Conroy: We didn’t claim filtering was a silver-bullet solution
|
In Bernard Keane’s response yesterday to my article before Christmas — “Filtering the facts: Conroy slips up when hitting back” — he again makes several claims that are wrong. The closest Keane is prepared to go in admitting he was wrong when he claimed that the independent Enex filtering trial saw 3.4% of over-blocking of the ACMA blacklist, is when he says he is conveniently, happy to “leave aside the point”. But he still wishes to dispute the independent trial report’s finding that all filters were able to achieve 100% accuracy in blocking the ACMA blacklist. Keane seems to think he has stumbled on some sinister secret in a paper written by one of the trial vendors — Watchdog. The fact that some participants, including Watchdog, had initial difficulties in loading the ACMA blacklist was no secret. As previously stated, the ISP content filtering pilot showed that a specified list of URLs can be blocked with 100% accuracy. I quote from the Enex TestLab report Internet Service Provider (ISP) Content Filtering Pilot Report:
These issues were resolved by the filter vendor making adjustments to the filtering device so that it would accurately block URLs of the nature described above. Contrary to Keane’s claims, these URLs were not removed from the testing process. The lists used in the testing, including the ACMA blacklist, were washed before testing to remove any URLs that were no longer live — that is, the URL no longer existed so the filter would not be able to find it. This is a process ACMA currently carries out periodically. Enex TestLab also checked the lists used for testing:
Keane also points out what he calls the “well-known problem” that blocking a YouTube page could cause problems to the load on the filter. The reason this is a well known issue is because it is in the Enex report (page 19):
As Keane points out, the issue is also addressed in the FAQs on the department website. Keane’s speculation of whether Google will comply with the laws of the Australian Government is interesting, however it should be noted that Google has operated within the Chinese regime for many years. It also abides by the laws in Thailand requiring it to filter from its search results any criticism of the Thai king and filters Nazi propaganda content from its German search results. As Keane points out there are many videos on YouTube “about euthanasia and suicide, some offering instructions or recommending it”. Euthanasia has long been a hotly debated and divisive issue in Australia but the fact remains that instruction in self-harm in Australia is a crime and therefore content containing such instruction is deemed Refused Classification under the National Classification Scheme guidelines. A time may come where instruction in self harm is no longer a crime under Australian law and such content would therefore not be deemed Refused Classification. People who object to this content being included in the filtering policy should turn their focus to changing the laws regarding euthanasia in Australia. Keane criticises the Department’s website for pointing out what RC-rated content is, but it is very clear from the opponents of the policy that either they do not know or are wilfully misleading the public. Colin Jacobs, the CEO of the Electronic Frontier Association, wrote in his article in Crikey on 21 December that “subjects such as abortion, anorexia, Aborigines and legislation on the sale of marijuana would all risk being filtered.” RC-content can’t be found on the library shelves, it is not available in the newsagency, you won’t see it in the cinema and you certainly can’t watch it on DVD or television. That is why the Government will continue to explain to the Australian people what RC content is. The Government has never claimed that ISP filtering is a silver-bullet solution and that is why our cyber-safety policy includes $49 million in funding for an additional 91 Australian Federal Police officers for the Child Protection Unit, additional funding for prosecution of offenders, $32.8 million for education and outreach programs for teachers, parents and students, research into cyber bullying and online threats, and the establishment of a Youth Advisory Group on cyber safety. Filtering is one component of the policy but unfortunately the rest of the policy is largely ignored by those who oppose it. |
|
|
|
Crikey's Guide to Julia Gillard
34 Comments
The rest of Labor’s cyber-safety policy receives vastly less attention — and yes, is perhaps at risk of being ignored — because one aspect of it stands out like a sore thumb.
The problem is broader than this, however: Labor’s fantastic policy work and achievements in the digital economy space — largely attributable to your office — similarly receives less attention and admiration due to the Internet filtering policy. It’s not evidence-based, it’s not future-proof, and it has been defended with hyperbole and threats.
