Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mandatory internet filters to protect children

CaptainDefragged (939505) writes | more than 6 years ago

Censorship 5

CaptainDefragged (939505) writes "Just announced on the Australian ABC News site Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material. ... Senator Conroy says anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service, and will work with the industry to ensure the filters do not affect the speed of the internet."
Link to Original Source

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Idiots. (1)

gnutoo (1154137) | more than 6 years ago | (#21866204)

He says the Government will work with the industry to ensure the filters do not affect the speed of the internet.

They might as well legislate an end to gravity. Filters cost money and time. False postives cost even more and all of this is multiplied by browser behavior and site javascript that tries to punish ad blocking with load delays.

Anyone who thinks they will be allowed to opt out is in for a rude shock later.

Filters == Worthless && Stupid (1)

Matt867 (1184557) | more than 6 years ago | (#21866322)

It is my firm belief that the internet should be completely uncensored and the duty of censorship should lie with the parents if they choose to do so. While it might be initially a good idea to "guard" kids when they are 8 as soon as they turn 13 that filter is going to really get on their nerves and generally ruin their experience. No I'm not saying the kids are going on a porn hunt, I'm saying all of these filters have either not worked well enough or generated too many false positives. Not to mention the last time they tried a 15 year old successfully hacked it in under 3 hours. Not to mention kids arn't stupid, one way or another they will discover the magical world of proxy servers making this filter another waste of time and money.

I agree (1)

maclizard (1029814) | more than 6 years ago | (#21866524)

I have NEVER had a filter do its job, but I have been blacklisted because I wasn't using a M$ OS

So what's the real reason? (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 6 years ago | (#21866766)

"Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road," he said.

"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree."

Does anyone else get the impression that the reason for this is that he *wants* to go down the "Chinese road", and it just using child porn as an excuse?

Dear ANY government reading. (1)

DJ Katty (1195877) | more than 6 years ago | (#21866842)

Stop letting Helen Lovejoy into your various government sessions. Seriously. It's getting old.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>