michaelwyres.com.au | musings of a geek

Funny Tweet Spam

Was just trawling through my list of Twitter followers, and stumbled on this one – (clearly a spam account) – and a “visit to the doctor”:

Can’t have gone too well at the doctor, I figure!

Cause and Effect: The Scope of Mandatory Filtering

I stumbled across a very apt blog post this morning in regards to what is becoming “our” internet filtering debacle, from Zoe Beaumont’s Naked Girl Blogs.

It is important to understand the “persecute the many to prosecute the few” concept that she raises, and which I find to be actually very apt – you just need understand the context in which the word “persecute” is used in this instance.

The proposed internet filter WILL have an effect on all internet users in Australia – you may not individually directly notice the effect, because more than likely, you are not seeking to view the material the filter is seeking to block.

But the costs to you – (in terms of the operational costs of the filter passed onto to you by your ISP, and the drop in speed – despite what Conroy will tell you) – are real.

In this context, the “persecution” we will suffer is that this internet filter will operate under the assumption that everyone is out there searching for kiddie porn – (or bestiality, or whatever Conroy is into this week). This assumption imposes a degradation – (performance, usability) – upon the internet, even if you’re not searching for this rubbish.

Ask yourself when was the last time you accidentally stumbled upon ANY kind of porn on the internet?

Never?

This demonstrates the minute scale/scope on which the filter will have any real effect on its stated goals. We will all suffer (read: be persecuted) due to a tiny problem as identified by a small, influential lobby group, with no understanding or acceptance of the real problem.

The real problem is that kiddie porn is PRODUCED – not that it is available. Although not ideal, its “availability” makes it easier to track down whoever PRODUCED it, because the trail is there for authorities to follow.

That Old Brocky Magic

In what would turn out – (eventually) – to be Peter Brock’s ninth and last Bathurst win, here is some simply amazing footage of the man himself, displaying the absolutely superlative car control we always knew he had.

After coming home third on the day, the “winning” and “second place” Eggenberger Texaco Ford Sierra’s were firstly cleared of having illegal fuel by the Tuesday after the race, but found to have illegally modified wheel arches and associated body work to allow them to run larger tyres on their cars. Their disqualification saw Brock, and co-drivers Peter McLeod, and David Parsons elevated to the winning position.

It took until June 1988, but Brock was declared the winner. Though it has been almost four years since he was killed in the Targa West Rally in Perth, it is difficult to comprehend that given he competed right up until his death, that the man who is best known for his Bathurst exploits, won his last Bathurst race TWENTY THREE years ago. It just doesn’t seem so long.

Enjoy a slice of pure Brock magic!

Scoreboard!

Three words – “Essendon defeated Carlton”.

Kyle Reimers even had a chance to point out the condition of the scoreboard to Dennis Armfield, who felt it was a good idea to give Reimers a mouthful, even after kicking the match sealing goal!

Not Just Wrong About Filtering – Conroy Lies About It

The issue of the potential for a mandatory internet filter in Australia has shown itself to be highly emotive in recent times. Indeed, many people have taken many different stances on the whole debate, and it is probably fair to say nobody, not the least Stephen Conroy himself, have all the answers.

Many have taken very spiteful and vitriolic postures in the debate. At times I have even myself, posted very pointed material on the matter. While I feel very strongly about this issue, I have always sought to back up my stance with as much FACT as I have been able to muster.

Stephen Conroy himself delivered a post that was highly critical of a post by Eliza Cussen in which she sought to spell out the apparent – (or obvious) – mis-truths emanating from the minister and/or his department.

To give whoever writes Senator Conroy’s copy some credit, as pro-filter advocates they structure and present their side in a most convincing manner. Any John or Jane Citizen reading this copy is quite conceivably going to absorb it in just the way the minister wants it to be absorbed. These words are generated and polished within a highly organised political machine, with a track record of producing excellent spin. Spin of course, is not necessarily the truth, and this is what the minister is relying on.

