In a recent survey conducted by Aussie ISP 'Netspace', inital results showed that 78.9% of participants disagree with the Federal Government on making Content Filtering compulsory at an ISP level. If this is anything to go by at a national level, it appears that the Government has it blatantly wrong.
Around 10,000 customers took part in the survey, in which Netspace said was an 'overwhelming response'. Only a mere 13.6% supported a proposed content filtering mandate, with the remaining 7.1% undecided and 0.4% not responding. It really does send out a loud and clear message…. Australians do not want content filtering implemented at an ISP level!
Perhaps the average Aussie can see a bigger picture here than filtering child porn alone, and that it may refer to other fundamental principles such as the real motive for the introduction of filtering at an ISP level; Precedents that it will set; Effectiveness of an ISP filter to work appropriately; and the potential consequences that a decision like this may bring.
What are you concerns? Do they fit into any of the following categories:
A. Will an ISP filter stop illegal content completely? Industry experts are in agreeance and say 'No', as there are many different avenues to bypass or transmit content around an ISP filtering system.
B. What is the real motive behind an ISP content filter? Is it to check election box promises? Control more than just illegal Internet content?
C. Once implemented, where does the filtering stop? Could the bodies in power that be impeach an individual's freedom of speech by removing content at will, regardless of agenda?
D. How much content will be 'wrongfully' removed by accident or otherwise?
E. What kind of consequences are involved for the ISP and end user? Will it slow down the Internet dramatically and or cause other types of technical conflicts?
I, for one, believe that it comes down to 'choice' and more to the point, a parent's responsibility, and that it should extend into respective Institutions (to a certain degree). However, just who should the primary responsibility of nurturing and protecting our children fall upon?
Are we now too busy to do this ourselves to the point that we need 'Big Brother' to intervene? Surely not. Could 'FREE' protection software act as an adequate alternative opposed to pre-emptive control, which in essence, may take away an individuals right to act 'freely'.
Internet content filtering should be available, but to what extent and controlled by whom? If you have something to say on this topic, by all means feel 'FREE" to post a reply.
More