CathNews - a Service of Church Resources

Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. There is a safe social and educational network for kids ages 5-18 that requires a child's school to verify his or her identification before they can become a member. This is how they keep out predators, imposter profiles and cyber bullying. I know my son is safe on this site. He can still play games, IM, chat, create his own webpage, and receive homework help if he needs it. The site for parents is www.safewave.org and the site for children is www.iland5.com. Both sites are free to use. They also have a free downloadable browser that further protects children by removing all navigation bars.

   Posted By: June Chaney

2. Bishop Peter Ingham is being very misleading about this policy. This is a policy that we should all emphatically oppose. The bishop says: "Comparable western countries, such as the UK, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland already have ISP filtering in operation,". This is not true. In ALL of those countries ISP filtering is voluntary, and has an extremely low take-up rate. Ours however, would be mandatory for all ISPs, and therefore all users. This would put us in a very different group of countries, that includes China, North Korea, Iran.
   
   The bishop also says: "Arguments that civil liberties will be infringed by internet filtering are absolutely spurious, as the government's proposal simply aims to ensure that the material accessible on the internet is in line with the restrictions already in place in regard to DVDs or publications". This is not true. The censorship of films and literature is an open, independent process. We can find out what the government thinks we should be shielded from. The internet filter will block "illegal and unwanted" content, but nobody will define what "unwanted" is. It will be a process that we will not have any say in, so it will be controlled by the government of the day and by lobby groups. Already they're talking about blocking access to sites related to gambling, suicide, and anorexia (?!). The government intends that we won't know what's being blocked or why, and won't have a chance to appeal it. There's a lot of distasteful stuff on the internet, but it isn't illegal, and isn't the government's business. And honestly, you really have to go looking for it. Contrary to what our policy-makers think, the internet doesn't just spew pornography as soon as you log on. Children need protecting, yes, but there are filters you can install on your computer that won't affect the entire country. Better yet, parents can educate themselves and their children.
   
   And it just won't work. A child cracked their last filter attempt in half an hour. It won't filter any access except webpages (like ftp, torrents, vpns etc), which no self-respecting criminal would ever use if they didn't want to get caught. On the news this week there was a huge bust in Australia of people trafficking in child pornography. This filter would not have blocked their activities in any way, and would probably just have driven them further underground and less likely to get caught.
   
   Also, what are the ethics of sending a list of illegal sites to every ISP in Australia? (which they will have to do to implement the filtering). It will be leaked in about 20 minutes and published everywhere. Anyone who's interested in internet censorship, and this issue in particular, will want to know what the Australians can't see. And instead of being these tiny sites that nobody goes to, everyone is going to go have a look. This happened last week when some ISP in the UK blocked wikipedia because someone complained about a picture on there. Within hours the story was published all over the world, and now everyone's seen that picture. In spite of what the minister and bishop are saying, the internet doesn't force this stuff on anyone, you really have to go looking for it. But not any more! The government is going to provide everyone with a handy list!
   
   So far from actually protecting children, it may even put them at greater risk by forcing predators further underground and publicising all the material the government intends to filter. Education and parental responsibility is the answer, not this appalling scheme.
   
   And lastly it would slow the internet by up to 87% (and it's already the slowest in the developed world), not block everything they intend, and block sites they don't intend. It just won't work. This has been proven by independent tests.
   
   This is a very dangerous policy. Parents and children need to be educated on I call on the community to emphatically oppose the federal government on this important issue and refuse to support its attempts to degrade and censor our greatest vehicle for free speech, while doing nothing to protect children.

   Posted By: Justin

3. Clive Hamilton, who headed up the Commonwealth Government's investigation into internet safety and the desirability for a netwide filter, found a large majority of the Mr and Mrs Mums and Dads in favour of the filter.
   
   Where is the research that proves a majority of porn pushers aren't in favour of a filter?
   
   Not only do children deserve such protection, women and men deserve the same protection.
   