Even worse, it is precisely the audience who are excited about your other work — on the NBN, structural separation of Telstra, and Minister Tanner and Ludwig’s work on open government issues — who are disgusted and concerned about this policy.
I’m a Labor voter, and frankly, my vote is unlikely to change over this issue. But it has shaken my trust, and led me to get involved in actions against this terrible policy from a government I otherwise support. It worries me that people in my age group and below (who are not as firmly in the Labor camp as I) won’t see past this policy when they reach the voting booth. It’s hard to win back trust after a terrible goof-up such as this.
Jeff Waugh
Online co-ordinator of the Great Australian Internet Blackout
I take it that all the different components of the “Cyber-Safety Policy” are intended to address or solve one or more perceived problems.
Could the Minister please describe, for the enlightenment of his detractors, precisely which perceived problem(s) the ISP-Level Filtering component is intended to address or solve, that cannot be addressed or solved by any of the other components of the policy?
Could the Minister also please describe precisely HOW the ISP-Level Filtering component is expected to address or solve the specified problem area(s)?
Ah, yes: “Not a silver bullet,” which is politician-talk for “We know this won’t work but we’re going to do it anyway.”
“The rest of the policy is largely ignored by those who oppose it” because if you take the “clean feed” out of the ALP’s (ridiculously-named) Cyber Safety policy you end up with something that’s largely supportable.
But even there the Minister isn’t quite on-point, because he misses the fact that some of us actually have spent time talking about other parts of the Government’s policy. For example, where he points out that his policy includes “$49 million for an additional 91 Australian Federal Police officers for the Child Protection Unit,” some of us have made hay about how that’s actually a budget cut, given that the previous Government committed nearly $3 million more for staff that’d have started work an entire year earlier. Rudd’s razor-gang cut it back and delayed it, yet now Conroy portrays the reductions as some kind of triumph.
Oh well. If he wants to draw attention to it that’s his loss.
The other thing the Minister has defended in this article is the use of the Refused Classification category for a mechanism to ban content for adults.
Despite his contentions in this article, the Minister knows that RC content has never been illegal.
Australia is unique in the world in having a “Refused Classification” category. In any other place, content is split into “legal” and “illegal,” and the classifiers deal with the legal bits and the police deal with the illegal bits.
In Australia, however, we still have, “legal,” and, “illegal,” categories like everyone else, but we have a third category which I could call, “legal but we’d really like you to think it’s illegal”: Content which law enforcement isn’t particularly interested in regulating, and which adults can enjoy in the comfort of their own homes without breaking any laws.
The moralizing lunatic fringe absolutely wets the bed in terror over this stuff, it’s extraordinary. And everything they don’t like gets shoved into it: Abortion, voluntary euthanasia, computer games, controversial cinematic releases like Salo and Baise-Moi which citizens of other civil and confident societies get to watch, enjoy and debate (are citizens of all other countries more emotionally mature, less intellectually fragile than Australians, that they can withstand the assults of Ken Park where Aussies can’t?). Margaret Pomeranz has some interesting things to say about RC, if only the Minister would listen.
We saw this during the Bill Henson controversy: Our Prime Minister couldn’t get out of his own way quickly enough, channelling Helen Lovejoy as he declared Henson’s photos to be “absolutely revolting,” as if the Prime Minister’s opinion was even remotely relevant. What was the very first thing the lunatic fringe did? Exactly the same thing they always do when something they don’t like appears in public: They went running off to the Classification Board to try to use it as a political tool by having them declare the content they didn’t like as “Refused Classification.” (Result: “PG”. Score one for the good guys)
Despite Conroy’s facile attempts to demonize it, the only practical purpose the Refused Classification rating serves is to create a category of content which is completely legal but which moralizing busybodies can try to ban anyway.
And I cannot for the life of me imagine why a social-justice-driven Labor Government, lusting after a “civil and confident society,” wouldn’t be leading the charge for the abolition of the RC category, rather than cementing it into Australia’s Internet infrastructure.
- mark
“No, no, Minister, the government will not explain to the Australian people what RC content is. We will explain to -you- what it is.”
