tip off

NSW Parliament’s flawed porn hunt

NSW Christian Democrat leader Fred Nile says he didn’t access pornography from his parliamentary computer. Maybe he’s right. There was an audit, yes. A flawed audit. Of a flawed internet usage policy.

According to the presiding officers, Legislative Council president Amanda Fazio MLC and Legislative Assembly speaker Richard Torbay MP, a preliminary audit report on 1 July listed “potentially inappropriate” websites that had been accessed through the parliamentary network. This report did not identify specific users.

A secondary report identified “a small number of users with internet usage patterns that may require further investigation” to see if policies had been breached.

The information contained in both reports, however, is not reliable as it does not provide reporting that would indicate whether a user has accessed a site inappropriately,” the presiding officers said in a statement.

In both reports, a recorded ‘hit’ includes access to a legitimate site, such as a newspaper site, which may contain links to other sites that would be categorised as adult content.”

NSW Parliament’s Internet and Email Usage Policy says it is unacceptable to “knowingly down load [sic], transmit, communicate, access or receive pornographic or sexually explicit material, images or other offensive material unless there is a legitimate business use.”

There are also two internet filtering policies, one for parliamentary staff and one for Members and their staff. Both block access to the same material: “adult content; gambling — includes online gambling (and all associated sites); gaming sites — includes on line [sic] games and gaming sites”. However while parliamentary staff are automatically blocked from accessing this material without prior approval, this filtering is only applied to Members’ offices if they request it.

All three policies say that internet usage is logged – which presumably makes it legal – but there are still privacy concerns.

It doesn’t appear that they had terribly clear objectives when they started out with the audit, and as a result they’ve got information that doesn’t help them very much,” the chair of the Australian Privacy Foundation, Professor Roger Clarke, told Crikey this morning.

Clarke says parliament may have been “ignorant” about the practicalities of studying people’s internet behaviour. “Pages that you visit are seldom what they seem … All of this referral nonsense means there’s all sorts of things appearing on your page.”

There are all manner of things that can be judged to be ‘adult content’. Speech and patterns of speech can be judged to be adult content. What on earth are we doing filtering things like that, especially in a parliament?”

The filtering policies also state that “the Parliament may monitor information, files or usage on a random or continuous basis” to ensure compliance with policies, investigate conduct that’s illegal or may “adversely affect the Parliament, its Members or its employees”, or to prevent inappropriate or excessive personal use. Records of internet usage are retained for seven years.

The period of retention sounds to me to be ridiculously long,” Clarke told Crikey.

I would have thought that there are grounds for retention over the relatively short term, and I’m talking here in terms of a month or two, not seven years.”

Crikey understands that Parliament’s presiding officers are working on another statement, to be released “as soon as practicable”.

23
  • 1
    Socratease
    Posted Friday, 3 September 2010 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Crikey understands that Parliament’s presiding officers are working on another statement, to be released “as soon as practicable”.

    Meaning as soon as they can spin their way out of it, LOL!

    I love the bit about the filter being optional for Members.

  • 2
    Posted Friday, 3 September 2010 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Either way Rev. Nile said his staffers (not himself, mind you) were doing research that involved viewing adult content.

    Makes you wonder what other kind of “research” goes on in his office…

    http://www.currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

  • 3
    monkeywrench
    Posted Friday, 3 September 2010 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Jorge @3:19
    Rev. Fred needs to know what people actually do to each other, as no-one ever told him at Sunday School.

  • 4
    Socratease
    Posted Friday, 3 September 2010 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    LOL at the image of Fred Vile and his brethren accessing 200,000 porn sites and tut-tutting at each one.

  • 5
    SBH
    Posted Friday, 3 September 2010 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Well sure I know that the audit doesn’t actually prove Fred Nile is secretly salivating over hungarian hotties but where’s the fun in that

    More seriously, Parliament is a workplace and as an employer has an obligation to provide a workplace free from harrassment. Reasonable internet use policies promote this worthwhile goal.

  • 6
    Posted Friday, 3 September 2010 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    This is a story that gives and gives.

    Well done for introducing the privacy issue. Amazingly, I think it’s the first time I’ve noticed the angle mentioned in any of the reports so far . That says something about the culture we’ve created for ourselves.

    The comment by Professor Roger Clark sums it up for me really: “What on earth are we doing filtering things like that, especially in a parliament?”

    Mainstream politicians, who’ve for so long pandered to moral panics over the internet and pornography, are now getting a taste of the same kind of repressive medicine they’ve been all too willing to prescribe for the rest of us. I hope they learn the right lessons.