   And if such protection means that the internet is a little slower, what's the problem, we have not experienced it being faster anyway.

   Posted By: Fr Mick Mac Andrew Bombala-Delegate NSW

4. How truly amazing, and out of touch you are. This will empower the people that do the crime of child porn. They will go deep undercover and hide like never before and the police will struggle to catch the criminals. It is far better to catch the criminals than to filter the net and make them hide. Spend the money on the police.
   
   Also this filter is intended to stop as Conroy has said, "illegal" "prohibited" and "unwanted" material.
   
   Prohibited means any site not suitable for children under 15 banned, so sites about cancers, medical sites, the holocaust etc will be banned as being too graphic for children.
   
   I am a parent and deserve the right to choose what my kids can view. Our pc is in the lounge.. the government of the day has no right to decide what I (being over 30) can read and write about and what my kids can view...
   
   Also what is "unwanted material"? I guess anything anyone doesn't want to see on the net. I can see other groups who are against christianity getting sites like this banned as it influences his children to believe in something other than evolution. It's a narrow minded view to accept a system that doesn't work
   
   Your right to state your opinion is being challenged. and don't think it isn't. This is the start, our comments on the whole issue are "unwanted" our opinions and outcry against the government are "unwanted" criticizing ministers/parties polices is "unwanted"... opinions about evolution and faith are "unwanted"
   
   See a slippery slope that leads down hill.

   Posted By: Derek

5. I would strongly encourage those in support of the government filter proposal to dig just a little below the surface.
   
   It will do little to nothing to protect people from online content. It may actually do more harm than good. There is no substitution for vigilant parental supervision and education of children. It's a certainty that an unsupervised child on the internet, after the government introduces filtering, will be in far greater danger than supervised children are today.
   
   What the government is proposing to filter only makes up about 1/3 of all internet traffic. What they are going to filter is the lowest hanging fruit that is easiest to filter. Even then of that 1/3 they are targeting, the government's own testing has shown time and time again that the filtering tech lets things through that weren't meant to and blocks material that should have been available.
   
   Having the filter at the ISP also does nothing to stop kids or anyone else from getting around the filter. There are several methods for bypassing filters that can't be stopped by this or any other government. This isn't an uninformed guess. It's absolute fact. If it proceeds there will be stories on Today Tonight within days of kids rendering the ISP based filters useless in minutes.
   
   A home based filter with supervision will be far more effective with the benefit of allowing your children to get to material that was erroneously blocked on a case by case basis.
   
   Stephen Conroy has mentioned other nations as examples of how filtering works. This is a part truth. In all examples he gave in the above press release the filtering is voluntary, not government mandated.
   
   It's true that some large scale filtering does not have much of a speed impact. That includes the likes of the UK "Cleanfeed" system. The Australian Communications and Media Authority report that in part looked at the UK system and stated that there was a minimal speed impact because it blacklisted no more than 1000 sites.
   
   Really a small blacklist (the Australian one is about 1300 sites) is not going to meet most people's expectations of what a cleaned up Internet feed would look like.
   
   To cover all of the Internet protocols and to approach what many would consider to be clean it would need a budget that our Government cannot afford and would use technologies that don't yet exist.
   
   While it is nice to think that an Australian Government is pure at heart and can be trusted with a secret blacklist (which is what they are going to use in part) in practice things may go differently.
   
   You really only need to scratch a little below the surface of the government press releases to see that it will be something that is seen to be helping kids and families while actually not doing much at all. The entire filtering budget going to law enforcement to track down the people who exchange the worst material will do more to protect kids at risk than an ineffectual filter will.
   
   For concerned parents who really want a filter at the ISP, there are ISPs that offer that today and you can switch to them. Just make sure that you supervise as much as you ever did.

   Posted By: Neil McAliece

6. Countries such as the UK, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland do not have mandatory filtering systems in place, and as this article admits, they are completely voluntary. By all means, keep filtering voluntary, but making it mandatory is opening the system up to abuse.
   