“RC-content can’t be found on the library shelves, it is not available in the newsagency, you won’t see it in the cinema and you certainly can’t watch it on DVD or television.”
Interestingly, we cannot view it, but we can DO it. The Minister ought to explain why it is harmful for consenting adults to view something, but not harmful for them to do it.
“however it should be noted that Google has operated within the Chinese regime for many years”.
Shame on Google for actually complying with the will of a dictatorship, however i’m not particularly happy having to be lumped in with China in any way, shape or form when it comes to the internet censorship debate.
Also Minister, if send if your flunkies are reading this, I followed Bernard Keane’s wonderful advice a few months back and sent a letter to your office enquiring about a number of issues. A reply would be appreciated.
To MY humble mind, the single biggest piece of misinformation in this debate is the contention that RC is a single category.
RC is “That which could not be given a classification”.
From the ACMA website under the heading “What is prohibited online content?” we find the following information:
In most parts of the country, it is legal to sell, buy, posess & display (in a private premises) content that is rated X18+. As long as it is not on-line.
I am allowed to purchase a paper copy of an X18+, but I am not allowed to buy it for my Kindle, or read it in a web-browser.
This is not illegal content, and is not even Refused Classification when viewed as Film or Literature.
My problem is not with RC. It is with describing RC as if it is the same everywhere.
Well what’s the bet that Conroy won’t even respond to the comments here?
Where to begin…
“But he still wishes to dispute the independent trial report’s finding that all filters were able to achieve 100% accuracy in blocking the ACMA blacklist.”
It’s quite easy to find faults in the methodology of the trial. I reckon a primary school child could. If he seriously wants to hold the Enex trial up as the holy grail of evidence which everything should be based on, then surely they should have tested all the scenarios which will eventuate with the proposed system. Ya know, basic scientific processes and that. Where was the NBN? ADSL2+ speeds? IPv6? Testing for bugs in the censorware software? SSL, TLS, DNSSEC? The names of the tested products?
It’s no good saying that these weren’t available/couldn’t be bothered testing AND saying that the trial ‘worked’ and will ‘work’ when mandated to millions of households. If they couldn’t arrange these details to be tested, then arrange another test, don’t say “good enough and maybe people won’t notice”. No wonder people don’t believe the government spin.
He then quotes the report, which says:
“Following consultations with the product vendors, all issues experienced with loading URLs contained on the ACMA blacklist were resolved (page 11).”
…expecting that our reservations are resolved. Far from it. That’s like saying that a car had an issue of low fuel, then as soon as it was topped up, it proves that it can drive from Perth to Brisbane non-stop. A one sentence claim that problems were resolved, with no actual evidence to support this, proves nothing.
(removing false positives) “This is a process ACMA currently carries out periodically.”
Only after the blacklist leaked of course. It’s a wonder what embarrassment does for accountability, eh?
“Keane’s speculation of whether Google will comply with the laws of the Australian Government is interesting, however it should be noted that Google has operated within the Chinese regime for many years.”
I’m shocked. So because the Chinese government does it, it’s good enough for our democracy? Google.com.au is hosted in America, meaning that they don’t have to comply with any Australian government requirement. If ACMA thinks they will get Google/YouTube to take down content or perform IP bans, they’re kidding themselves.
“Keane criticises the Department’s website for pointing out what RC-rated content is, but it is very clear from the opponents of the policy that either they do not know or are wilfully misleading the public.”
So why is it that whenever Conroy quotes what RC is, it always has the qualifier of ‘includes’, signalling that there is more than we are being told? Pot, kettle, black.
“RC-content can’t be found on the library shelves, it is not available in the newsagency, you won’t see it in the cinema and you certainly can’t watch it on DVD or television.”
Why mention newsagencies instead of ‘shops’? Well that’s because some RC content can be shown in magazines in adult shops. It’s also legal to possess and view except for in Western Australia and parts of the Northern Territory. Similarly, if a video walk-through of a computer game which would be rated above MA15+ were classified, it would not be rated RC, but most likely R18+.
