Thanks you for a comprehensive, informative article. I believe that Senator Conroy is trying to do the right thing, but due to his narrow-mindedness, he is missing the fact that not everyone has the same moral viewpoint as he and his peers. There are so many holes in this filter that it is laughable to even consider implementing it. I cannot understand why this isn't a bigger issue in mainstream media, public affairs programs have to stop talking about diet scams and start doing some actual journalism to inform people about what is actually going on, and how this thing will affect every person with an internet connection. Is there someone who is knowledgable enough and willing to debate Conroy face to face on National Prime-Time TV on this issue? Now that's something I'd love to see.

Any such actions should always be "opt-in", rather than "opt-out".

The federal parliament imposed spam on the Australian people, with the "Opt-out" option, so that people would be able to find who had opted out of spam, and, harass them, rather than people being able to anonymously avoid spam.

I have an ISP that last year, imposed interception on the Internet access of all of its subscribers, on an "opt-out" basis, and, due to the malpractices of the ISP, I did not find out about it, until I had been required to make a complaint to the TIO, and it was a scenario like the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy demolition of the Earth - "We provided notification via this obscure medium - if you can't be bothered finding it in all of the mess, that is your problem".

We should not have malicious activities imposed on us by the federal parliament, or any other institution, on an "opt-out" basis, by which we have to take extra action, and, by which we have to identify ourselves as dissidents so as to invite retaliation.

If people want to subject themselves to malicious acts, they should be required to take action to achive that, through "opt-in" actions, and, victims who do not want to be subjected to malicious activities, should not have to take action and identify theselves, to stop the particular activity.

It is a bit like walking into the national parliament of China, and saying, rather loudly, I object to state oppression of individuals, and I reject it, or, when Apartheid was in power in South Africa, walking up to a policeman, and saying "I object to Apartheid. It is wrong and I reject it".

Our rights (the extremely small number that we have, if any) in Australia, should be protected. If we want to be punched in the face, we should have to tell the person that. We should not have to walk up to an aggressive person, and say "I do not want to be punched in the face".

Likewise, in an act of malice by parliament or by a corporation imposing malicious changes, like interception of Internet access, it should be "opt-in", and, not "opt-out".

This is highly informative. This needs to be distributed to mainstream media to increase the awareness of the general public as to what this filter will and will not do. I feel that there is not a big public outcry due to the publics unfortunate ignorance of this issue. I only found this through www.stephen-conroy.com

I am seriously worried that internet filtering will result in the suppression of political freedom.
I do not believe the primary aim of filtering is to filter out pornography.
Children whose parents allow such exposure have always done so with videos, magazines etc.
On the other hand many child pornography rings have been detected through the internet.