   Claiming that the government's proposed filtering system is similar to those in the aforementioned countries is a complete, and blatant lie, and I would expect so much more from the Catholic Bishop's Conference. To lie about this sort of thing is a SIN. This is essentially supporting oppression, which is evil in any form.
   
   The only countries where this kind of filtering occurs are places like China, Iran, Sudan, Burma - does Australia really want to be in such company? No thank you.
   
   By all means, offer methods such as homebased filtering for families, but do not censor the net. This kind of oppression is evil.

   Posted By: L. O'Sullivan.

7. Bishop Peter Ingham's comments need to be viewed in the broader context of what adults in Australia are really thinking about sexually explicit material and how they view the moral authority of the church these days. Since 1988 I have been able to find about 20 major public opinion polls conducted by the nation's top pollsters (Morgan, Newspoll etc) which have asked specific questions about whether sexually explicit and non violent films should be allowed in Australia to adults. The average response over all those polls is 75% support for the proposition. The proposed filter will blacklist all sites that feature X rated material that is currently legal in films and publications. The ACBC has to understand that the majority of Australian adults do not subscribe to the notion that sexually explicit depictions necessarily demean or degrade people. Also, that many Catholics simply do not agree with the ACBC's or Rome's interpretations of scripture around sex anymore. What is compounding the problem for the ACBC is that the community sees the extent of child sexual abuse in the church as a direct measure of its inability to interpret scripture properly around sexuality. What other reason could there possibly be for the over 500 cases of clergy sexual abuse of children, that have been brought before the courts over the last 30 years?

   Posted By: fiona

8. I agree with the Government's stance on protecting children from harmful information available on the Internet, however mandatory filtering is not the way to go.
   
   The filter will only block one type of Internet protocol, HTTP. It is common knowledge in the IT industry that 99% of illegal media is obtained via file sharing networks such as P2P (peer to
   peer), Bittorrent and FTP. Guaranteed within 5 minutes of searching Google, Internet users will be armed with instructions on how to get around the filter.
   
   Just ask kids at school about their filtered internet access. Many useful sites cannot be accessed, and the smart kids learned how to use proxies to bypass the filter anyway.
   
   Another consideration is the poor take up of the free government provided Internet filter software, Netalert.
   
   There are ISP's that offer filtering services - why aren't the concerned parents using those ISPs?
   
   Maybe the concerned parents should monitor their childrens usage of the internet, instead of feigning concern without having taken responsibility for themselves?

   Posted By: cupcake

9. Please, stop spreading blatant misinformation about the plan.
   
   Mandatory filtering is very different from optional filtering. Comparing this plan to UK, Canada, etc, is not legitimate.
   
   By all means, let's provide tools to parents that help them raise their children how they see fit. But please stop advocating a mandatory plan that has the potential to be abused by future governments that want to silence free discussion.
   
   By all means, let's go after evil people who abuse children. But please realise that this filter will have no impact on these child abusers at all. They are technically proficient and already use techniques that will bypass the filter. A filter won't stop them. Spend the money on law enforcement instead, and lock these people up.

   Posted By: Peter

10. I don’t claim to know the technicalities of how expensive, effective, or perhaps even counter-effective the proposed filter will be, but some here are far too quick to instantly dismiss out of hand the bishops’ considered statement. (As indeed immediate and automatic dissent from anything said by the pope or bishops, followed by attempts to rationalise the dissent, seems to be the default position among many.)
    
    (Derek) “the government of the day has no right to decide what I (being over 30) can read and write about and what my kids can view...”
    (L.O’Sullivan) “do not censor the net. This kind of oppression is evil.”
    So presumably you also believe the government has no right to place any kind of restriction on books, magazines, films, TV, radio, DVDs, CDs, etc, as it would be “evil oppression” to stop a parent from, say, taking his 10 year old to see an R or X rated film. If not, why is the Net so fundamentally different from all other means of communication?
    
