Stephen Conroy's Misleading & Outrageous Interview
Recently Stephen Conroy had an on-camera interview with Fairfax Media's national Canberra bureau chief, Tim Lester.During the interview Senator Conroy made some outrageous and accusations and provided false and mis-leading comments.Senator conroy claims that the criticism over his policy his due to "misleading information" spread by "an organised group in the online world".If these organisations are providing false or mis-leading information, please set us straight and give us the answers we are looking for with direct responses, not government babble.
Asked what percentage of all of the nasty material on the internet his filters would block, Senator Conroy dodged the question, responding that his filters were "100 per cent accurate - no overblocking, no underblocking and no impact on speeds".
Instead of wasting all this money on something that will not work and can be easily bypassed, Start sinking money into catching the paedophiles and closing down these rouge sites instead of the band-aid solution you have come up with.It's well known throughout the online community that these scum paedophiles do a lot of transferring via peer to peer because it has obfuscation.Come on senator get your stuff together and wake up......
I think Mark Newton, an engineer with ISP internode, said it best: "Censorship will not catch a single paedophile, will not cause a single image to disappear from the internet, will not protect a single child."
Senator Conroy also brushed aside concerns from leading academics and technology companies that the plan to block a blacklist of "refused classification" (RC) websites for all Australians was an attempt to shoe-horn an offline classification model into a vastly different online world.
"To characterise sustained opposition by individuals and groups as diverse as EFA, Google, SAGE, Yahoo, Save the Children, Reporters without Borders, Justice Kirby, Choice Magazine, leading online academics and industry associations and the United States Department of State as 'an organised group in the online world' is a remarkably naive misreading of how unpopular this proposal is," Senator Ludlam said.
Professor Bjorn Landfeldt from the University of Sydney said the difference between submitting a book for classification and having an organisation classifying and blocking websites without anyone's knowledge was that, in the book case, "it is well known that the book was censored and there can be a debate about the correctness of the decision".
He neglected to address widespread concerns that the "refused classification" rating also applies to sexual health discussions, euthanasia material such as the Peaceful Pill Handbook, historical war footage and instructions in minor crimes such as graffiti.
Senator Conroy admitted that his filters would not do anything to stop the spread of child pornography on peer-to-peer file sharing networks, and that they will "slow down the internet" if applied to high-volume sites such as YouTube, Facebook and Wikipedia.
He mentioned he was in discussions with Google over a way for the company to apply the filter to YouTube but Google has already rejected these requests.
"If we know there are 355 websites today that have child pornographic images on it, should we say well we're not going to do anything about it?," he said.No Senator we shouldn't, What you should do is pour all this money into shutting them down and arresting them.
As we can see, Senator Conroy has completely ignored evidence that the overwhelming majority of child pornography is traded by peer-to-peer. It also ignored the fact that anyone who wanted to bypass Stephen Conroy's net filters could do so quite easily.
"For $44 million, we're buying ourselves an initiative which will have no measurable impact whatsoever," Senator Ludlam said. <Laugh Out Loud @ 44 Million>
View the full interview before Senator Conroys Net Filter becomes active <Sarcasm Intentional>: Full Interview