As I said earlier, it’s about time Conroy actually answers questions directed towards him, instead of bringing up half-truths and dodgy evidence all the time in response to criticism.
@Jeff Waugh “It worries me that people in my age group and below (who are not as firmly in the Labor camp as I) won’t see past this policy when they reach the voting booth. It’s hard to win back trust after a terrible goof-up such as this.”
You are rightly worried. I’m a swing voter, and a below-the-line voter too, with a tendency to preference Labor over Liberal. My partner and I live in the extremely marginal seat of Swan. And we can’t see past this policy. Moreover, after careful consideration, I’ve decided, as much as I despise the man, that if it comes to a choice between Tony Abbott and the filter, I’ll take Tony Abbott. I think we’ve got a better chance of undoing or stopping any idiocy he tries to enact than we’d have of getting the filter repealed. Our own history has shown us that censorship mechanisms do not get undone, but only get more repressive as time goes by.
My belief is strong enough that, if Labor goes ahead with this, you will find me working on behalf of Labor’s opponents come election time. Were it not for this policy, my Labor vote would probably have been assured based on other issues.
I’m with Bookbuster. Labor’s usually near the top of my preferences, but this is a deal-breaker. Labor’s going right to the bottom with Libs, under the gun-nut parties and white supremacists.
Why would anyone think the Libs, especially under Abbott, will be any bettter? Have to make sure the Greens have balance of power in the Senate.
RC might not be available in your news agent, but material in printed form that would be RC in film or on the Internet is legally sold in most Australian states (category 2 publication).
So much for bringing the Internet into line with other media. Other media was already all over the place for classification.
It’s odd that the Minister said “Keane criticises the Department’s website for pointing out what RC-rated content is, but it is very clear from the opponents of the policy that either they do not know or are wilfully misleading the public.”
I’ve lost count of the number of times Senator Conroy has described Refused Classification in the media as “Includes child pornography, bestiality and pro rape sites” but leaves it there. If the government is determined to educate the public on what RC really is, I’d love for the minister to stop short at only mentioning the worst subset of RC when defending this policy.
I’ve had a complaint on a youtube clip of some guys spray painting a train come back RC (was referred to the classsification board). I guess the sound bite is less punchy if you say “RC includes child pornography and kids spray painting trains”
In the meantime some parents seem to think Labor is about to make the Internet safer for their kids. The opposite is true if parents are tempted to relax their supervision because of this.
Well, this academic discussion about who said what and what RC content will contain or won’t contain is all very interesting. Still the minister has FAILED to provide any level argument about what this very expensive ‘filter’ will actually achieve.
Is it to stop people accessing content on the blacklist? No, its dead easy to bypass.
Is it to protect children from inadvertent exposure to maybe 1,000 - 10,000 URLs?
No, stumbling upon RC material is not a problem and the Minister still has not provided any evidence it is. Remember “Evidence based approach”
If it were to block 10,000 URLs out of possible millions upon millions that could fit under the broad category of RC it will not even block 1% of such content.
The Minister would like us to focus on semantics rather then actual substance.
If its not a silver bullet, then what is it?
Once again the Senator trots out the ’ never claimed it was a silver bullet’ line while once again ignoring the thousands and thousands of technologically minded people who have said “We *know* it’s not a silver bullet senator; it’s not even a blank bullet.”
Leaving aside the massive technical issues with the filter when will hear the Senator admit that the RC classification contains content that is perfectly legal for people to consume and view? The fact of the matter is that until there is a major overhaul of the classification system in this country it can not in any way be properly applied to the internet and its myriad of content.
Meanwhile, I’m perfectly happy to trust the Minister that on his watch, the only pages to be filtered will be those reviewed by ACMA and classified as RC…
… but as the whims and fancies of public opinion and morality change, along with ACMA’s sense of taste when it comes to classification, what then?
… and when another Minister is responsible for Communications, whether Labor or Liberal, what then?
