It’s been nearly a week since Conroy hailed the Tassie ISP filtering trial a success. Here’s an overview of what other bloggers are saying about it:

‘The mainstream media in Australia has been outraged by the Internet censorship in China, but seems to be paying no attention to its rise in their own backyard.’ – Coenraad van der Westhuizen, Thoughts into the Void

‘That censorship will no longer deliver 75% drop in speed doesn?t make 22-30% acceptable. Any cut in internet speeds places Australia at a further disadvantage in the information age.’Duncan Riley

‘The Minister for Immigration, Senator Chris Evans, has said he has too much power with regards to the decision of individual cases. I?m not sure that a subsequent conservative government would say the same over their powers to censor Australians? internet access.’ – Sam Clifford, Public Polity

‘It seems that Senator Conroy is acting at the behest of Family First Senator Steve Fielding and the Australian Family Association, and is on a bit of a moral crusade. Child pornography is the new WMD and it’s the argument being used to curtail Australian freedoms and to squash debate.’ – Sean, Sean the Blogonaut

‘Perhaps the most sinister part of this debauchery is the implications as to where our nation is heading. The only countries in the world today who have enacted such overreaching Internet filters are China, Burma and North Korea ? none of which are known for their high standard of civil liberties.’ – Ashley Kyd, Off Topic with Ashley

‘This situation is perfectly analagous to the Government legislating that the post office needs to start checking inside the envelopes for inappropriate material before sending them out for delivery. It’s a whole different business than just routing letters based on postcodes, and would require a whole new staff. (Just ask the North Korean postal service). If you can imagine how such a situation might slow down mail delivery, then you can imagine why network performance would drastically degrade if content filtering was mandated by the Government.’ – Colin Jacobs, NoCleanFeed

‘If such a system is implemented I believe the Australian Government will anger and frustrate many website owners both overseas and locally. Processing blacklist removal requests will be a major undertaking that will incur continuous monetary, time and implementation costs.’ – Simon Pascal Klein,

‘Beyond such issues about the wisdom and scope of government censorship, there?s also the question of whether such centralized filtering poses other concerns about the extent of government authority. Many people will be put off by the prospect of national governments playing the role of national nanny via centralized network filters. (Fill in your own ?Big Brother? or China analogy here). But many others will be left wondering what else such a move subsequently allows the government to do in terms of network snooping and surveillance. And there are other concerns here regarding the ongoing cost of the process (who pays for network upgrades?) and how else those resources might have been used.’ – Adam Thierer, The Technology Liberation Front

‘In other words, each time the filter blocks something there is an about even chance that it wasn?t porn. In my opinion this is sufficiently damning evidence to show the worthlessness of any of these filters.’ – Alastair,

‘I’ve been using a filtered ISP at my university (they’re running a trial) and what I can do online at home in one minutes takes the better part of fifteen at work.’ – John S. Wilkins, Evolving Thoughts

‘How long will the Rudd government continue to pretend that having this cumbersome, costly and ineffective product shoved at us under an opt-out scheme is in any way a good idea?‘ – Tigtog, Hoyden about Town