It'll probably work as efficiently as MyKi does....

P2P is the place where porno files are at their most accessible but the "Clean feed" won't even touch it. The problem is when the filter starts touching on areas which the Australian community finds acceptable.

Two examples I can think of.

A world renowned photographer had taken some nude photos of a young girl. He did a private showing at a gallery. One of the invited people took exception to the images of the young girl and made a complaint. The tabloid press grabbed the story, accused him of being a pedophile. People came out ranting and raving how could this happen. The photos were taken away by the police, the artist was questioned.

The photos were taken years before the showing, her parents gave him permission to take them. The girl, who was years older, gave permission and her blessing to show the pictures. The police gave the photos back to the artist because he didn't break any laws.

I did get to see the photos. They were very striking and beautiful and had no sexual connotations what so ever. The problem is, one of the biggest criticisms came from our Prime Minster, who said it was disgusting and horrible and these types of photos should not be called art, even though he never saw the photos. There are now some state laws where you need permission to show some types of artwork.

Artwork which is acceptable around the world and by our own laws can be filtered out

Another example is that Australia doesn't have an adult rating for computer games (its the R rating here). Some games have to be changed to be accepted into Australia. Although the gaming community have been screaming out for an R rating the government have refused. We can watch violent movies just can't play violent games.

Now if a game is refused classification because we don't have the R rating, the board could filter out web sites which show information for that game. After all, its the same people who rate the games who will be rating the web sites.

They might not end up doing this, but how would we know, if they will not tell us which web sites will be filtered, and the reason why.

You can't filter the internet, it's retarded to even try.

One Attorney General out of 6 has vetoed it [South Australia].  It's a State Legislation issue that needs to be unanimous...so one individual in a country of 20 million plus is holding the country and its gamers to ransom.

The issue isn't so much that one is against it....it's the other 5 who represent probably 80% of the population at least who are FOR it.

The vote "should" be 'majority rules'.

But it isn't.

he's not talking about the internet filter.

Fact.

1 individual in the entire country is prohibiting the population's access to 'adult' R - rated games .... you know, the shit where you blow some fucker's head off because he's in your sights...etc.

One person controls/prohibits what 20 plus million can and cannot do.

THAT is wrong.

You want a majority rule?

the AG of South Australia is the ruling 'majority' of one.

New Zealand's filter went live without telling the electorate this month.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/12/new_zealand_internet_filter/

Sneaky buggers.....

Man you Aussies have some serious issues with your government.

So do we, for that matter, stupid 'Progressives' think the world can be forced into being a better place by removing freedoms and adding restrictions. Lol. Redundancy.

And let's not forget the politically correct crowd... the ones who want to remove age-old nursery rhymes and fairy tales from school libraries/curriculums because they send inappropriate messages.... the ones who want mother and father references removed because it discriminates against/confuses children of same sex unions.

I mean, what a load of old bollocks!  Most of those things have been around for centuries - and they were written in such a way as to children about life in a non-frightening way - yet these upstart PCers, newcomers to the scene know what's best for ALL.  There's far more important/relevant things to be campaigning against - child porn for instance - but no, they're out there trying to get Little Jack Horner removed because he's uncouth and doesn't use cutlery.

As for this 'clean feed' thing, it will no more stop illicit porn being distributed across the net than putting on a medical mask to stop blood-borne contagions.  But, as usual, the government is meddling in areas it know little or nothing about and should leave well alone.  I mean, who (in any great number) gave the government permission to cut up/censor the internet so as to preclude everyone from something one or a handful deems as unsavoury? 

By all means, crack down on child porn... but that should not be the responsibility government.  Government has legislated it is illegal, and that's where its role should end. Now it is up to law enforcement to track down and prosecute offenders... to remove it wherever it is found.  No it should not be up to government to censor the internet and blanket ban all and any areas seen as unfit by a few to all persons.  If it does, the govenment will be overstepping its role... and authority.  Furthermore, what happens to art... the Norman Lindsay nudes if some pollie gets his/her knickers in a knot?  I mean, do they get removed from all Aussie internet because Miss So n' So, the Member for Prudish is offended by bare tits... er, 'spose I oughta be politically correct her... um, breasts?