    (Fiona) “the community sees the extent of child sexual abuse in the church as a direct measure of its inability to interpret scripture properly around sexuality.”
    What? When has any pope or bishop claimed that Scripture says child sexual abuse is OK? It seems you are a “community” of only one woman who has this nutty idea.
    
    “ What other reason could there possibly be for the over 500 cases of clergy sexual abuse of children, that have been brought before the courts over the last 30 years?”
    Exactly the same reason as the hundreds of thousands of cases of laity sexual abuse of children in the same period. Because the abusers blatantly and totally ignored, dismissed, disobeyed, disregarded and contradicted “the ACBC’s or Rome’s” teachings around sexuality.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

11. I have no problem with ISPs offering internet filtering - however when it becomes compulsory it definitely treads on the ground of censorship. This is a big no-no, particularly when what defines "objectionable content" is so amazingly vague.
    
    Not only that, but I really don't want to have MY internet slowed down because some people can't be bothered effectively monitoring their children on the web.

    Posted By: Alex Knight

12. As a parent of 2 boys in Catholic schools , i wish to advise the Catholic community that this intended filter is ill advised, using incorrect and unsubstantiated data.
    Please understand this is a gross waste of tax dollars that could be better used by funding The AFP with extra money, to effectively fight child porn.
    I am sorry but religious communities do not have the right to impose on a society their own standards just as society has no right to impose on religious communities their own standard.
    
    The arguments used by Mr Conroy and Bernadette from Childwise are flawed and often offensive. We should not be bullied into repression. Please learn more about this filter from peopple with knowedge rather than those ignorant of the realities of the internet,and voice your concerns to your Local member or Senator Conroy in writing.

    Posted By: jason

13. In this day and age where government is proposing to build fast National Broadband Network with speeds up to 12mbit, on the other side they are trying to introduce mandatory filtering which will slow internet down and it will cost each and every ISP to implement. Where do you think the cost if such filters will be passed on? To the end user of course, and it will cost ISP to keep maintain it?
    
    Why is government trying to tell me what is appropriate and what is not, and what is wanted and what is unwanted material that I am allowed to look at? I am a grown man and I can make that decision. What is inappropriate for one doesn’t have to be for another.
    
    The results from the recent filter trials in Tasmania, publicly available through ACMA, showed that the tested filters ALL let some degree of harmful material through. Although, at face value the percentages of unblocked harmful material appear quite low (<10%), when you consider that the number of currently available websites total in the millions, if not hundreds of millions, this amounts to several thousand websites that should have been blocked, but weren’t.
    
    · The trials in Tasmania also proved that the filters ALL gave some degree of false positives. This means that the filters blocked out sites that in fact weren't harmful or offensive at all. The result of this is that somebody may attempt to access a perfectly innocent site and find that it is blocked because it includes a word or phrase that may be offensive or illegal in another context but is totally innocent in this context. The filter isn't human so it cannot tell the difference.
    
    · Despite the common misconception, the chances of a child accidentally stumbling upon a truly harmful site are relatively low. The real danger is in children being bullied by peers and approached by predators in chat programs, such as MSN Messenger or Facebook. The filter will not stop this, as it cannot accurately filter chat protocols. Combine this with the false sense of security the filter will no doubt instil in some parents (causing them to supervise their kids even less than they already do) and you see that the children will not really be protected at all.
    
    · Traditionally, filters are notoriously easy to get around. The Net Alert filter that the previous Government made available, free, to parents, was cracked by a child within a day, and I propose that it will not be long before the Government’s proposed filter is likewise compromised. Furthermore, users can quite easily bypass the filter by accessing blocked material via encrypted means. Therefore, if someone wants to continue to publish or view offensive material it is not difficult to find a way. Make no mistake; the proposed filter will not stop child pornographers, all it will do is drive them deeper underground, making it harder for authorities to access the proof needed to find and apprehend them.
    