    Meanwhile, one of the nation’s leading protagonists behind successive moral panics over these topics, confronted with evidence that his own office computer has raunchier weblogs than most (in what appears to be a highly-sexed Parliament!), claims his office accesses pornography only for ‘research’ purposes!!!

    Is that ‘defense’ available to others Reverend Nile - or just to you and your employees?

    To put his good character beyond doubt, Fred Nile could publish his weblogs. Detailed analysis might establish whether the viewer was enjoying the experience or not. Challenged to do so, he’d doubtless use the Conroyesque argument that he can’t, because it would encourage others to view wicked internet destinations.

    That’s where Conroy’s great innovation - the ‘retired judge’ - comes into its own. How about a retired judge analysing Fred Nile’s weblogs to assess the veracity of his ‘research’ claim?

    I wonder… would former High Court Justice Michael Kirby like the job?

    Kirby could also be tasked to carry out spot-checks on the weblogs of parliamentarians whose erratic behaviour arouses suspicion. He might well want to check out Bill Heffernan’s weblogs, for example. And Stephen Conroy’s?

    Justice Kirby could report regularly, in general terms, on the more novel parliamentary weblogs. He tells a great yarn and his reports to the nation would be very entertaining.

    Above all, he help answer the mystery so crucial to the nation’s future: when politicians view pornography, is it really the devil’s work or a virtuous act of self-sacrifice?

  • 7
    Acidic Muse
    Posted Friday, 3 September 2010 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Does anyone actually care if Fred Nile is occasionally whacking off over dwarf porn aside from his own supporters and obsessive God botherers like David Clarke?

    Syd, we seem to be totally as one on the privacy issue. I fear that if we dont put these wowsers on a leash soon (something many of them would no doubt enjoy immensely), personal privacy will become something future generations will only learn in history lessons

    I much prefer my local member was spending 5 minutes punishing his private member whilst surfing the Internut, than having him take the entire afternoon off for a rub and tug on his expense account

  • 8
    John
    Posted Friday, 3 September 2010 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    @Syd Walker
    “He might well want to check out Bill Heffernan’s weblogs.”

    Bill doesn’t use a computer at all.
    Even his emails are printed by his staff and given to him to read.

  • 9
    Juffy
    Posted Friday, 3 September 2010 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Acidic Muse - of course we don’t care what Nile’s kink is. But he, and the rest of the Christian lobby, are all for compulsory internet filtering to stop us whacking off to OUR kinks in the privacy of our homes (never mind our workplaces). From the CDP’s website:

    CDP affirms that mandatory filtering at Internet service provider level should be introduced to exclude all material which would be classified X or refused classification.”

    That’s right, even the legal stuff should be banned. Unless you’re doing parliamentary research, of course.

  • 10
    Posted Friday, 3 September 2010 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    Does anyone actually care if Fred Nile is occasionally whacking off over dwarf porn?”

    It’s comments like that what make writing for Crikey worthwhile. Probably. Also, I’ve had complaints about that mental image.

  • 11
    Acidic Muse
    Posted Friday, 3 September 2010 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    @Juffy

    I suspect we’re in complete agreement on this subject of censorship but given the many wowser control freaks in the ALP so compliment those on the right of Australian politics, I suspect we’ll be running into brick walls on this issue for some time to come.

    I remain eternally hopeful Labor will one day crunch the numbers and realise their Internut filtering wet dream will lose them at least as many urban progressive votes than the suburban social conservatives ones it *may* gain.

    In the meantime I’ll continue to make mirth about that which I fear may not be easily changed.

    @Stilgherrian

    mea maxima culpa ..I’ll self flaggelate accordingly and try not to enjoy it too much :)

  • 12
    Posted Saturday, 4 September 2010 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    This morning The Australian is saying the parliamentary audit counted news.com.au and smh.com.au as adult sites because they contain advertisements for and links to “adult” dating sites. The more we dig into this audit, the more stupid it sounds.

  • 13
    Chris Johnson
    Posted Saturday, 4 September 2010 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Stil, on that premise you’d expect every MPs office to have recorded hundreds of thousands of hits on adult sites? What made McLeay’s sex-bet surfing spree so distinguisable from the rest?

  • 14
    Posted Saturday, 4 September 2010 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    >>>>What made McLeay’s sex-bet surfing spree so distinguisable from the rest?

    His full and frank confession, I suspect. Product of a Catholic upbringing? :-)

    He might have been better off consulting Fred Nile first.

  • 15
    Posted Saturday, 4 September 2010 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Did I hear right that the speaker (president?) of the upper house (Amanda Fazio)did not authorise the audit, rather Torbay as speaker of the lower house did with authority for LOWER HOUSE admin, and catching the upper house web logs was really beyond jurisdiction? Or was it a joint sting by Upper and Lower. As staff all know there is an LA and LC office for each house.

