The invention of the Internet was one of the greatest advancements of the modern world. It allowed people from all over the world to communicate with each other and share ideas. Other than that it is a free platform. Unlike television and radio, it costs nothing to put your idea on the internet, making it a basis for personal expression. This freedom, combined with global access, attracts approximately one billion users worldwide. Unfortunately, just as easily as information is produced, it is abused. The Internet, while mostly used appropriately, is home to all kinds of illegal activity. They range from phishing scams, attempting to steal someone's personal data, to viruses, malicious code attacking a person's computer, and websites that are morally questionable or illegal under Australian law. To combat this problem, the Rudd Government has initiated action to impose Internet filtering at Internet service provider level. An Internet Service Provider is any company that provides Internet services to its customers. The most notable of these is Telstra, one of the major internet service providers in Australia. This filter will prevent access to a list of websites, the blacklist, in Australia. This is a great plan in theory, but in reality, once implemented, it will have little effect on preventing illegal activities from occurring on the Internet. The main arguments against the proposed filter are the cost of the filter, the ineffectiveness of the filter in stopping illegal activity, and the possibility that the blacklist will expand to block anti-government websites. One of the main flaws of the proposed filter is the uselessness of preventing crime. . The Internet is a huge computer network, and web pages are just one use of this…half of the paper…it soon becomes clear that this filter is no longer aimed at Internet crime. Under the proposed legislation, all RC content, content refused classification by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) as well as X18+ content will be blacklisted. This shows that the government changed the filter's objectives when it became clear that internet crime will not be stopped and is instead offering a "protect children" reason for the filter. The proposed Internet filter is not only an imperfect concept, but an expensive one. If implemented, it will do little to nothing to prevent online crime. The cost of the filter far outweighs any benefit, and the potential for abuse in the future is scary. Viruses will continue to exist, phishing scams will continue, illegal movie downloads will continue to exist, and pedophiles will continue to receive child pornography.