    · Most filters are unable to intercept a protocol known as Peer to Peer traffic, which accounts for over half of the traffic on the internet. Therefore, somebody could still send and receive offensive material using P2P and there would be nothing the filter could do about it. Many filters are similarly unable to intercept email traffic, entailing that it will still be possible to share this undesirable material through emailing.
    
    · The Tasmanian trials have shown that all the filters significantly slowed down transfer speeds, with the most effective filter resulting in the highest loss of speed. Our speeds are already considerably lower than those enjoyed by the rest of the western world, and this will make them even worse, in turn making us a less desirable destination with which to do business, in the eyes of many overseas companies.
    
    · In order to pay for the equipment and extra IT personnel required to deal with this filter, and the problems it will cause (eg false positives) ISPs will have to increase their fees, when we already pay more for our internet services than most of the western world.
    
    · More frighteningly, this idea brings to mind the whole "slippery slope" argument. Once the Government starts telling us what is and what isn't acceptable, where does it stop? The Government doesn't approve of Gay marriage, so will sites to do with Gay Marriage be blocked?? Sites to do with Euthanasia?? Abortion?? We won't know because the "black list" is not supposed to be made public. As an allied health professional, I often need to access websites that deal with sensitive subjects, such as anorexia, abortion, suicide and drug abuse, in order to gain an understanding of what my clients have experienced. I cannot do that if these sites are blocked because they are considered “undesirable” subjects in the eyes of the Government. Of course these sites will not be blocked at the initial set-up of the “Clean Feed”, but nothing short of a written guarantee from both major parties will convince me that they will not eventually be targeted.
    
    Taking these short-comings into consideration, the truth remains that an ISP-level filter is no substitute for a user-end filter (ie installed at the family’s computer) and proper supervision. Senator Conroy has claimed that an ISP-level filter is necessary because the Net Alert system, provided free for parents by the previous Government, was “ineffective”. However, I would argue that the reason it appeared “ineffective” was because the majority of parents possess the technical knowledge to have already installed and set up a user-end filter system on their own computer, combining this with adequate supervision of their children. For these parents, the Net Alert campaign was unnecessary. In the case of those parents without the technical knowledge to implement a user-end filter successfully, or, indeed, the desire to use one at all, it is my belief that the Government should be encouraging them to take more responsibility for their children’s welfare, rather than less. Instead of empowering these parents, the “Clean Feed” Filter will only serve to encourage them to look to the Government to solve their parenting problems, rather than solving these problems independently. Furthermore, the proposal of a one-size-fits-all filter does not acknowledge the reality that each family is an individual entity, and their beliefs and values will vary considerably. For instance, while one family may be offended by the idea of homosexual, or even interracial, relationships, another may be perfectly comfortable with this, and the proposal of this “Clean Feed” filter demonstrates an incredible lack of trust in the abilities of modern Australians to decide for themselves what is and isn’t acceptable based on their own values; a concept I, quite frankly, find rather insulting.
    
    On a final note, Senator Conroy’s recent claims that similar filters to the one being proposed have been trialled successfully in overseas markets, including England and Canada, are patently incorrect. In each case cited by Senator Conroy, the filters were either “opt-in” (parents opted to have their service filtered, rather than this being the default) or the filter’s black list consisted solely of those websites featuring Child Pornography. Due to the fact that those proposing the “Clean feed” filter have expressed a desire to target a much wider range of material (including mainstream pornography and online gambling), the Australian filter will have to process a much larger list of “black listed” websites, entailing a more significant impact upon transfer speeds.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    The appropriate methods of protecting oneself and one's family from disturbing exercises of free speech are to block it out at the thresholds of our spheres of legitimate personal control – our households, our families, and so on. It cannot, should not, must not be made the responsibility of government to emplace limitations on the free exercise of speech. Those limits will ultimately be used against the citizenry in ways none of us on the right or left can imagine or accept... but then it may be too late. The testimony of history is unrelenting about this danger.
    
