Photo © AAP Image/BILL BACHMAN/Wildlight

I woke up to the news last week that our new PM intends to support Communications Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy's proposed mandatory internet filter. Then I woke up again screaming in a cold sweat, and it was all just a nightmare. Then I opened the paper and I was like, "wow, what a clichéd way to start the day"!

That's right. Our new PM will push ahead with the highly criticised secret internet filter, in what many have said is a misguided and technically flawed attempt to rid the internet of child pornography for all Australians.

On ABC radio, Ms Gillard took on the role of Yoda, declaring her support for the proposed filter for the first time, and stating that she wanted to control the "dark side" of communications technology. "Images of child abuse, child pornography - they are not legal in our cinemas,'' she said. ''Why should you be able to see them on the internet? I think that that's the kind of moral, ethical question at the heart of this.''

Unfortunately, the PM's impersonation of the lovable Jedi was flawed, mostly because she failed to take the first words of her sentence, and simply add them to the end. But also because if I know Yoda, and I'm fairly sure I do, he wouldn't support a draconian secret communications filter.

The PM's support for the filter has come as a surprise to experts, who had hoped Julia Gillard would use her new position to reassess the validity of the proposed mandatory filter. Vocal critic of the plan, Colin Jacobs from Electronic Frontiers Australia, says he suspects the internet filtering is not a field of expertise the PM understands too well.

"The government is stuck in the past. They need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a policy that fits the way people live and communicate in the 21^st century", Jacobs says. "I would ask the Prime Minister to listen to what constituents are saying; listen to what the young people of Australia are saying. They know this technology is flawed and really, they want the government to make the internet better and faster, instead of taking us two steps back".

Jacobs is not alone in his criticism for the proposed filter. Many civil libertarians and even IT giants, such as Google, have questioned the moral and technical capabilities of the proposed filter.

I suspect the Australian Federal Police, who are the main law enforcement agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting child sex abuse material on the internet, would also be questioning the need for the filter. AFP research has indicated the overwhelming majority of cases of child porn distribution occur with the use of peer-to-peer technology, which distributes data directly from one computer to another, bypassing any such filters. And of the billions of websites in the world, Senator Stephen Conroy knows of less than 400 that actually publically contain images of child sex abuse.

Since the controversial filter has been proposed by the Communications Minister, a recurring point of Senator Stephen Conroy's argument has been that he wants the internet to be safe for all Australians, including children. However, in March, a Microsoft survey revealed 65% of Aussie parents take no precaution, such as a home-based internet filter, to protect their children online.

So the question has to be asked, if Aussie parents are not opting to filter the internet for their own kids themselves, why is Julia Gillard getting behind a $44 million filter for all of Australia? Surely all that money would be better spent providing the AFP with more resources to investigate the secret distribution of child porn, thus protecting children the world over, from this intolerable crime?

Won't someone please think of the children?

UPDATE: Since writing, in a slight win for common sense, Senator Conroy has announced the Gillard Government will delay the internet filter proposal until a full review of the classification system can be undertaken. But according to Conroy, both he and Gillard remain committed to introducing the internet filter in the future.