“POSITION VACANT: FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS MINISTER”
The Australian Federal Government would like to open applications from the community for the position of “Federal Communications Minister”. Applications are requested to consist of a well-considered letter, demonstrating a deep understanding of the communications and internet industries, policy therein, and modern technologies as applicable to communications policy on a national scale. Please download a list of questions from our website which you must answer in your application.
“APPLICATION FOR POSITION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS MINISTER FROM STEPHEN CONROY ESQ”
Dear Australian Federal Government,
I am writing to apply for the recently advertised position of “Federal Communications Minister” within your organisation. I believe I have the perfect blend of skills, understanding, and experience to ably fill the role to the requirements specified, which I will detail below.
- Please explain your understanding of how a mandatory filter of “refused classification” material might work?
“As I understand it, you would pass all internet traffic through a blacklist system, and end users would be denied access to any URL for which they have requested access that appears on the blacklist. To set the vocal kiddie-porn loving minority on the internet straight, I would make it clear that unless the URL they request is on the list, their request will not pass through a filter.”
- Who were/was the founder of the massive internet company Google?
“Eric Schmidt.”
- Are you able to outline your idea on how you would sell the idea of mandatory internet filtering to the Australian population?
“The previous federal government had a policy of offering internet filtering software to anybody who wanted it. This policy was an abject failure as only around 30,000 people took up their offer. The failure in their policy was that it was not mandatory. I will sell a mandatory filter to the Australian population by taking this clearly difficult decision away from them. I believe that Australian parents are not equipped to understand what they do and do not want their children to view on the internet.”
- Do you believe that a mandatory internet filter on “refused classification” material will protect children as a whole?
“Absolutely. If children cannot see such vile and disgusting material on the internet, clearly they are protected from it.”
- If a mandatory internet filter was introduced, do you believe that the blacklist on which it is based should be kept secret?
“Of course. When a 100% accurate filter is implemented, this list should be kept secret so that people in Australia are not only protected from this vile and disgusting material, but they are protected from the knowledge of its existence. Might I add, currently in Australia, you cannot buy this material on DVD, you cannot see it in magazines, you cannot buy it from a bookshop, and you cannot host it on internet servers within Australia or see it on television.”
- Do you believe a vibrant and vigorous debate on the potential implementation of a mandatory internet filter in Australia is important in terms of maintaining the integrity of the Australian democratic system?
“Naturally. I would seek to make sure that all relevant information is not only available to all Australians, but also that it is easy to locate so they can make their own informed decision on the debate, before I go ahead and implement the filter anyway.”
- Australian television broadcast laws have very specific guidelines with respect to minimum levels of Australian content – how do you believe this will apply to the emerging IPTV technologies?
“Unfortunately, we will not be able to filter IPTV services coming into Australia from other countries, because they are not bound by the same URL specifications as web content.”
- What does “URL” stand for?
“I don’t know. Let me call Eric Schmidt, the founder of Google, and I’ll ask him and get back to you.”
- Do you understand what a “Distributed Denial of Service” (DDoS) attack is?
“It is when a pizza-eating, Pepsi-sculling bunch of nerds send kiddie-porn and bestiality – (which would be blocked 100% accurately by a mandatory internet filter, and is currently not available on DVD, cannot be seen in magazines, cannot be purchased from a bookshop, and cannot be hosted on internet servers within Australia or seen on television) – to fax machines, denying people the ability to send and receive facsimiles.”
- Would you be frightened that people would compare an Australian mandatory internet filter to the so-called “Great Firewall of China”?
“Absolutely not. Australia is not China, and we hold democracy in the highest of regards. The Australian people have already shown they do not agree with an optional internet filter – (see answer to question two) – so clearly they have voted that an optional filter will not work, and that a mandatory filter is their preferred option – demonstrating the power of democracy.”
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Conroy Esq
“YOUR APPLICATION FOR POSITION OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS MINISTER”
Dear Mr Conroy,
We would like thank you for taking the time to prepare an application for the recently advertised position of “Federal Communications Minister”. We received a great many applications, many of which were of high quality.
Unfortunately, yours did not fall into this category, and we regret to advise you that we will not be proceeding with your application at this time. Using our “Future Reference Machine” technology, we have provided feedback in regards to the questions required in your application.
The position is now a two-horse race between the “Evil Monkey that Lives in Chris Griffin’s Closet” from the television program “Family Guy”, and a small Kazakh child from the village of Tamabulak, who just received her computer from the OLPC program.