    
    
    
    
    No one in ISP industry argues that child pornography should be legal, matter of fact the thought of it disgusted me all together, but there has to be better way. Senator Conroy is hiding behind child pornography, including Clive Hamilton as well as you but did you know that in Australia there is an ISP offering “Clean Feed” internet. ISP is called WEBSHIELD.
    
    
    
    
    
    Did you read Executive summary of closed environment testing? If not please read what is says (chapter 1 page 15) I have attached it for you to read it as well and draw your own conclusions
    
    Quote
    
    “" Despite of a general nature of advances in current trial and previous trial most filters are not presently able to identify illegal content and content that may be regarded as inappropriate that is carried via majority of non-web protocols"

    Posted By: Rastko Petrovic

14. No matter what your views on censoring the internet, you must see that the proposal will be completely unsuccessful at stopping anyone from accessing child abuse media on their computer, which is the claimed reason for mandatory filtering. Filtering HTTP traffic will do nothing to stop people from trading it via other means, which, according to recent police reports they are already doing, nor will it stop people from using any of the easy ways around HTTP filtering. ie VPN, TOR, proxies etc. If anything it will make perverts even harder to trace due much greater volume of encrypted traffic through VPNs or by driving them further underground. People must really do some research on the technical impossibilities of this filter before forming their opinion.
    
    Knowing this, how can anybody support a policy which will only result in wasting a huge amount of taxpayer dollars? Don't forget the extra hidden costs that we will all pay for through higher ISP plans. Given the current economic situation, Australia does not need to waste money on something that won't work. If stopping child abuse was the governments real motive for censorship, they should instead devote the hundreds of millions of dollars to the Australian Federal Police, who will actually catch, charge and STOP people from accessing child abuse material. I certainly hope they will come to their senses and do this.
    
    As for the optional filter. Again this is superfluous. The previous government released net nanny software. It was defeated by a teenager in minutes. The proposed optional filter would be as useful as the software. The best option is of course for parents to supervise their children on the internet. If they are still worried they can switch to one of the many ISPs that offer family friendly connections and instal some of the great commercial filtering software that is available (a lot of which is included in anti-virus software these days.
    

    Posted By: Jimus

15. (Alex) “I really don't want to have MY internet slowed down because some people can't be bothered effectively monitoring their children on the web.”
    Perhaps you don’t want YOUR car slowed down in a school zone just because some people can’t effectively stop their children running across the road in front of you? Or you don’t want to go to the expense of building a swimming pool fence, slowing your access to YOUR pool, because some people can’t be bothered effectively monitoring their children so they don’t drown in it?
    
    Mr Petrovic, I sincerely hope that the first thing the government DOES block are sites promoting abortion, euthanasia and so-called “gay marriage”.
    
    Jason, I was waiting for someone to retort with the inevitable empty cant slogan “religious communities do not have the right to impose on a society their own standards” and you did not disappoint me.
    Obviously there needs to be some type of standards (though some here seem to think that anything short of “anything goes anywhere anytime for anyone” is “evil repression” ) and Catholics have just as much right as anyone else to say what they think those standards should be and how they should be applied. They are not “imposing” anything on society.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

16. Ronk, that was more of a secondary point to my initial point about censorship. It's also different from your analogy because I suggested that parents should have the OPTION of choosing to have this filtering, thus any children at risk of being exposed to such material could be safeguarded from it.
    
    That said, the likelihood that this filter will prevent a technologically-literate child from accessing undesirable sites is very low – as has been stated many times in the comments to this news article. And let’s face it, most children have a reasonable degree of technological literacy these days. I have been using the internet for many, many years now and I believe I have only accidentally stumbled upon pornography once or twice (if my memory serves me correctly). If a determined child is looking for pornography (or any other objectionable material) they’ll be able to find it regardless of a government filter.
    
