Scaremongering About Australia's Proposed Filters

In addition to my last post regarding Australia's proposed mandatory Internet Filter, this is a copy of a comment that I have just posted in response to Phillip Malone's post, Second Life, Skype, Even Google Won't be blocked by The Australian Government?, which was itself a response to Duncan Riley's recent post, Will Second Life, Skype, Even Google Be Blocked By The Australian Government?

Whilst I agree that some of what Duncan points out may be slight exaggerations, I believe it highlights the problem with the policy as it has been presented to the public to date - we don't know what is going to be blocked under the new filter, and therefore Duncan's suggestions could, in fact, be possible at this stage. The comment I left for Molly is as follows:

I think the main point that many folks are trying to make with these claims (which I agree are often exaggerated) is that, from what the public has been told so far, it's not possible to say what will and won't be filtered.

I've not seen anywhere refer to a black and white classification system of what will and won't be blocked under this policy. Regardless of any of the (considerable) technical problems, we're effectively at the whim of whoever is running the programme once it is in place. Is there a government document setting out what is and isn't acceptable content?

From what has been publicly released thus far - a few phrases with non-specific terms such as "objectionable content" - the only thing that we can be certain is to be on the list (and quite rightly so) is child pornography. However the question is still wide open as to what else could be on that list. The fact that the classification system is not public and transparent is a huge problem.