News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Andrew Donnellan doesn't want a net nanny 

Andrew Donnellan doesn't want a net nanny

01 Apr, 2009 12:16 PM
FILTERING internet websites to stamp out paedophiles and web-based crime would be the equivalent of Australia Post opening every letter and parcel that passed through its doors to do the same, say concerned residents.

Teenage campaigner Andrew Donnellan said an internet censorship regimen proposed by the federal government was an “invasion of civil rights” and a “cost-redundant exercise” that would not catch offenders.

The St Columba Anglican School year 12 student handed a petition abhorring web constriction, signed by more than 60 residents, to Lyne MP Rob Oakeshott last week.

He said the government should pour its money into funding police networks to catch paedophiles and criminals rather than wasting it on a flawed monitoring program.

The filtering system is being trialled and already a blacklist of more than 2000 websites has been leaked on the internet, affirming it’s not watertight, 16-year-old Andrew said.

“Also, the trial doesn’t even include the top-five providers, including Telstra and Optus,” he said.

“Its own filtering blacklist has been exposed, so what does that tell you?

“Filtering should really target production, not distribution.

“And as far as blocking sites, where do you draw the line?”

Mr Oakeshott said he backed Andrew’s drive to scrap filtering and would put the petition forward at the next sitting of Parliament in May.

“Firstly, we have a government filter already in regional areas,” he said.

“Secondly, we don’t need anything that will slow internet speed by, say, even 5 per cent, as it will have a significant impact on business and community life on the Mid-North Coast.

“Thirdly, it is not the government’s role to be a ‘net nanny’. It is the role of every single household.”

Andrew will have censorship banned.

His petition is at Mr Oakeshott’s office at 219 Victoria St in Taree.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Ahh, the young and naive. What can I say, but welcome to the real world. You say "“Filtering should really target production, not distribution." The fact is most of these sites are not even located in Australia. How then can the Australian government target the production???? Then the article says, "...would be the equivalent of Australia Post opening every letter and parcel that passed through its doors to do the same" Well no it's not. It's like stopping mail being sent from known lawbreakers and illegal sites. For example, convicted murders, rapists and terrorists routinely have all outgoing mail from prison opened and screened. If you're so against the internet filter why don't you start lobbying for the same rights for Prisoners??? Websites without illegal content need not worry.
Posted by John, 1/04/2009 6:34:18 AM
Congratulations Andrew on showing such initiative! The government's current proposal will be a monumental waste of money that will not achieve its stated aims , will slow down the Internet for everyone, and will allow the current - or any future - government to secretly censor web sites for any reason and without any accountability.
Posted by C, 1/04/2009 8:43:10 AM
If this new filter doesn't stop crime, isn't it good enough if it slows it down! Anything that makes it a little more difficult for perverts is good enough for me, why should we just role over and make it easy for them. We wouldn't let them babysit our children, why should we make it easier for them to be in our homes.
Posted by what's this world coming to, 1/04/2009 9:17:19 AM
Stick to your schoolwork mate. This is a case of a little knowledge being dangerous. Anything that helps stop or restrict porn on the web gets my vote - even if it is only 10% affective.
Posted by HarryHighpants, 1/04/2009 11:28:12 AM
Many of us who are totally opposed to pornography are also not in favour of this filter. The federal government already has a voluntary internet filter which cost tens of millions of dollars and hardly anyone uses. People who have used the internet for many years realise that accidental access of pornography sites is rare. They also realise that filters slow down internet speed. That is why hardly anyone uses the current voluntary "net nanny" Current testing available to the government (and on their own website) shows that the filters which actually work slow down internet speed dramatically, and the only one which doesn't does not filter out encrypted sites, so is therefore useless. Pornographers would simply encrypt their sites. Sadly people who want pornography on the web will still be able to get it. Therefore, the government will be wasting something like about 40 million dollars in the first year and 30 million every year after that, to maintain the filter. We should applaud the government for wanting to address the problem of pornography. But the government needs to spend our money effectively.
Posted by antiporn-antifilter, 1/04/2009 7:56:57 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Internet advocate: Andrew Donnellan believes internet filtering is a waste of time and resources.
Internet advocate: Andrew Donnellan believes internet filtering is a waste of time and resources.

Most popular articles




Port Macquarie News







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...