THE "clean feed" filtering system Communications Minister Stephen
Conroy hopes will halt internet porn has already been defeated by
British researchers.

Richard Clayton, of the University of Cambridge's Computer Laboratory,
said the innovative blocking system CleanFeed, devised by British
internet service provider BT, could be circumvented in a number of
ways.

"At first sight, it's an effective and precise method of blocking
unacceptable content," Mr Clayton said. "But there are a number of
issues to address as soon as one assumes that content providers or
consumers might make serious attempts to get around it."

The report is more bad news for those hoping to block violence and
pornography from their internet. Although filter salesmen talk up
their wares, the reality has never quite matched the industry hype.

Former communications minister Helen Coonan moved away from insisting
internet service providers offer filtering after a 2006 NetAlert study
showed the filters were expensive, difficult to set up, frequently
inaccurate and drastically slowed the network performance.

Six filters were tested under optimised conditions, but the best
responder resulted in an

18 per cent reduction in relative performance, while the worst cut
performance by 78 per cent.

"The better-performing filters can process data at between 30-80Mbps
(millions of bits per second), which would still provide sufficient
performance for a small ISP," the report said.

"However, for larger ISPs with faster upstream connections, the use of
such filters would severely reduce their performance levels."

Instead, Senator Coonan opted for providing families with free filters
for home

computers. But a teenager immediately bypassed the NetAlert anti-porn
filter, simply by assuming his parents' profile on the home PC.

The Internet Industry Association has consistently warned of the
technical difficulties involved in introducing such filters on ISP
servers.

IIA chief executive Peter Coroneos said any clean feed policy would
have to be balanced against the likely financial and performance
costs.

Internet users would face slower access to websites, as every search
request would have to be checked against official blacklists. And
although there are millions of pornographic websites, the system would
only block those listed.

Telstra BigPond spokesman Craig Middleton said yesterday: "We stand
alongside the IIA and other ISPs in the view that PC-based filtering,
in the hands of a responsible parent, is the only workable solution."

Warren Cann, executive director of the Parenting Research Centre in
Melbourne, said that although filters offered some protection, parents
still needed to monitor their children's activities online.

Meanwhile, a 2007 survey of internet filtering in public libraries
found available filters were unreliable and inaccurate, often
preventing access to legitimate content while allowing undesirable
content through

australian
.

Visit

http://groups.google.com/group/australiapoliticsmoderated

"AussieSeek Radio DJ Content Subscription service
news:3ac67d3a-2cd8-4382-b518-7eacc2679593@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

#  Ah, well, those who want to censor can find a way, presumably.  China can
block undesirable political influences - though HongKongers seem to get
around it (though what they want, apart from more "democracy", and what
they'll do with it, isn't too clear).
    The desire to censor can be viewed with suspicion, as it usually starts
with sex (on moral grounds) then expands to include other matters.
    The RC Church used to say - "Error doesn't have the same right as
truth".  What is error?  That which does not conform to the Church's
teachings.  So, we must just hope the Church has got it right.
    Who decides what is pornography or not?  An elite few, or public as a
whole - whose tastes may vary from one extreme to the other.  So, should the
decisions of a few be imposed on the many?  Guided, or Limited, Democracy?
    What are the essential motives in the current case?
    (a) children need protection against predators, and,
    (b) inflammatory websites might encourage young males to treat women as
targets for sexual assault.
    The question is - Is the intended solution likely to succeed; is it
overkill; or has it ulterior motives?
    As they say in parliament - Are you aware of any alternatives?

In article <3ac67d3a-2cd8-4382-b518-7eacc2679593

Not even that. I work in an area that has the most Draconian content
filter imaginable already. Yet I've seen kids playing "boobflash" and
ultra violent on-line games despite these measures.

The ONLY way to ensure kids aren't exposed to sex and violence on the
Internet is physical supervision. So long as parents put computers in
kids bedrooms and use them as a surrogate Mary Poppins, kids will be at
risk whatever filter is placed upstream.

--
DM
personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com

[snip]

<sarcasm>
Easy. All sites visited by ISP users are logged and the government
agencies perform an automated audit of the logs at least once a
year. Once the Internet users learn that their activities would be
checked by the government they would stop visiting all those porn sites,
not to mention Al Jazeera and indymedia.org.

But, why stop there? In the age of "suspect/guilty unless proven
otherwise" and "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to
fear" it would be acceptable to have all residential and business
addresses raided by the government once a year. We already open our bags
or handbags for inspection at the exits of department stores despite
all those surveillance cameras and "plain-clothes detectives" watching
over our shoulders in the shops. The onus is on us to prove we are not
thieves, so we should feel comfortable and relaxed proving to the
government we are not criminals or terrorists.

Just imagine all that full employment in our state security nirvana,
you sure need as many security people as you can get for millions of
'security raids' a year.

Ah, yes. I forgot to add "if you are against these measures, you're
either a pedophile or terrorist". Now, open the door before we kick it
in.
</sarcasm>

"David Moss" <q0320...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au> wrote
in message
news:MPG.21e81dca7854da1798af5d@news.bigpond.com...

Kids will see at least as much sex and violence on
free to air television than they are likely to
encounter on the internet.
The whole thing is a knee jerk reaction from a bunch
of amateurs who don't understand the technology, and
yet are behaving as though they do.
Give kids a decent set of values and the guidance to
sort the wheat from the chaff at a young age and no
parent has anything to fear from the internet, on the
contrary the internet is the most valuable learning
resource of our age.