Australian ISP Agrees to 'Ridiculous' Net-Filter Trial to Prove 'How Stupid it Is'

"They're not listening to the experts, they're not listening to the industry, they're not listening to consumers, so perhaps some hard numbers will actually help," said Michael Malone, managing director of iiNet.

We've reported quite regularly on Australia's efforts to have ISPS filter "inappropriate content' (whatever that means) and how its plans to censor the Internet of "offensive and illegal material" involves more technical interference in the Internet infrastructure than what is attempted even in Iran.

Thankfully iiNet, Australia's largest ISP, has decided to prove to that country's govt once and for all the ridiculousness of the whole plan in a fashion that makes it beyond reproach., giving it "hard numbers" to show just "how stupid it is."

"They're not listening to the experts, they're not listening to the industry, they're not listening to consumers, so perhaps some hard numbers will actually help," said Michael Malone, managing director iiNet. "Every time a kid manages to get through this filter, we'll be publicizing it and every time it blocks legitimate content, we'll be publicizing it."

Malone said iiNet would thus sign up to be involved in the "ridiculous" filtering trials that are scheduled to begin by December 24 of this year.

Many are rightly upset with the Australian Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, for masterminding the censorship plan and for his back pedaling on his promise to allow adults to opt out.

Further enraging critics is the fact that Senator Conroy claimed that Britain, Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand had all implemented filtering systems similar to the one he is proposing for Australia. Yet, in each of the countries he mentioned, ISP participation is voluntary and content filtering was limited to mainly child porn.

Several Senators have already said they want the filters broadened to include hard-core porn and gambling sites, proving that censorship is a slippery slope that always begins with the best of intentions, but ends up only making us less safe and less secure.

The plan would do little to interfere with P2P and file-sharing services and networks since it wouldn't involve actually data packet inspection and only the filtering of content transmitted via web protocols. With more than 60% of Internet traffic being P2P-related it means that the govt will be targeting a minority of users in order to target an even smaller fraction thereof. It's all said to be done in order to "protect the children," but does their safety really necessitate breaking the back of such an increasingly important education, communication, and distribution tool?