Now it’s hard to argue that child abuse material should be widely available. I hear you. But there are so many problems with this plan. Please allow me to list 10.1. We won’t know why these sites have been blocked from view. The only thing we currently know is that 500 have been vetted by ACMA and more will come from ‘international organisations’.2. There will be no appeals process. You’d better hope your site doesn’t get swept up in it.3. This filter will block URLs—website addresses—only. Change one character and the URL changes. Then we start all over again.4. Child abuse material isn’t typically exchanged on the worldwide web. Criminals swap it over virtual private networks and peer-to-peer networks.5. This is the job of law enforcement. Why isn’t filter funding headed to the Federal Police instead? Let them do their jobs.6. It sets a bad precedent for ISP. It is not their job to step in and take responsibility for what’s on the web. It’d be like Australia Post scanning your snail mail for swear words.7. Britain tried this. You might remember that British ISP blacklisted a Wikipedia entry based on an album cover by The Scorpions. Fail.8. No ISP to add this filter has actually told their customers about it yet. In fact, the spokespeople I spoke to had trouble getting any details about it.9. Add one filter and a second, more invasive, more censorious filter becomes an easier sell for the Government.10. No user can opt out of this short of changing to a new ISP.
Google also "erased" 11 Million web sites -- if they will do this, email is only a change in nomenclature. http://rt.com/usa/news/google-11-million-cocc/Austrilia, China, America --- all banning / filtering the internet ...http://opennet.net/blog/2011/07/australian-filtering-goes-live-trivial-bypassEasy to bypass or not, it is still the control of what we are allowed to see and access on the internet. The above is from http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/hitech/index.php/couriermail/comments/australian_internet_filter_incoming/