[LINK] Internet filtering plan may extend to peer-to-peer traffic, says Stephen Conroy

[David Lochrin]

On Tuesday 23 December 2008 11:47, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> Frankly, whoever came up with the 'protect the children from 
> ACCESSING' justification was dumb.  But I don't know where 
> that all began or if it was the journalists who confused the two.
> 
>> Surely, there should be some sort of law or regulation that
>> criminalises child p-rn so that the government would not have
>> to implement such difficult technology? Oh.

There's an even more fundamental flaw in Conroy's proposal - it's yet another attempt to substitute technology for responsibility & education, though this may prove to be a two-edged sword.

If Conroy's fantasy becomes operational will the government, or the ISPs who have to implement the technology, assume some legal responsibility for its effectiveness?  Will a parent who finds his or her child looking at p--n despite the filtering be able to sue?

Well crafted laws can have much better and more precise effect than the blunt instrument of technology, and responsibilities are clearly defined.  Furthermore they're in the public domain for all to see, so the focus stays on the real problems rather than the technology which is supposed to intervene.

David