Do you support a mandatory internet filter?

Do you support a mandatory internet filter?

Summary: Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced a plan yesterday to introduce mandatory internet filtering legislation in the middle of year. Industry has welcomed the policy and Twitter has exploded in fury, but what do you think?

SHARE:
[? template('/'.constant('CMS_VHOST').'/common/poll/display_poll.htm', 1620753396) ?]

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced a plan yesterday to introduce mandatory internet filtering legislation in the middle of year. Industry has welcomed the policy and Twitter has exploded in fury, but what do you think?

Answer our poll and let us know exactly what you think about this policy in the talkback below.

Topics: Censorship, Government, Government AU, Legal, Telcos

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

57 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • I don't support it

    I don't support the government's internet censorship plan. It's flawed, and is nothing more than censorship.

    This policy has guaranteed my vote won't be going to Labor next election.
    anonymous
  • HELL NO!

    I voted No I don't support this censorship.
    anonymous
  • A test

    I think this is a test to see if they can get a 100% lop-sided poll :)

    My vote: Absolutely not.
    anonymous
  • Industry

    I am in the Industry when did we support it!!

    You mean 3 companies said filter software worked ok
    anonymous
  • ACT NOW

    We have to act now together on the whole world against those politicians who want to destroy freedom on the internet.

    Surveillance will not protect anybody from suicide bomb attacks. Surveillance will only make it easier to transfer democracies into dictatorships.

    I am from Europe and I think we should UNITE WORLDWIDE against censorship! We have to act now.

    One of the main problem is that many voters dont use the internet. For them it is only a thread. So they say, yeah why not restrict this and that. Convince your family, your friends, your coworkers that freedom on the internet is important and that censorship should also not be allowed on the internet.

    http://www.twitter.com/fallacyfilms
    anonymous
  • This poll is flawed

    Don't they teach journalists anything at university? (ZDnet hacks DID go to uni, right?)

    The options should not include explanations; they should just be 'yes', 'no', and 'abstain'.

    Otherwise, what do I vote if I disagree with the filter but don't think the government is completely wrong? Or if I agree with the filter but think the Internet is indeed different to other media?
    anonymous
  • Good idea but wrong application

    Yes, I believe a filter should be available but only for those who desire one.
    NOT on the ISP, but on the home PC & controlled by the parent, not Big Brother!
    anonymous
  • no, stupid idea...

    So will they block VPN connections or web proxies to other countries as well as this will just get around the firewall filter??????
    anonymous
  • Pointless

    Filtering Internet is like putting locks on doors to keep honest people out.

    Anyone doing anything dodgy will just circumvent it anyway!
    anonymous
  • Waste of money

    Very easy to circumvent, total waste of money... how about finishing the broadband network before wasting money on this rubbish.
    anonymous
  • filtering is a stupid idea

    Dumb government, when will they do what the people want?
    When will they stop trying to be big brother?

    .. to slow down the internet because parents cannot or will not supervise their children while online is rediculous.

    If parents are so worried why dont they put net nanny or another program like that and let the government do the job and lazy parents get off their butt and do their job.
    anonymous
  • I do support the filter for a few things

    I support filtration of content pertaining to paedophilia and terrorism - no question there. We don't want or need it so why allow it to be broadcast?

    I would not support filtration of political views, religion, gambling, newspapers and other mass media, nor do I necessarily support the means that the Commonwealth wants to use to apply the filtration mechanism however as I am not an expert on that issue that's about all I can say on it.

    I quietly get the feeling that one day this filter will be used by Labor to apply the cone of silence to conservative political opinion and that would be setting a dangerous precedent.
    anonymous
  • ~

    There should be no 'abstain' choice, just 'yes' or 'no'. The abstainers need not tick anything as all they are doing is reducing the chance of a result first past the post.
    anonymous
  • something fishy about the data

    does it not ring alarm bells to anyone else that all products/methods tested had 100% accurate blocking of the ACMA blacklist, but not one of these same filters managed 100% on secondary lists trialled? smells like fudged data to me. and before people say it was based on size of the list, the previous testing done in Tas by Enex showed none of the products tested last year were able to successfully block a list approx the same size as the ACMA blacklist.

    somebody is fudging the data, and i'm sure it'sat Conroy's "request"
    anonymous
  • you do

    you quickly filter out and then castigate anyone that is left, republican or not agreeing with your rightist rubbish, on you sh***y site.
    anonymous
  • Bad law

    This isn't about the internet being treated like other media. Much RC material is legal in Australia and the government is failing on three accounts:

    1) The net is too wide and can easily broaden
    2) Mandatory filtering is based on the assumption that the viewer is guilty. Effort needs to be correctly directed towards the producers of inappropriate content.
    3) The filter is easy to sidestep and the law is unenforceable.
    anonymous
  • abstain is useful

    Abstain gives an indication of how many people feel unable to simply answer 'yes' or 'no', such as if they are undecided or if they would rather answer 'it depends'. A first-past-the-post result would be inappropriate if the result was 2% no, 1% yes, 97% abstain.
    anonymous
  • ISP Filtering not required

    My Security Suite has its own Parental control installed.

    Sometimes it activates unnecessarily, so imagine how often an ISP Filter is going to completely block communication, and comments columns like this one.
    anonymous
  • No to the nanny state

    This should be something that is done at home. If you can't, or won't, watch your children on the net there are options available. If you're not comfortable installing and setting up the software yourself, there are ISP's available that will do it for you.

    I'm sick of seeing supporters screaming 'think of the children' and ' CP should be banned'. CP is already banned (the filter isn't going to change a thing in that regard, nor will it prevent it's distribution sadly) and if you're concerned about your children, act like a damn parent and supervise them.
    anonymous
  • ISP filtering useless

    Easy to circumvent, best to have it optional. Like at the family PC, is more effective. In my experience, with school Computers, internet filtering was often poor, so it is a difficult to implement effectively. Money should be spent offering free software, and support, for parents to install on home computers, which is more effective, and doesn't take away personal/parental freedoms and responsibility, like the present Federal Government is tending to do. maybe this is just a part of the ongoing EGO trip, the PM appears to be on.
    anonymous