Stephen Conroy is probably more out of touch with the internet then most of us imagine;


“New” technologies?

The first laptop was commercially released in 1975, wireless internet first debuted in 1985, 1983 saw the first mobile phone as we know them released, Myspace has been around since 2003 and the first website appeared after the creation of the world wide web in 1990.

Stephen Conroy’s lack of grasp on just how established some of the technologies are he’s charged with managing could be at the root of his mismanagement of the nation’s broadband interests.

With the recent developments regarding the leaking of the ACMA blacklist potentially undermining a vital piece of Labor’s broadband strategy, I thought i’d have a closer look at Stephen Conroy’s promises, deliveries and achievements since taking office as Australia’s Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

Although not related to the proposed mandatory filtering I want to preface by briefly having a look at the National Broadband Network (NBN). First brought up in 2007 as an election promise it was heavily debated prior to the election; Conroy proposing fibre to the node whilst his opponents pushed wireless.

Here’s Conroy promising that in 6 months from December 2007 he will be ready to roll out the network and further to that have people connected at “12 megs” by the end of 2008.


It is now almost mid 2009, and he hasn’t even chosen a tenderer to start building the network.

Last year Conroy appointed a panel of experts with the aim of assessing “proposals to build the National Broadband Network“. Already months behind schedule Conroy claimed that “the Government will formally call for innovative and competitive proposals to roll-out the new network with a view to having construction underway by the end of 2008.”

The formal report was finally delivered to the government in January this year, a month after Conroy had proposed construction was to have  begun.

Astonishingly upon receiving the report Conroy immediately declared that “the report’s contents would remain secret throughout the negotiation process.”

His reasoning?

The disclosure of the contents of the panel of experts’ report before the completion of the process, particularly any negotiation phase, has the potential to prejudice the outcome of the process.


Isn’t that the entire point of the report?

Frustrated with the lack of communication and updates in the months following the submission of the report, TechWired put in a request under the freedom of information act to see the report. The request cost $3631.99 and was backed by ISP IInet on condition that TechWired published the report.

Conroy denied the request.

After promising that “the competitive assessment process will be open and transparent” Conroy denied the request on the grounds that releasing the report would be “contrary to public interest“.

Yes, Conroy expected us to believe that the details of the report assessing proposals to build a public broadband network were actually against our interests to obtain.

As of yet there have been no further announcements or developments on the state of the network.

I move now onto Conroy’s internet filtering scheme. Like the NBN it was also announced as a pre-election promise and currently is being trialled by several small ISP’s. The results of the trial will no doubt also not be in the public’s interest to obtain.

Conroy was very adamant about the state of the internet prior to the 2007 election. He was didn’t like the way broadband in this country was heading and proposed a revolution;


So what is the great solution to bring us out of the “digital dark ages”?


Mandatory internet filtering. Nothing and I mean nothing screams progression from the digital dark ages then a mandatory internet filter. It should also be noted that the “filth” Conroy is reffering to isn’t pounding on your door trying to break into your house, children (and adults) have to actively go and look for it.

It’s not like children in Australia are watching their favourite cartoons online and all of a sudden they’re flooded with bestiality popups.

Even if the filter was in place there is no guarantee that Conroy will have saved the children, although that doesn’t stop him trying. Watch as he ridicules the previous government’s attempts at protecting children whilst asserting that his own filter is guaranteed protection;


Unfortunately for Conroy it has been well documented that school children will be able to bypass his filter in as short a time as it takes to load a website;

Any school kid will tell you that bypassing internet filtering is ridiculously easy. One simple trick is to use a free web proxy, which acts as a middle man between you and the site you want to see. You’ll find a long list of free web proxies and other such sites at FreeProxy.ru

Conroy has heavily sold the idea that the filter will only be used to protect children;

Labor makes no apologies to those that argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road.

If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.


In principle and despite the complete absolution of parental responsibility, it sounds like a decent objective. The problem however is the blacklist the filter will be using;


Firstly he mentions that the ACMA blacklist contains “mostly child pornography” which begs the question why are children trying to access child pornography in the first place?

Secondly, if ACMA is distributing a blacklist of child pornography sites, by proxy doesn’t that mean the government is actively distributing child pornography themselves?

Thirdly the list, which lists 1172 urls, has been publicly leaked on March 20th and is available here, goes well and truly beyond the scope of child pornography.

So far nobody has been able to get a straight answer out of Conroy as to just what “unwanted content” will cover. Watch Greens senator Scott Ludlam directly ask Conroy to define “unwanted content” only to have Conroy laugh and waffle on completely avoiding the question;


As I’ve noted previously, the leaked list, cited March 18th and March 17th and which is not to be confused with the refuted list released a few days earlier dated August 2008, contains links to Youtube, PartyPoker, Wikileaks, an anonymous redirect service, Rapidshare, Abbywinters, Wikipedia, several other legal .AU adult sites, www.ballroomdancing.com.au and practically all major online poker sites.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg! One can only wonder what exactly makes up the other 8,828 urls to reach the 10,000 urls Conroy states the trial blacklist contains.

Following the release of the blacklist, Conroy came out guns blazing and declared that the original August 2008 leaked list was fake. Despite claiming this however, he also stated that;

ACMA is investigating this matter and is considering a range of possible actions it may take including referral to the Australian Federal Police. Any Australian involved in making this content publicly available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution.


Even linking to a site on the list which apparently nobody knew the contents of risked a hefty fine of $11,000 AUD a day. The frustration of being told to not link to sites on a list allegedly nobody had access to was not lost on the public, even Conroy himself has vented frustration at the ACMA in the past;


Yes Stephen, it is frustrating being told to avoid distributing information from a list you have no access to.

The blacklist contents aren’t the only dubious component of the filter however, the purpose of the filter beyond the facade of child protection has been a hot topic of discussion. After publicly “ridiculing suggestions that the trial is “the thin edge of the wedge” – the beginnings of a Government cracking down on political dissent, Conroy has just recently announced a crackdown on blogs such as my own;

THE Government will begin trawling blog sites as part of a new media monitoring strategy, with documents singling out a website critical of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy for special mention.

The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy revealed it is looking for a “comprehensive digital monitoring service for print and electronic media”.


One can only assume that the reason such blogs need to be monitored and targeted is to add them to the master blacklist. It is probably not in the Australian public interest to view them.

Earlier in the month Conroy told a conference in Germany that it was “a really positive sign that the Singaporean Government had given up monitoring blogs.”

For now there doesn’t seem to be much that the public can do in regards to this filter. The government is hell bent on giving off the impression that they are going to go ahead with it regardless of what the public thinks. Several rallies have been held nationally to no avail and complaint letters sent to MP’s are being replied to with automated letters thanking you for your input.

Steven Johnson from Stop Funding Israel seems to have better luck then most. He actually called up Conroy’s office and tried to get some answers.

Part 1:


Part 2:


Sadly it seems to be mostly the same old regurgitated answers read off a piece of paper the rest of us have been getting.

That’s pretty much my thoughts on why we cannot trust Stephen Conroy when it comes to internet filtering in Australia. As we hurl down the path of internet censorship which will surely be marked as dark days for online freedom in Australia I’ll leave you with some solemn words from the Minister himself.


No we won’t Stephen, so how about you stop dragging us further behind by leading us down a path the country does not want to go down.

Related posts that might interest you:

1. Stephen Conroy admits internet filter is useless
2. Conroy can't guarantee only child porn will be filtered
3. The future of Australian internet under Stephen Conroy
4. Stephen Conroy vs. Google: Who are you going to trust?
5. Australian internet filtering trial has no success criteria