped are stoned because they invited it. Oppression.

"How do you think a pedophile became a pedophile he was also exploited as a child."

Exactly, he was exploited as a child, it has nothing to do with the internet. Unless you're suggesting the internet caused his computer to grow arms and beat him.

plus: An adult pedophile today, would not have had the internet in his house when he was a child. It's a relatively new thing in homes. If he did, it would have been 33.6k/56k dialup.

" So not to corrupt people"

Some of us are capable of making our own morale choices. We're not lemmings who are corrupted by everything we see. When was the last time you saw a porn video and immediately walked outside and thought "boy, i should rape that women". When was the last time you played a first person shooter video game, walked outside and thought "man, it would be cool if i shot that guy in the head".

"We are being exploited as we speak every day every hour. "

Yes, we are being exploited by our government and by fringe lobby groups who are trying to force their morale views onto the entire country.

"If you run a country you are acting as an adult as a parent the government is responsible in every way."

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the government. They're there to run the country on our behalf, the create policies and laws that reflect the will of the public (which has proven to be overwhelmingly against the censor, just fyi). Not to run our lives. If you must compare the government to something, they're the caretaker of the property, not the parent. Hired to serve us and maintain our country, not control us.

The government is not my parent. My parents are 2 people who i call mom and dad. They decided how they wanted to raise me and they raised me to be a well rounded individual who can decide for himself the difference between right and wrong without being told what to think by the government.

It might be more helpful if you actually offered some kind of argument. Rather than simply saying "we're right, they're wrong" to get a +1 point for your side. It defeats the purpose of a debate.

"I support you. You are right.. The National Internet Filter is here to help us. They are not here to prison us or anything..:)"

I oppose you, You are wrong. The national internet filter is here to infringe on our personal freedoms and push the moral interests of a fringe minority group on the entire population.