Frankly, your application was so bad, we request that you do not seek employment with any federal or state government body at any time in the future. Thankyou for your interest in the Australian Federal Government.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Rudd
- “As I understand it, you would pass all internet traffic through a blacklist system, and end users would be denied access to any URL for which they have requested access that appears on the blacklist. To set the vocal kiddie-porn loving minority on the internet straight, I would make it clear that unless the URL they request is on the list, their request will not pass through a filter.”
This answer is particularly strange – if all traffic is not passed through the filter, how would you know if the requested URL is on the blacklist or not? FUTURE REFERENCE
- “Eric Schmidt.”
Say what? Perhaps you should have used Google for this one! FUTURE REFERENCE
- “The previous federal government had a policy of offering internet filtering software to anybody who wanted it. This policy was an abject failure as only around 30,000 people took up their offer. The failure in their policy was that it was not mandatory. I will sell a mandatory filter to the Australian population by taking this clearly difficult decision away from them. I believe that Australian parents are not equipped to understand what they do and do not want their children to view on the internet.”
Very strange answer – the previous government made this optional software available for free, yet only 30,000 people took it up – does this not suggest that perhaps nobody wants their internet filtered, rather than it being an endorsement of mandatory filtering? FUTURE REFERENCE
- “Absolutely. If children cannot see such vile and disgusting material on the internet, clearly they are protected from it.”
They are protected from viewing it, if the filter is unable to be bypassed. Have you not considered the fact that because this material is on the internet – (and still will be even with a filter in place) – that children all over the world are being sexually, mentally, and physically abused in its production? FUTURE REFERENCE
- “Of course. When a 100% accurate filter is implemented, this list should be kept secret so that people in Australia are not only protected from this vile and disgusting material, but they are protected from the knowledge of its existence. Might I add, that currently in Australia, you cannot buy this material on DVD, you cannot see it in magazines, you cannot buy it from a bookshop, and you cannot host it on internet servers within Australia or see it on television.”
Does this not strike you as anti-democratic? By keeping such a list secret, would you not be tacitly admitting that the filter would be able to be easily bypassed, hence the need to keep the list secret? Does this not suggest that such a filter would be a complete waste of time and taxpayer funds? FUTURE REFERENCE
- “Naturally. I would seek to make sure that all relevant information is not only available to all Australians, but also that it is easy to locate so they can make their own informed decision on the debate, before I go ahead and implement the filter anyway.”
Our “Future Reference Machine” has determined that in the midst of trying to sell this policy to the Australian people, your own website deliberately obscured access to material relating to mandatory ISP filtering. FUTURE REFERENCE
- “Unfortunately, we will not be able to filter IPTV services coming into Australia from other countries, because they are not bound by the same URL specifications as web content.”
Again, our “Future Reference Machine” has found countless mentions of your belief that URLs are “just URLs”, and that any URL on the backlist would simply be blocked by the filter. We even found a reference of yourself speaking on radio saying “you can’t regulate the internet” in relation to IPTV. IPTV services are located via URLs – so why not just add those URLs to the blacklist if you are concerned about their non-Australian content? FUTURE REFERENCE
- “I don’t know. Let me call Eric Schmidt, the founder of Google, and I’ll ask him and get back to you.”
You would be well advised to call someone like Eric Schmidt, as I am sure he would know the correct answer, which is of course “Universal Resource Locator”. Note the use of “universal” and its application to the location of resources, with further regards to the previous question related to IPTV.
- “It is when a pizza-eating, Pepsi-sculling bunch of nerds send kiddie-porn and bestiality – (which would be blocked 100% accurately by a mandatory internet filter, and is currently not available on DVD, cannot be seen in magazines, cannot be purchased from a bookshop, and cannot be hosted on internet servers within Australia or seen on television) – to fax machines, denying people the ability to send and receive facsimiles.”
Wrong – (what else did we expect?) – the “Future Reference Machine” found a quote from your department that says “the attacks were not a legitimate form of political statement. They were “totally irresponsible and potentially deny services to the Australian public”. That’s the idea. They are making a political point by bringing their plight to the attention of the Australian public – thereby making it by definition, a “political statement”. Further, imposing a mandatory internet filter upon Australian internet access is also actually “denying services to the Australian public”. FUTURE REFERENCE
- “Absolutely not. Australia is not China, and we hold democracy in the highest of regards. The Australian people have already shown they do not agree with an optional internet filter – (see answer to question two) – so clearly they have voted that an optional filter will not work, and that a mandatory filter is their preferred option – demonstrating the power of democracy.”
We don’t know how to respond to this. The “Future Reference Generator” has shown that you cannot answer even the most basic of questions in regards to this potential internet filter without resorting to calling opponents “supporters of kiddie-porn and bestiality”. We feel that you know too much about these subjects. FUTURE REFERENCE