The development comes as tech blogs, lobby groups and companies, including internet giant Google, have continued to point out technical problems with the Enex Testlab report, which the Government is using to prove its filtering technology is ready for use.
But Greens senator Scott Ludlam has said in a statement the report actually exposes the flaws involved in the filter.
"Despite the release of a discussion paper that tacitly acknowledges the huge concern this proposal has raised, and the flaws in the existing blacklisting process, the Government is intent on ploughing ahead," he said, also noting his party will seek significant amendments to the bill when it appears in Parliament.
The report itself states technically competent users could bypass the filtering system.
Meanwhile, NSW Labor MP Penny Sharpe has said in a blog post she believes the filter is a "backwards step".
"I add my voice to the many that understand that the Federal Government's proposals to filter the internet are a waste of time, a waste of money, a false promise to parents that will not stop kids being exposed to undesirable content online [and] a move towards censorship that a democratic and free nation like Australia should reject," she said.
"The solutions include the far more difficult, time consuming and gradual process of education for all citizens, especially parents and kids, greater policing and investigation, greater resourcing to support families and communities and continuous law reform in the areas of privacy and communications," she said, adding she urged the Government to consider an alternative.
Opposition leader Tony Abbott said he was open to proposals but ''on the other hand, I don't want to see wider censorship [or]... the internet destroyed as a tool for people's education or... businesses".
Former High Court judge Michael Kirby also said in a 2UE radio interview that the filtering system runs the risk of having a global impact.
''I understand the problem that is being addressed, but it is an entirely different approach than the approach taken elsewhere in the world."
The Australian Sex Party also pointed out that blocking content refused classification would mean blocking 95% of pornography sites hosted overseas, which have broader classifications with regards to their X-ratings.
But the reactions outside Canberra have continued to escalate. A report from professors Catherine Lamby, Lelia Green and John Hartley from the universities of UNSW, ECU and CCI respectively, says the filter would not work as planned and would block legal material.
"According to the most recent data only 32% of the sites on the Australian Communication and Media Authority [ACMA] blacklist related to child pornography," the report found.
"The figures indicate 68% of websites on the blacklist were blocked for reasons other than child pornography, including content that has been classified R18+, X18+, RC and unspecified."
Additionally, internet search giant Google has even given its opinion on the filtering system, saying it is "concerned" by the Government's plans.
"RC is a broad category of content that includes not just child sexual abuse material but also socially and politically controversial material - for example, educational content on safer drug use - as well as the grey realms of material instructing in any crime, including politically controversial crimes such as euthanasia," Google said in a statement.
"This type of content may be unpleasant and unpalatable but we believe that government should not have the right to block information which can inform debate of controversial issues."
The company also said it believes free speech critical to Australia's ongoing reputation of an open and democratic society.
"Political and social norms change over time and benefit from intense public scrutiny and debate. The openness of the internet makes this all the more possible and should be protected."
University of Sydney associate professor and communications expert Bjorn Landfeldt has also said the Government has not addressed whether the benefits of the filter will outweigh the impact of having legal content blocked.
"There's no clear definition of refused classification that can be debated in society... [and] once you put a label such as refused classification in place, that doesn't mean that the meaning cannot be changed," he told The Age.
Meanwhile, news of the filtering system has spread across the world with major news organisations in the US and Britain reporting on the story.
Related Items :
written by TrueOz, December 17, 2009
It was not based on a scientifically proven double blind trial, it was not based on a representation of the true number of users on the internet, 1 of the ISP's in the trial only had 15 actual users agree to participate in the trial & every single one of them on the trial complained bitterly that their internet was broken.
The next most important thing to remember is that even if the technology did work, internet CENSORSHIP is not capable of addressing the real problems children & adults face on the web.
Finally and despite Conroys assertions to the contrary (yah right we all believe politicians) there is only 1 outcome that Krudd, Conroy & the Labor party want & that is to ensure they have absolute control of all forms of the media so as when they stuff up there is no way for the general public to become aware of the stuff up.
Worst of all in all of this Krudd waits till he was out of the country so he could avoid scrutiny of this decision & the imbecile Conroy waited till just b4 Xmas to announce it in the hope that the storm it has created will die down while he & Krudd take a break.
I've got news for you Krudd & Conroy this storm will not die down & all you have done is give those of us who are vehemently opposed to your lunacy time to get together & get organised.
Cheers