Average John or Jane Citizen on the street knows little or nothing about the internet. They use it to read their local newspaper sites before breakfast, or over their first coffee in the office. They pay their bills through their internet banking systems, and dabble in a little Facebook to keep in touch with their friends, while browsing and deleting the latest spam in their inbox. That really is about all they do online.

So when they read a cleverly crafted piece such as Conroy’s The Punch article, it all seems like “a bloody good idea” to John and Jane Citizen. If not for the misinformation.

Nobody is arguing that child pornography is a “good thing” – far from it. It is abhorrent, and it’s very existence personally makes me sick to the stomach. This filter is however nothing to do with child pornography, no matter how you try and paint it. A turkey is still a turkey, no matter if you paint it red, green, orange, pink or brown. If it looks like a turkey, sounds like turkey, and walks like a turkey, chances are it is an ACTUAL turkey.

Simon Hackett of Internode has today presented a piece that is as equally well crafted as that of Senator Conroy and his department, with the added benefit of presenting some ACTUAL facts.

Whenever faced with structured, reasoned, factual articles in response to his filtering proposal, Conroy regurgitates from a standard list of pre-prepared and inaccurate sound bites.

Such as the ever-popular – “our filter is 100% accurate”. Who could forget – “you can’t buy this material on DVD, you can’t get it in bookshops or in magazines, you can’t see it in cinemas and you can’t watch it on television”. When painted into a corner, he just makes stuff up, and there have been plenty of examples.

One would hope that when Senator Conroy was given the communications portfolio that he demonstrated some knowledge and understanding of the communications arena. Time and time again, he has failed to demonstrate even basic knowledge of the industry. Presented below are things that the minister has actually said or done, in many cases, spoken from his own mouth.

If his position was one in the corporate world, he would not only not get the job, but he quite possibly would not even get to the interview stage. I wrote a satirical piece a couple of days ago in a similar vein, but here it is in black and white.

Minister Conroy said in his Punch article – “Unless the URL’s requested are on the RC Content list, the web traffic will not pass through a ‘filter’.” — Exactly how will he know if the requested URL is or is not on the RC Content list, if he doesn’t pass it through a filter? Clearly, a lie or a complete misunderstanding of the concept. His OWN concept.

In the same article, Minister Conroy said – “We have never said ISP-level filtering alone would help fight child pornography or keep children safe online.” — Yet on the Channel Ten program “The 7PM Project”, the minister clearly said at the 3:07 mark of his appearance that “this filter is only designed to block webpages that are defined under the classification processes as “refused classification” – that’s child pornography, pro-bestiality sites, pro-rape websites, and material like that”. So even though he says in one breath, it is ONLY about BLOCKING these sites, he says in another that there is more to it?

One of the minister’s favourite lines is – “You cannot buy this material on DVD, etc” — however, as pointed out by Simon Hackett you quite clearly CAN get it on DVD in Australia. Yet another lie or complete misunderstanding.

Heading back over to the minister’s appearance on “The 7PM Project”, it was clearly stated with reference to the 4:57 mark of the interview that – “it’s banned on Australian hosted ISPs today, it’s not banned because we can’t ban international websites, we can’t ban material hosted in foreign countries” — meaning that if it is in Australia, he can have the content taken down, but if it’s overseas, he has to block it. So there should be no Australian sites on the list, right? So how did the sites of a Queensland dentist, dog kennel, and tuckshop end up on the blacklist? Is the minister lying again, or is the system he wants to introduce administered in a completely inept fashion?

In his appearance on the ABC Radio National program “Australia Talks”, with reference to the 00:36 mark of this excerpted version of the interview, the minister quite clearly said – “the government’s plan is to require ISPs to block a very defined list of URLs of material that is described under Australian laws as “refused classification”” — yet when he appeared on ABC Radio National’s Breakfast program, he said “you can’t regulate the internet”. While in the context of the possibility of Australian content requirements for IPTV services, it’s curious that he says ISPs will be required to block a specific list of URLs under the banner of “refused classification”, yet “you can’t regulate the internet” in terms of IPTV? Aren’t IPTV services accessed via URLs? Can’t he just add those URLs to the list if they don’t serve minimum Australian content purposes? Wouldn’t this be the possibility for the broadening of the scope of the filter we fear?

