 | |
 |
Continuing with his ongoing media campaign to sell his internet filter to Australians, Stephen Conroy appeared on Radio National “Australia Talks” last night, March 29th 2010, in a structured debate with Colin Jacobs from Electronic Frontiers Australia.
Once again, he has ably displayed how scary it is that this man is in charge of making communications policy in this country. I mean, this is seriously scary. This man is IN CHARGE!
Congratulations to ABC Radio National for this evening presenting perhaps the most well constructed and controlled debate on the proposed internet filter in this country so far. I’ll have more to say once the audio is available to download, and I am able to dissect it more closely.
| ABC Radio National: Australia Talks |
However, I cannot help but think that this whole debate simply is not getting in front of the right audience. It is all well and good to blog about it, tweet about it, and talk about it on Radio National until we go blue in the face – the message is not getting through.
With all due respect to Radio National, a program that goes to air nationally at 6pm on the east coast, when families are sitting down to meals, or in many cases just getting home – is just not going to hit the audience we need to hit.
Conroy continually preaches his line to the lowest common denominator in this debate. “It’s all about kiddie porn” he says – when we know that it’s a great deal more than that.
That, however, is his masterstroke. He knows that we know, but he also knows that the average Joe Bloggs on the street does NOT know! So when they hear the “blocking kiddie porn” spiel, they think – “hey, that’s a bloody good idea!”
The average Joe Bloggs on the street is not listening to Radio National at 6pm on a Monday night. This debate needs to go mainstream.
By that I mean a huge televised public debate on a national commercial television network. Where everybody knows about it, so everyone has the chance to watch it.
It needs a real host. A host with balls; who isn’t going to shirk at pushing the big questions at the minister. If he’s going to inflict this upon us, he at least needs to be made to squirm a bit before he waltzes in and destroys what we have made the internet to be. Kevin Rudd needs to be there too – so he can see the mess that he and Conroy have created between them.
If we are not scared of this debate, lets stand up and show it. Conroy is obviously scared of the facts, because he always ignores them and rolls out the “this filter is 100% accurate” line.
Well, Mr Conroy, it’s only 100% accurate if people aren’t circumventing it! Then it’s 100% useless, and you’ve wasted 100% of our tax dollars allocated to it. That is 100% accurate!
Here’s another thing that is 100% accurate. Only 43.38% of the national popular vote went the way of the Labor Party in the 2007 federal election. Less than half of the voters in this country wanted you as a first choice government!
| First Preferences by Party – Federal Election 2007 |
This needs to be PRIMETIME. This is an issue that concerns every Australian, so it’s time every Australian is made aware of it – so when it comes time for the next federal election, they don’t forget.
Given the ongoing debate about internet filtering/censorship in Australia, I got a subtle laugh out of the following story.
| Chinese Court Hears Case Against Rio Tinto Workers |
Australian consular officials who were allowed in the Shanghai courtroom for the bribery phase of the case were barred from witnessing the theft portion.
It seems that Australian consular officials – ultimately, government officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade – were “filtered” out of part of the trial. Apparently they didn’t like it.
Kind of like we don’t like the idea of being filtered out of the internet? Ironic.
Really cool idea for a journalist – use your iPhone to record stand up interviews – like this one with Australian Formula One driver, Mark Webber, after practice at the Australian Grand Prix on Friday afternoon.
However, the last time I checked, the microphone is at the BOTTOM of the phone – (pointed at the reporter’s hand in this shot) – not at the top!
FAIL!
Here is an interesting train of thought I found myself drifting into whilst watching the bumbling attempt by Stephen Conroy to explain his internet filter during his appearance on The 7PM Project last night.
He – and other supporters of the filter – always come the “if you are against the filter, you are supporting kiddie porn” argument. They wrongly spread the impression that this filter will be all about stopping kiddie porn. The so-called “Refused Classification” (RC) status covers a great deal more than just kiddie porn. It covers a significant amount of LEGAL material. He often seems to forget to mention that.
It is also ironic that anything that is considered “Refused Classification” is actually a classification. By definition, it is classified as “refused classification” – demonstrating the complete failure that is Australia’s current content classification system – but that’s an argument for another day.
But back to what I’ve been thinking.
The proposed filter has already been demonstrated to be completely circumventable, raising the question of why the Australian tax payer needs to waste $44M dollars getting this setup, and then $33M a year – (in 2010 terms) – for the life of the filter to fund its ongoing operation?
