As if Australians weren't riled up enough over their government's Internet filtering initiative, the level of discontent has risen amid recent revelations that certain filters will not be optional, as citizens were first led to believe. Criticism is building against Australia's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, and now Australia's ISPs are joining the dogpile.

The Australian government first unveiled its filtering initiative in 2007, expected to cost AUS$189 million to implement. The money would be used to help ISPs cope with filtering requirements using the Australian Communications and Media Authority's official blacklist, which is, in turn, based on the country's National Classification Scheme. Despite widespread public outcry, Australia began testing the system in Tasmania earlier this year. At the time, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) claimed that the filters would be enabled by default, but that consumers would be able to request unfiltered connectivity if they wished to opt out of the program.

In October, however, it came to light that those claims were only partially true. It turns out that there were actually two blacklists—one that filters what the Australian government deems illegal, and one that acts as an "additional material" blacklist that targets content inappropriate for children. Users in the tests could only opt out of the "additional material" blacklist; the original blacklist for vaguely-defined "illegal" content would be required for all users. When this news came out, a spokesperson for the Australian Communications Minister confirmed that the filters would be required for all Australian citizens.

That brings us to where we are today. Michael Malone, an executive at iiNet, one of Australia's big ISPs, referred to the filtering trials as "ridiculous," according to The Age. Still, he plans to participate in them when they start on December 24? Why? Because he hopes to provide the Australian government with actual data on the pointlessness of such a system. "They're not listening to the experts, they're not listening to the industry, they're not listening to consumers, so perhaps some hard numbers will actually help," Malone said.

Malone went on to say that the filters were simple to bypass, would not even look at P2P traffic, and would significantly impact network speeds. Other ISPs in Australia seem to be skeptical about the tests as well—both Optus and Telstra are "reviewing" the government's plan and will decide at a later date whether to participate. Of course, hard numbers from iiNet may not help as much as Malone thinks, as the government previously funded three separate studies that showed ISP-level filtering to be ineffective and more costly than other alternatives. The government appears to already know the system doesn't work, and doesn't care.

During a Senate questioning session, Communications Minister Conroy avoided answering questions about the dual filtering system and comparisons to countries like China and Saudi Arabia. "We are aware of technical concerns with filtering technology, and that is why we are conducting a pilot, to put these claims to the test," Conroy said, according to The Age. When pressed about how the government would define "unwanted content," Conroy pulled a Sarah Palin and simply stated that he couldn't answer those questions but that he would get back to the Senate with more info.

Malone had some harsh parting words for Conroy. "This is the worst Communications Minister we've had in the 15 years since the [internet] industry has existed," he said. Ouch.