Australian from yesterday covering the pitfalls and problems with ISP level filtering and various forms of filtering. It is probably the most accurate and reasonably presented article I’ve seen from a newspaper yet, even though the quotes are predominately from IIA spokesman Peter Coroneo’s rather than someone from the current government.
“…he warned it could never be completely successful in blocking access to all pornographic sites, just the ones on the blacklist.
If new sites were launched that were not included on the blacklist the clean feed would not restrict access to them, he said. “You’ve got to be aware of the fallibility of the approach,” he warned.
There were millions of pornographic websites and if all of them were included in the blacklist “there is a potential for slow downs in access to occur”, he said.
“The more sites you attempt to block the greater the effect on the network performance and speed,” he said.
This is because every time you type a request into your search engine it will have to be checked against all the sites on the blacklist, he said.
In Britain where a clean feed policy is being pursued, only between 200 and 1000 child pornography sites have been included on a blacklist.
But if Australia insisted on including millions of general pornography sites and others that include violence it could undermine internet users’ speed of access to websites, Mr Coroneos said.
A 2005 pilot study carried out by the former Howard government found a clean feed approach could cut down speed of accessing the internet by between 18 to 78 per cent depending on what was being blocked.
The Rudd Government campaigned on a platform promising to speed up Australians’ access to the worlwide web by rolling out broadband around the country.
Mr Coroneos said any clean feed policy would have to be carefully balanced.
He said households that really wanted to block out pornographic material would be better off investing in a home based filter system.” –From the Australian