    Another question - what if a staffer in their lunch hour on gmail accesses email with porn links? Even my landlord sends me dubious strings at times, which can be a time waster. Is that actually the employer’s business? Probably it is, because it is using the employer’s equipment, but it would be quite extreme to ban gmail use in staff lunch hour, in my view, and then there is accessing crikey in lunchhour over the preferred browser? (The very business model invented by The Main Mayne Man back in the day.)

    It seems to me if it’s not illegal content then on what legal basis is the House(s) policy and in turn what legal basis is the audit applying the policy? No doubt a communications/privacy lawyer will have some responses on these queries (!). I can fully see the political purpose of an audit but really not convinced about legalities.

  • 16
    Acidic Muse
    Posted Saturday, 4 September 2010 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    @Stilg

    It’s not just the links to adult dating sites, it’s also filters picking up on salacious language in the sexed up trash they serve up as “news”.

    Whilst I personality consider much of what News CrapOration publishes “profanity” for purely ideological reasons, I’m not surprised a lot of their celebrity gossip and titillating tales of social dysfunction rates as “adult content” in the eyes of the moral majority. Not doubt a lot of Fairfax gossip girls like Sam Brett’s sexed up columns would fail to pass muster with the censors too. In this weeks column she “inspects America’s top-selling sex toys.”

    This is why we simply can’t allow a small cadre of bureaucrats who are constantly at the mercy of the brow beating moral minority to filter the Internet on our behalf.

    If we do, benchmark for “adult content” will naturally devolve into anything that might seem mildly shocking to an 8yo Amish child.

  • 17
    dogspear
    Posted Saturday, 4 September 2010 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    As much as Fred Nile shits me to tears, and as much as I’d like to see his anti-democratic and unchristian party swiftly booted, I’m really glad you brought this up and calmly pointed out the ridiculousness of it all.
    If there was more impersonal and coolheaded observation from the over reactive media, the uncontrollable freak show that passes for politics these days would quickly become irrelevant.

  • 18
    Liz45
    Posted Saturday, 4 September 2010 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    I’ve never heard either of the two mentioned, Nile and David Clark ever go in to bat for or against anything other than to do with sex! How often have they even spoken out against war or WorstChoices or pollution or some other important social issue? How do they justify their incomes? I live in NSW and can’t think of anything of substance either of them have contributed to this state let alone the country. Are they on any committees? Do they visit constituents in their place/s of school or work? What do they do? Answer = very little! They’re both bigotted, ugly and repressed people who have a real problem with their own sexuality I suggest, let alone anyone else’s? They’re both misogynist and hateful people in my view! I don’t want their standards dictating to me what I should or should not see etc. As usual, they won’t be geting my vote next March!

  • 19
    Michael Noonan
    Posted Saturday, 4 September 2010 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Of course Fred’s staffers were only accessing the porn sites for research purposes. Just as I’m sure that they only used to buy Playboy for the articles.

  • 20
    Liz45
    Posted Saturday, 4 September 2010 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    @MICHAEL - Of course, Michael! Do you get angry when you think politicians, or anyone for that matter is treating you as though you’re either deaf, dumb, blind or stupid? A baby! No memory?
    Drives me nuts!

    How many different answers did Nile give? Three? Why tell lies?Covering up the truth is just another form of lying - isn’t it?

  • 21
    Mack the Knife
    Posted Sunday, 5 September 2010 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    Let’s be honest, Fred Vile probably even hates his own blind freddie and the fact that most people have sinful naughty bits for him to watch the devil’s p0rn.

    Mind you, I hadn’t considered dwarf p0rn as a possibility so you never know…

  • 22
    Posted Monday, 6 September 2010 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    @Chris Johnson: There is an implication, though not a clear statement yet, that the report the Daily Telegraph got their hands on was not one of the two reports officially produced. That is someone with access to the reporting software produced their own report and leaked it.

    @Tom McLoughlin: The official statement from NSW Parliament’s presiding officers, which I’ll post somewhere shortly stand by, says that they as presiding officers didn’t commission specific reports, but that the reports were part of a risk audit to ensure IT and internet acceptable use policies were being followed.

    I guess any organisation is entitled to have rules for the use of its resources, and can investigate misuse. But whether the policies in this case are fair and reasonable is another matter.

    I’m still poking around this story, so there may be more to come.

  • 23
    Posted Monday, 6 September 2010 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    The full interview with Prof Roger Clarke is in this week’s Patch Monday podcast. There’s also links there to the NSW Parliament’s internet usage policies.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...