    Also, the likelihood that this filter will prevent people from accessing child pornography is also very low – as, again, has been stated many times.
    
    I suppose what I’m saying is that I’d rather not have a censored version of the internet imposed on me, particularly when I have no desire to visit the kinds of sites being blocked – and particularly when it will disadvantage me by slowing down my own internet speeds. By all means offer this service an opt-in one if it makes parents think their children will be any safer browsing the web – even though it probably won’t protect children to any significant degree (if at all).
    
    Also: “Mr Petrovic, I sincerely hope that the first thing the government DOES block are sites promoting abortion, euthanasia and so-called “gay marriage”.”
    
    To be honest I find that disgusting. It’s a total violation of freedom of speech! (Which I know is not ‘technically’ a right in Australia, but it’s still wrong.) What we should be aiming for is to provide strong and adequate arguments against sinful behaviour – rather than gagging the mouths of those who would speak against us. What next, banning pro-Anglican sites because they might convince a Catholic to convert?
    

    Posted By: Alex Knight

17. Internet filtering at ISP level is easy.
    ISP providers pretend it is otherwise so as to maintain and grow their revenues regardless of morality and hence the common good of humanities physical and spiritual well being.
    Governments can issue licences to ISP providers and can revoke or temporarily suspend trade by these providers for non compliance with standards.
    

    Posted By: Michael Webb

18. This filter idea is like something from the George Orwell novel 1984. What do we need protecting from? Do you believe there is a mythical other, a lower, dumber class of human that's so helpless and vulnerable that it can be damaged permanently by something that you, me, all our friends, and the censors themselves have suffered no ill effects from?
    
    "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." – Adolf Hitler

    Posted By: Angus Grogan

19. Michael Webb, what are you basing your statement "Internet filtering at ISP level is easy" on?
    
    I'm a Network Engineer and I can personally vouch that it is anything but.
    
    Are you aware of the ins and outs of these proposed filters? The "best" filter will have a 1 in 20 false positive rating. Therefore, every 20 sites you visit, the odds are that one (which is completely innocent) will be blocked.
    
    Now, this may inconvenience us only slightly, but lets look at the ISP level.
    
    On average in Australia, the average ISP generates 100,000 HTTP requests a second. That is 5,000 false-positives a second, or 18,000,000 an hour.
    
    So tell me, does anybody here want to work at that ISP helpdesk?
    
    That is just 1 ISP out of the 400+ that exist in Australia.
    
    2,000,000 false positives a second, on a national scale.

    Posted By: Daniel

20. Mr. Knight,
    By blocking such sensitive sites the government denies ones information and education, and prevents an individual forming his/her own opinion which characterises an individual. But both you and I agree on one thing: that mandatory internet filtering is wrong and it will not work.
    
    And Mr Webb, if you think that ISP filtering is easy why don't you enlighten me. Just show me how easy it is to do it. Humour me here for the moment.
    
    You are speaking of spiritual well being which begins in the family and it is thought within family. If internet hurts one's wellbeing then simply don't have it.
    
    And if the government revokes ISP licence and halts the trading of any given ISP, where would all the employees go and what would happen to them? Surely Mr. Webb you do not wish to raise unemployment do you now?

    Posted By: Rastko Petrovic

21. Bring back the death penalty for pedophiles.

    Posted By: Michael Webb

22. And that will accomplish exactly what, Mr.Webb?
    
    Internet filtering is not just about child porn, there is hidden agenda that we don't know it yet.
    Why is the Labor government slashing funds to AFP and child protection unit?Do you know because I can not see any logic. Spend 44 million on something that will not work but on the other hand cuts the funds to AFP - how stupid of this government. Most of the child pornography on the net are the pictures after the fact, and the AFP should be looking to prevent the crime. Government should not be putting on the blindfold and giving parents a false sense of security. They should increase the numbers of AFP and give better funding than 2.8 million as it currently stands. 44 mill. will go quite far in fighting child pornography and paedophiles
    
    Even the AFP said the filtering will not stop paedophiles, or an illegal content. Who deems what is illegal?