I understand that the Minister may feel vilified or threatened by the outpouring of (immature and unproductive) bile against him… but as those fighting this policy all know: The true risk is not what Minister Conroy might do, but what this may tempt his successors to do.
Judge a man by the company he keeps:
“Keane’s speculation of whether Google will comply with the laws of the Australian Government is interesting, however it should be noted that Google has operated within the Chinese regime for many years. It also abides by the laws in Thailand requiring it to filter from its search results any criticism of the Thai king and filters Nazi propaganda content from its German search results.”
Outstanding stuff! This is actually a vote-changer for me; especially with the blacklist being kept secret.
m
Dear Senator Conroy
Add the YouTube address of Terry Pratchett’s speech on euthanasia to the secret black list. Add the address for the relevant comments on the Discworld web site. Add any page anywhere that mentions it. Including this one, and other bits of Crikey.
Go on. I dare you.
I do not normally engage in abuse but Conroy is a complete f*ckwit. He chooses to describe euthanasia as “self harm” stating and I quote from the “Epistle” according to Conroy:
“but the fact remains that instruction in self-harm in Australia is a crime and therefore content containing such instruction is deemed Refused Classification under the National Classification Scheme guidelines. A time may come where instruction in self harm is no longer a crime under Australian law and such content would therefore not be deemed Refused Classification. People who object to this content being included in the filtering policy should turn their focus to changing the laws”.
I would challenge this idiot to allow a national referendum on the subject as I understand that over 80% of Australians do not class voluntary euthanasia as “self harm” , but see it as a rational response to pain and suffering, especially for the terminally ill and infirm aged for whom a peaceful release from their suffering would be a blessing, and one that would be sanctioned by a merciful God.
Unfortunately right wing godbotherers like Conroy, for some perverse reason enjoy making others suffer for the sake of their own perverse dogma.
The controls that he is proposing to introduce a similar to those practised in China Burma and Malaysiato nominate three jurisdictions involving significant censorship, and these tools once created can play into the hands of despots. The thought of Tony Abbott with these controls fills me with despair. Freedom once forced it is very difficult to regain.
This proposal is the thin end of the wedge for censorship of any media content that “Big Brother” decides is not for our general consumption. This infrastructure will facilitate censorship of any topic at the window government bureaucrat or politician. If you want an example of how this censorship power is misused look at China. Imagine what Tony Abbott as the “Chief Information Minister” as the head of the “Ministry of Truth” (Apologies to George Orwell)
Some 50 years ago narrow bigoted religious minded individuals were trying to stop us from reading Lady Chatterley’s Lover, and it took a tremendous amount of public backlash and protest for this censorship problem to be resolved. The situation we have now is even more pernicious. Secret lists of topics and subjects will be prescribed at the push of a bureaucratic button without any recourse as you will not know what you are not allowed to see. Topics such as euthanasia in relation to which politicians pander to right-wing lunatics could easily be suppressed without our knowledge. Whilst ostensibly these controls are designed to control internet pornography, it is more likely that this is a more pernicious project to control the political landscape in terms of discussion. Nothing short of a complete and open disclosure of the banned information will ensure that these proposed controls are being used for the appropriate purposes. It should be necessary to get a Supreme Court judge to issue a formal order in relation to the banning of the information, and this information published in the daily law lists, with the opportunity for objectors to be heard.
However as it is reasonably well-known that “porn freaks and geeks” are able to get around these controls one is forced to the inescapable conclusion that these people are not the prime target, but that this is an excuse to allow corrupt politicians to control the information landscape. The recent response from Sen Conroy’s office does nothing to dispel any concerns in relation to potential political censorship.
@steerpike: The Minister has already admitted that RC contains content that is perfectly legal for people to consume and view. He’s done so in this very article.
Our poor, demented Minister said:
The Minister has answered questions in Parliament about this, so he knows full well that the Refused Classification material he’s described in this paragraph is 100% legal for people to read, view, buy, and debate.
This is the content he wants to ban online.