The counter – (and far better) – argument is that this money would be far better spent getting this material REMOVED from the internet. Identify it, locate it, and then notify the FBI, Interpol, or the relevant enforcement agencies for the country involved, and have this stuff removed, and the CREATORS of the content punished.
There would not be ANY such material available on the internet, if some sick twisted pervert didn’t take the time to actually CREATE the material. In creating the material, some innocent child, somewhere in the world is being abused – sexually, physically, emotionally, or – more than likely – all of the above.
And because we know the filter won’t actually block people from accessing it anyway, the whole purported “need” for the thing becomes irrelevant – so the only truly effective course of action becomes chasing after the content creators.
If Australia just throws up the shutters around this content – effectively turning a blind eye – are we turning our backs on the poor children who are forced to get involved with the generation of this vile crap, wherever they are in the world?
Perhaps or perhaps not, but in creating this filtering mechanism, Conroy is suggesting we hide the end result of the problem, instead of attacking the problem itself. Is he inadvertently supporting the production of this material?
Think of the children, Minister Conroy. Isn’t that your usual argument?
Last weekend, I ordered several t-shirts from the online store at ThinkGeek. They have great stuff for the average nerd – like myself – and it’s all good quality.
At checkout time, I selected UPS for delivery, as it was a little cheaper than the DHL option. No big deal – only a few dollars difference, but hey, a few dollars is a few dollars. Since the order, I’ve kept an intermittent eye on their shipment tracking page, just to see where my shirts were at.
Now, here’s my question. The package arrives in Ascot Vale (Melbourne) at 10:12am yesterday morning. By 1:00pm, it is listed as “IN TRANSIT FOR DELIVERY”. Then all of a sudden, come 4:11pm, it’s been accepted at Mascot (Sydney) – which is about 900 kilometres from Ascot Vale! Why?
And of course, at 6:09am this morning, it has completed its round trip back to Ascot Vale – (and another 900 kilometres), before hitting the road at 6:35am for actual delivery at 9:44am.
Now, the cost of my one single individual parcel travelling via air to Sydney and back is probably only a couple of dollars to UPS, but does this happen to every single parcel? It only has to be a shipment of a few hundred packages every single day, and these “couple of dollars” for each parcel adds up!
Surely it’s better for their bottom line to be a little better organised? Just seems a waste of time, money, and effort to me.
The number one argument of those who support the ridiculous filtering of the internet in Australia – (which will bring us “in line” with countries such as China, Iran, and Cuba, and their “exemplary” human rights records) – is the so called “Think of the Children” argument.
While there is no doubt whatsoever that highly objectionable content such as child porn needs to be REMOVED from the internet, there is equally no doubt that employing an internet filter such as the one proposed by our beloved communications minister, will not actually block people who really want to access it from actually accessing such content.
So why spend the time, money, and effort building it? Well, that’s the question, isn’t it?
There is absolutely no possibility that Minister Conroy has not been told of the ease of getting around this filter. Surely someone has mentioned it. As stupidly that he acts in public on the issue(s) of the implementation of this filter, I doubt he is that stupid in actuality. What he actually is, is naive.
Unfortunately, the people distributing this kind of material on the internet are a highly organised bunch of creepy people, with the technical know-how to blow around a quirky little internet filter with ease. It is trivial. The resources being allocated towards this filter would be far better used in shutting down the sites and services carrying the illegal material. Much of what they want to block is legal – but I’ll get to that later.
China has its “Great Firewall of China” – and has had for many years – yet people are still able to access the open internet very easily. Most choose not to, for fear of imprisonment should they be caught doing so. The political pressure that the Chinese regime places on top of their filter as an “extra layer” makes their filter somewhat more effective than Australia’s would ever be.
Australia – and more specifically, Kevin Rudd – has been widely critical of China filtering internet access towards its own political ends.
| Learning from Google / China Confrontation |
Australia won’t be imprisoning people for circumventing the filter, so the will of people to do so will be much greater than those in a country like China. The people who will “want” to circumvent the filter are the people wishing to access the content that has been blocked. Because quite logically, if you don’t want to access the material that is blocked, you’ll have no need to bypass the filter.
This is where the argument forks in two different directions. One side says that if you don’t want to access this blocked material, the filter should not be a problem for you, because it will only affect access to that material that you wish not to access. The other side says that if you put the filter in place, it firstly doesn’t work anyway because it is easily circumvented, and secondly you have a ready made censorship mechanism in place.
