I'm not sure whether they've yet realised that, despite repeatedly using the term 'distributed', they're still designing a Honeypot(TM)?

Blacklisting of the highlighted example (digital) items via the internet filter was never enacted in practice, other than during selective trials - as far as I'm aware.

It's important to remember that plans to introduce national filtering were first publicly announced mid-way through Labor's past term. The policy was quietly shelved (albeit not indefinitely - Conroy became less vocal in regards to promoting the policy) during the later stages of Labor's re-election campaign.

It's still a significant threat. Labor likely realised such policy would lose them a portion of (not so insignificant) youth votes. Expect it to quietly emerge again at some point.

This would require some form of proactive, and morally decisive entity. The MPAA are not qualified to act in such ways.

That's a fair point. I probably wouldn't be spending what precious funding I had on unnecessary resources, either.

They've definitely proved they're capable at:
- Hiring the most annoying voice over guy.
- Over use of the word 'unlimited.'

Thankfully they have UNLIMITED POWER at their disposal to prove any further developments.

The post was intended as clarification (for those unaware) that the NBN was proposed (by the same party - Labor) well before 'clean-feed' or filtering of any form had been publicly mentioned, or suggested in Parliament.

It's debatable whether the government's original intent for the NBN was for use as a means of filtering/monitoring. I've only highlighted that any form of filtering was proposed well after the original NBN announcement (and Labor's rise to power). Not before, as suggested in your original post.

I'm not sure if you're unaware, or conveyed that message unintentionally because, at least at the beginning, it wasn't simply a case of 'hadn't worked it out.'

Except the NBN was proposed as in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election. Policy regarding filtering wasn't mentioned (at least publicly) until after the party had gained power.

Just to clarify, both ISPs have elected to be involved in the program - yet neither of which will (if I'm understanding this correctly) allow their users to opt out? Surely this is a breach of the contract terms/conditions.
Introducing mandatory filtering to customers (who, in the case of either ISP, are likely bound by 24 month contracts...) falls slightly outside the bounds of 'we reserve the right to alter terms and conditions at any time.'
This is far beyond a sick joke.

Well, certain manufacturers believe it's their right to remove/prohibit 'extra functionality' following release (even when devices are purchased on the premise of said 'extra functionality'). There is that.
In an ideal world...

It may not be a direct link, but there's definitely cooperation between the two parties. Weren't DHS planning on using Facebook as the distribution medium for a revised emergency warning/notification system?

Based on personal experience, the issue seems to start with executives, rather than the Generation Z underlings mentioned in the article. Usually in the following order, Executive: - Hears of new device. - Purchases said device. - Preaches (corporate) virtues of recently purchased device. - Demands device be catered for (and managed/monitored) within workplace environment, regardless of impracticality. Sound familiar? As an aside, who's to say those mentioned in the article are going to be in a position to dictate which devices are/aren't managed? After all, *they* are seeking employment.

I'd have to agree with the above comments. Telstra doesn't deserve any credit for compliance alone. It's expected. Many people seem far too willing to forgive/forget within a short period of time. They delivered what was expected of them after an extended period of inaction. That is all.