The Minister justifies this by saying (as he did last year) that “Most Australians acknowledge that there is some internet content which is not acceptable in any civilized society.”
Where he falls down is by going on to assert that the Refused Classification category describes that content.
It clearly doesn’t — Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this debate about it!
Now, I’m not sure that even he believes the words that come out of his mouth anymore. He’s just punching the clock now, and the only reason the policy is proceeding to legislation is because he told us it’d proceed to legislation. There’s no real reason, justification or demand for this policy. The only reason it still exists is because it’s the policy. Censorship isn’t a means to an end for this Government, it’s the end itself.
- mark
I am far more worried about the government’s plans to censor content than I am about my children seeing unsuitable material. My children are also afraid that the censorship will interfere with their study and make it harder to research topics such as euthanasia. Stephen Conroy should look at what has happened in SA and understand that the public may not get excited at first but they will soon enough. The government has picked a loser on this one.
Conroy’s filter will ban images of naked, small breasted women.
http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/
This is offensive and derogatory to all Australians!
Saying that the “pilot showed that a specified list of URLs can be blocked with 100% accuracy” is akin to pronouncing that your test shows one plue one is two. Of course Sen Conroy can claim success with criteria like that.
It just baffles me why Labor is persisting with plans to censor the internet. They and Conroy are well aware by now that the filtering technology is easy to circumvent. They also can’t rule out that internet speeds will slow down because they haven’t tested all possibilities with regard to bandwith, etc. They also know that the filter could create a false sense of security for parents therefore making parents supervise their kids even less. They know it’s all a waste of taxpayers money. In fact, the whole thing is a mess.
They also know that internet censorship in any form is deeply unpopular. All polls conducted to date show an overwhelming majority of Australians opposed to mandatory filtering.
Yet they persist.
Why?
Either Conroy and Labor are just being dumb and/or stubborn, or there is a hidden motive we have yet to work out.
What I also find interesting is how Rudd has avoided mentioning the filter - not one word, not a single peep - so even Rudd knows that if he begins talking about it, the masses will be fully alerted to Labor’s disgusting plans and the public will revolt, just like they did this week in South Australia.
So why, I ask again, is Labor persisting with a policy that is not only unpopular but is also a complete dud?
@Anthony:
Leader Rudd actually has mentioned the policy: In particular, he explicitly mentioned it as one of the topics he said he’d discuss during his youth webchat on 22 October 2009.
Turns out he actually lied about that, and wasn’t really interested in discussing it. When chat participant jamincanberra challenged him on it, Rudd palmed him/her off to Kate Ellis’ “national conversation” website and otherwise refused to engage.
Cowardice, much?
- mark
Hang on, isn’t RC content illegal to distribute in any format in Australia? By my last reading of the legislation that was the case.
That would make it illegal to distribute on the internet as well?
The legislation also states that some types of RC content are also illegal to own. Have a read.
So if some forms of RC are illegal to own, and all forms are illegal to distribute or show to others, what’s the legal problem with RC being put on a blacklist? The law supports it. Get the relevant law changed if you want internet users to be able to view RC content in Australia in the future and the matter is resolved.
You can argue forever whether it will work or not, that has rarely if ever stopped legislation.
@ WTH
Yes it is indeed illegal to distribute RC content in Australia, but with respect to the Internet, the distribution comes from the servers overseas (which don’t have such restrictive censorship laws as we enjoy in Australia), making the distribution similarities void. The *only* valid comparison is whether the content is legal to possess and view, and practically everything in the RC category is legal to possess and view - distribution is irrelevant in this censorship debate.
No, WTH, RC is not illegal to distribute in any format in Australia.
Frowned upon by a screeching minority? Yes.
But illegal? No.
