Allright, first blog. This was actually written to be more of an article than a blog, I wrote it for hungry beast but apparently the "submit story" button was just there for "lulz" or something. This is me ranting/venting about the ISP filter our wonderful soviet inspired government is developing, I understand that at this site everyone will already be on my side, should anyone actually find this blog, but maybe it will give you a few new arguments to use, here it is un-editted from the original writing.

The Government's Intention to filter all of the internet data accessed by Australians and our visitors has annoyed many internet uses here and around the world, personally enraged would be a better descriptor. This has motivated me to make my first post on the internet outside of a forum/comments section and I hope I can drive you to be vocal in opposition and help arm you with arguments against the scheme.

My source of official information is this site http://www.dbcde.gov.au/all_funding_programs_and_support/cybersafety_plan

The over-riding issue with the plan is the content they intend to block, they say that the target is child pornography and that this is a move to protect children but then Stephen Conroy declares that the target sites are those with "illegal and harmful content" or "illegal and unwanted content", why the extra umbrella terms? If the goal was only to remove illegal content then I would be unable to complain because there was already a bill forebading any interaction with the content but if there is no bill of law saying I cant view the content, then I should be allowed to view the content, this is how laws and law-making works.

My next point can be taken as one of fear, maybe it is, but many laws and behaviours we all share and agree with are based on a fear. I have an issue with any single, or group of bodies controlling our access to such a vast source of information as the internet, most other information sources now rely on the internet for the stories and articles they supply, television stations and newspapers source the majority of their stories at least initially from the internet, if the internet is controlled then our information is being strained for content the government doesn't want us to see, how long will those involved be able to stop themselves from filtering content that shows truths they don't like? If the wikileaks + ACMA blacklist incident (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/19/1237054961100.html) is indicative then they've already given in.

Now, the efficacy of this plan will never be 100% and the collateral will never be 0%. As one of those values become more in line with the purpose of the system the other will become less. The basis of "RC"d sites will always be public complaints, if they block a site pending inspection by a regulatory body as soon as a complaint is received collateral based on poor judgement, miss-information and personal taste is going to be very high. If they go the other road and leave a site until the complaint is verified then you will have a system that rarely blocks 'good' content but doesn't really impact the illicit content either. This dilemma makes it a planned financial black hole, even if all Australians were conscripted to judge content for the filter, and somehow managed to all do so accurately, we still wouldn't have it correctly controlled because the internet is a public forum with everyone in the world, and it is far to vast for any efficient control, ever. So the department charged with the job will always be behind, leaving good sites blocked and bad sites available.

To any defensive or neutralising retort of "oh like it matters, I know how to use an internet machine I'll just get around the filter", then why is the government spending over a hundred million dollars to establish a financial blackhole that doesn't do anything? redirect the money for development of infrastructure and then the running costs to hospitals or education, or putting bows on kittens, any of these things will have a more tangible benefit for 'the children'. Now that I've mentioned the delicate entity that is 'the children' or 'Australia's children', Stephen Conroy needs to stop dropping this ridiculous buzz word, "It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material." If it is important that all Australians are protected, why mention the children? Are they not part of the greater community? No, its just that mentioning the children means that anyone who opposes this plan will be seen by those that have not exposed themselves to it's specifics as people who must support child abuse or at least feel that it is not a great issue, which is blatantly wrong and the kind of subtle propaganda that Adolf Hitler's third Reich used against the Jewish people. See I can use buzz words that put stuff in a bad light too.

Thank you to those who have read at least part of this, hopefully you now share my partially informed views. I hope the Beast think tank is planning something of their own on the situation, and don't get fired for speaking the truth under this totalitarian refurbishment of our governing bodies.