    Posted By: Rastko Petrovic

23. It is not just ALP governments that aren't serious about the problems of pornography and violence done to women and children. The former Coalition Government allowed the production of pornography and the sale of it from Canberra.
    
    Why do some people keep saying unthinkingly that these issues only arise when Labor governments get elected?
    It happens under both ALP and Lib/Nat govts.
    The task is to vote out all of them and to elect people who will begin to give serious jail time to to pornography makers and sales companies who currently operate within Australia.
    Further, the legislation should be made retrospective. Personally, no chances and tough examples should be made of anyone acting criminally by exploiting fellow human beings and of perverting many others through pornography. What is currently legal should not be any excuse. That is why retropective criminal legislation should apply to those businessmen and women who are running the pornography companies and also to their lobbyists. I think that 25 year minimum terms of imprisonment with hard labour should be enacted.

    Posted By: Michael Webb

24. (Alex) “It's also different from your analogy because I suggested that parents should have the OPTION of choosing to have this filtering, thus any children at risk of being exposed to such material could be safeguarded from it.”
    I ask again, do you think that, rather than you being compelled to slow your car or your access to your pool, parents should have the OPTION of choosing to have their own fences to restrain their own children, thus any children at risk of being drowned in your pool or run over by your car could be safeguarded from it?
    
    (Alex) “the likelihood that this filter will prevent a technologically-literate child from accessing undesirable sites is very low ….Also, the likelihood that this filter will prevent people from accessing child pornography is also very low – as, again, has been stated many times.”
    No-one’s disputing that opinion. But, technological issues aside, you seem to be rejecting IN PRINCIPLE any attempt to limit your access to ANY website. This is amazingly naive and wrong. (Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.)
    
    Australian governments currently restrict the promotion of abortion and especially euthanasia in non-internet media. Do you also find that “disgusting”? I ask again, what’s so unique about the internet that it alone must have no restriction whatsoever?
    
    (Alex) “It’s a total violation of freedom of speech! (Which I know is not ‘technically’ a right in Australia, but it’s still wrong.)”
    Human rights such as freedom of speech are universal, they do not depend on any law passed by any national government. But freedom of speech is not ABSOLUTE, as the laws of all countries, even the USA, recognise. There are many various restrictions on freedom of speech to avoid infringing the rights of others.
    
    (Alex) “What we should be aiming for is to provide strong and adequate arguments against sinful behaviour – rather than gagging the mouths of those who would speak against us. What next, banning pro-Anglican sites because they might convince a Catholic to convert?”
    
    This is the typical straw-man argument equating restrictions on grossly sinful behaviour with restrictions on freedom of religious practice and expression of religious beliefs and opinions. One does not lead to the other and they are two very different things.
    
    

    Posted By: Ronk

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. Vatican a bully: South Brisbane priest

   Rome has put pressure on Brisbane Archbishop John Bathersby and "the Vatican is a bully," St Mary's South Brisbane administrator, Fr Peter Kennedy is quoted as saying.

2. Volunteers a mainstay of Catholic media

   Much Catholic media work is done by volunteers, the National Catholic Media Census has found, with nearly half of the survey respondents reporting that they had five or more volunteers in their organisations.

3. Vincentian leader released after "grave error" by police

   NSW police have released Vincentian leader, Fr Greg Cooney, pending further enquiries after he was arrested over events his lawyer said were alleged to have occurred while he was overseas.

4. Christmas calms uncertainty, anxiety: Australian bishops

   In a Christmas message evoking the current economic crisis, ACBC President Archbishop Philip Wilson said Jesus was not born into wealth or prestige yet "had a profound impact and continues to be present in people's lives."

5. Lasallians give partners the vote

   The De La Salle Brothers District of Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea has decided to establish a Mission Council with both brothers and partners as members with a vote in governance and decision making.