You can head on over to amazon.com and buy yourself a copy of “The Peaceful Pill.”
http://www.amazon.com/Peaceful-Pill-Handbook-Revised-International/dp/0978878825/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260883024&sr=8-1
Or Ken Park (available on a region-free DVD, just right for us Aussies):
http://www.amazon.com/Uncut-Uncensored-Region-Larry-Clark/dp/B001AZKB8K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1265204293&sr=8-1
Or Bais Moi (region-1 and region-4, again, just right for us Aussies):
http://www.amazon.com/Violame-Baise-Moi-America-English-Options/dp/B000Q2JP1W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1265204332&sr=8-1
… or all sorts of other RC material which adults in other jurisdictions are deemed to be mature enough to view without psychological harm, even as the pantywaist hair-shirted tut-tutters in our Parliaments declare that we Australians are too fragile to be trusted with them.
(read the reviews, see what citizens of other nations can enjoy without government interference)
These books and films are legal to buy, own, read, watch, give away to other Australians, debate, and ponder. They’re illegal to sell or display publicly within borders patrolled by Australia’s quivering, terrified politicians and bureaucrats, but you weren’t going to do those things anyway, right?
As Crispin Harris said above, the Rudd Government wants to move us to a world where it’s perfectly legal to buy hardcopy and DVD versions of these publications and films, but where we won’t be able to see them on our Kindles and iPads.
Does that actually make any sense?
- mark
“Does that actually make any sense?”
Chewbacca Politics.
labor is leaving this mess til AFTER the election, then say well you voted us to do it to you ? We should make this a election issue or dont vote LABOR and vote Greens in the senate to stop this censorship, you know greens are the only chance to stop this CENSORSHIP filter.
“however it should be noted that Google has operated within the Chinese regime for many years”
I found this statement particularly telling.
“People who object to this content being included in the filtering policy should turn their focus to changing the laws regarding euthanasia in Australia.”
It seems alittle strange you advocate debate on these subjects yet lead a campaign to block access to information on the subjects.
The recent SA electoral reforms raise some interesting questions, just how seriously do Australian politicians take the constitutional right to freedom of political speech?
Also the decision in the iiNet case seems to indicate that the end user is solely responsible for how they use the internet, how does an ISP level internet filter fit into this equation? I wonder how the High Court would view ISPs being forced to filter content to all end users?
“Either Conroy and Labor are just being dumb and/or stubborn, or there is a hidden motive we have yet to work out.” Enter the AUSTRALIAN CHRISTIAN LOBBY.
C’mon, how much clout can a political action group possibly have?
Were you aware that during their ’07 electioneering for the Christian vote, John Howard and Kevin Rudd committed 189,000,000 tax dollars to an anti-pornography scheme during in a live simulcast that was organised by the Australian Christian Lobby? At the last election the Managing Director of ACL, Mr. Jim Wallace told ABC TV’s Lateline program he expected the Christian vote to have a big impact on the coming election. Unsurprisingly, it was at this event that the politicians revealed the $189 million anti-pornography initiative. The same evalgelical lobbiest Jim Wallace: “To be truly effective, it is important that the list of sites to be blacklisted be continuously updated and that the parameters for blacklisting sites and material are similarly continuously reviewed,” he said [ACL Press Release, February ‘08].
This from Senator Christine Milne, “The Australian Christian Lobby is a private company, it’s a lobbying company, and like every other lobbying company it lobbies on behalf of its clients and it was not clear to us who’s funding the Australian Christian Lobby and where they were coming from …before we see this incursion of really fundamentalist religious right into Australian politics, people need to know where it’s coming from, and I think Mr. Wallace could clear that up by actually saying who’s funding the Australian Christian Lobby [www.abc.net.au Nov ‘07]
Senator Allison says the separation of church and state is becoming blurred: “The Prime Minister this morning said that there were a great number of Members of Parliament in Coalition ranks with very strong ties to the Christian church … I know this is a Christian country but people with very strong religious views are heavily over-represented, if I can put it that way, in the Parliament,” she said.
Does it particularly matter that the scheme and the technology is a completely lame duck? “Yes Minister” Kevin Rudd is intent on blindly going where no leader outside of China, Iran and Saudi Arabia has gone before - in full knowledge it is totally ineffective. Holly Doel-Mackaway with Save the Children, the largest independent children’s rights agency in the world, said educating kids and parents was the way to empower young people to be safe internet users. Doel-Mackaway noted the claims by the internet industry that the filters would be easily bypassed, would not block content found on peer-to-peer networks and chat rooms and would be in danger of being broadened to include legitimate content such as regular pornography, political views, pro-abortion sites and online gambling.