The minister also regularly and clearly demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the industry his ministerial portfolio has the most direct influence over. Referring back to the minister’s appearance on the “Australia Talks” program and the 2:25 mark of this excerpted version of the program, he referred to the founder of Google – “Mr Schmidt said, if you have something you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place, this is the founder of Google!” — if the minister has any right to inflict an unwanted filter upon the people of Australia, if he has any right to think he has the position to even comment on the industry, should not he know who the founders of Google are?

The minister clearly does not appreciate the damage this policy is doing to Australia’s international reputation. Google themselves have expressed great concerns, as have Yahoo! and others. Noted podcaster Leo Laporte and regular contributor and media commentator Jeff Jarvis have also had their say, along with the US State Department. International agency Reporters Without Borders has also placed Australia on its watchlist of countries with the potential to infringe freedom of speech on the internet.

When will this maddening policy go away? I’m afraid, it will only happen when John and Jane Citizen start hearing the truth. What is Stephen Conroy waiting for? What is he afraid of? Why does he need to spread lies and misinformation about his filter?

Perhaps it is because he knows it won’t work.

Position Vacant: Communications Minister

“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

Laporte and Jarvis: Conroy Wacky and Nuts!

Speaking on the most recent episode of This Week in Google, respected technology journalist Leo Laporte and noted media commentator Jeff Jarvis let rip on Stephen Conroy and his proposed filtering mechanism for Australia.

In the space of 60 seconds, Jarvis and Laporte summed everything up correctly and succinctly. “Really kind of wacky”; “Very frightening, almost as frightening as China”; “This guy’s just making this stuff up”; “Just nuts!”.

Mr Conroy – the world is watching, and the world does not like what it sees. What they see, is you!

Fast Food Just Got Lazier

Looking for a toilet stop after finishing up at a seminar last Tuesday morning, I found the McDonalds in Bourke Street Melbourne to be the most convenient convenience.

Walking in, I discovered this store was fitted out with self-serve terminals, where you walk up to the touch screens, punch in your order yourself, pay with your card, and get given a receipt with a number.

When your order is ready, they call out your number and you collect your food. Never seen a McDonalds kitted out like this before – but I couldn’t help but think the whole fast food experience just got a little bit lazier!

Bathurst 1987: The Big Facelift

Time for another trip down memory lane!

There have been many changes at Mount Panorama in recent years. A new pit complex. A massive hotel/convention centre at the bottom of Conrod Straight. A new bridge over Pit Straight. Regular track resurfacing.

However, the year the biggest changes occurred was 1987, when the Bathurst 1000 became a round of the now-defunct original World Touring Car Championship.

After the death of Mike Burgmann in the 1986 race, Caltex Chase scarred the original Conrod Straight forever. Concrete walls lined most of the circuit, and the pit complex that was torn down in 2007, was built. Here Neil Crompton looks at the massive changes made for the 1987 James Hardie 1000.

Plenty different now!

Newspaper is Effective Bully

Well, despite its excellent anti-bullying campaign titled “Think Again”, the Geelong Advertiser seems to have effectively bullied a man into fear of his life with its bullying “Name the Granny Killer” campaign.

The newspaper has been running this campaign to publicly name a convicted rapist and killer of an elderly Frankston woman ten years ago, who now lives in Geelong. A crime for which he was tried, convicted and sentenced. Despite the fact that he has served out his sentence, the Advertiser has publicly put him back on trial, just because he’s living in Geelong.

And it would appear that they have had some measure of success.

She said her client,was not in court as he feared for his safety. “My client has received death threats and his life is in jeopardy and I don’t say that in overkill,” Ms Simpson said.

Well done. You’ve made this man a prisoner in his own home, and put his life at risk. You’ve publicly trialled and convicted him with your promotion of vigilante justice. I thought you were a newspaper? You should report the news, not make it.

I notice after a healthy debate on yet another story on the subject yesterday, that you’ve closed comments on today’s article. What were you afraid to hear?

Disgusting.