If you check the facts as put forward by Senator Conroy you’ll discover Internet filtering is ostensibly set in place to shield children from ‘child pornography’ - which is an absolute sham. I’d like to see an amnesty of, say, 24 hours whereby any decent Australian might attempt to find a single image of true child pornography on the Internet - just to prove how ridiculous this assertion from groups like the Australian Christian Lobby [ACL] and the Rudd camp actually is. If you wish to have groups like the ACL dictate what you can see on the internet, that is entirely your prerogative.
Of course, you are well within your rights to OPT-IN to a private or Government funded ‘Net Nanny’ type service. I personally don’t wish to have a man that eats his own ear wax - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8 - telling me anything … especially a Prime Minister who kowtows to a right-wing political action group that decries everything from Darwinian ideas of human evolution to homosexuality, and indeed anything they decide is un-Christian.
What does “appropriate content” constitute precisely? You already have a filter in your operating system that will do a better job. Are you prepared to allow a public servant decide what you do or do not see? If we all sit back and allow back-room bureaucrats and the ‘idiot fringe’ to decide what we are entitled to see online at the ISP level, as opposed to OPT-IN filtering, we’re going to Hell courtesy of born again ‘let-me-shove-my-views-down-your-throat’ clowns. If a family chooses to opt-in to this filtering, no problem - at least the rest of us will not be subjected to mandatory censorship.
JOIN the millions of moderate, sane Australians who give a %$#@. Write to your MP now - because this goes before parliment this month. Let politicians know in no uncertain terms that those that elected them can just as easily un-elect them.
http://www.internetblackout.com.au/ & http://www.efa.org.au/censorship/mandatory-isp-blocking/
The Dummies A-to-Z Workaround Guide to Internet censorship – a sterling example of how inadequate and laughably wasteful of taxpayer dollars Internet proxies render the Rudd Government’s censorship scheme. While this page is still 100% legal to circulate today, and you’re encouraged to do exactly that, it is highly recommended you save the webpage offline as it will most certainly be blocked under the proposed ‘clean feed’ legislation. On PC & Mac, right-click and then select “Save Page As …”. Store the file as HTML in a folder and enjoy the Internet as it should be, thanks to Boing Boing
http://boingboing.net/censorroute.html
This kind of argument railing against government policy is all very well, but it would be a lot simpler to pass around the internet these simple facts:
If you type “https://vtunnel.com” into your browser’s address box, and the address of the blocked web-site into the vtunnel address box, you will have by-passed the filter, and it is perfectly legal.
If you don’t want your web browser to keep a record of where you have been on the internet or what you saw, you should tell your browser to start a private browsing session:
Internet Explorer 8 > Tools > InPrivateBrowsing >
Firefox > Tools > Start Private Browsing >
ANTHONY: There is no logic when it comes to all the religious busybodies whose efforts to have Australia living back in the 1950’s appear to be succeeding. Kevin Rudd is a typical example of a middle-class twat who imagines all Australians approve of his prune-nosed comments about Bill Henson’s photos. Dear Kevin from many thousands of kilometres from Sydney, while in Shanghai, looked at a dim image of a small child-undressed- and pronounced it to be absolutely disgusting.
During the 1950s Spain, under Generalissimo Franco had the most draconian censorship laws in the world. (he was a devout catholic) Now Spain has one of the most liberal censorship conditions on earth, and Oz, saturated with religious bigots-on either side of politics- is heading back to Spain of the 1950s.
Unfortunately we, who are against rabid censorship, are far less organised than the bigots. By speaking loudly yet doing little we forfeit the right to fight for a civilised nation. How is it the religious people are so well funded?
This is where I would be asking the question ‘Why?’ Why are we allowing it to happen?