These are two very valid standpoints.
However, it gets down to how much you trust the administrators of the ACMA blacklist. Trust is an emotional concept, and something that is EARNED. Not something to be expected. Last year, the contents of the ACMA blacklist was leaked to the internet.
Time and time again Mr Conroy, Mr Rudd and other supporters of the filter tell us “this is all about blocking kiddie porn.” The old “Think of the Children” argument.
If you are interested in the contents of the list, it is locatable on the web. Perhaps the following site may help you to find it:
| Where Can I Access the ACMA Blacklist? |
If we are to accept this internet filter, we must trust the powers that be in maintaining this list. Again, trust is earned, so why was “dentaldistinction.com.au” found on the list when it was leaked?
| Dental Distinction |
Looks like a business website for a dentist, right? Yes – because that’s all it is! Care to explain that one Mr Conroy? Not exactly a basis for earning our trust, blocking a legitimate business website.
Currently, there are no plans for the contents of the list as it evolves over time to be made public. There are no plans to implement an appeals mechanism. If the inclusion of Dental Distinction had gotten through to the implementation of the real filter, what would they have been able to do to restore access to their business website?
Either nothing, or launch likely very expensive legal action. All because someone decided they “deserved” a place on the list. Where’s the kiddie porn on that site? If another legitimate website slips onto the list, where do we place our trust in the mechanism?
The list also contains many online poker sites and other sites containing LEGAL material. Since when is online poker illegal? There are sites that appear to be related to teen sex – the legal age of consent in Australia is sixteen. Sixteen-year-olds are teens. So are seventeen, eighteen and nineteen-year-olds. Teen sex is by definition, only illegal if it relates to children below sixteen. As I understand mathematics anyway.
There is no basis for the generation of trust between the Australian people and the administration process relating to this list. If they can slip the website of a dentist onto the list, what else can they sneak on there? Sites about euthanasia? Sites about abortion?
I don’t personally support abortion, but I also do not support the potential blocking of information about it from people for whom it is a real personal consideration. This is a freedom of information concern.
There are already indications that sites containing information on such material – (euthanasia, abortion) – will be included in the final filter, because the current government does not support the legality of these issues.
The government tell us they have a mandate for their agenda for winning the last federal election, and that internet filtering was part of that agenda. Interestingly, only 43.38% of voting age Australians “supported” this government by first preference vote. Extending this to two-party preferred voting, only 51.10% of Australians “supported” this government.
| First Preferences by Party |
| Two Party Preferred Preference Flow |
By their first preference vote, more Australians wished to vote against the election of the Rudd Government and its policies, than voted for the election of the Rudd Government and its policies! Even on a two-party preferred basis, they got barely half of the national vote.
Conroy says that if we are so against the filter, we shouldn’t have voted them in. If it wasn’t for the preferential and divisional voting system in this country, they wouldn’t have gotten close to being voted in! Conroy also forgets that the primary electoral issue of the last election was workplace relations, and that during the election campaign, the proposal was for an OPTIONAL internet filter to be available for people who wanted it. It was certainly not the MANDATORY proposal now before us.
Conroy – your government won a mandate based around workplace relations. Not internet filtering. Either way, less than half of the voters in this country had a first choice of having a Rudd Government when it came to power. Your policy back then was for OPTIONAL filtering. We aren’t allowed to see the list, we can’t appeal what is on the list. There has been a history of legitimate and legal sites reaching the list. You must know ALL of this.
There is division appearing within your own ranks about whether the entire filtering policy is actually such a good idea afterall. Labor Senator Kate Lundy in particular is touting for the filtering policy to change back to an optional filter.
| Labor Divided on Internet Filtering Plan |
| My Thoughts on the Safer Internet Group Statement |
You have even said yourself, that “you can’t regulate the internet” – then backtracked when you realised what you had said. The secret ACTA treaty your own government is a party to through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, actually FORBIDS a government to mandate internet filtering.
| Stephen Conroy: You Can’t Regulate the Internet |
| Conroy Was Right – He Can’t Regulate Internet |
We already know we can’t trust you, your filter, or your understanding of the portfolio you are in charge of. So, Mr Conroy – what’s the real agenda? We’d really like to know!
Channel Seven commentator, and one-time full-time racer, Neil Crompton – (of my hometown of Ballarat) – stepped back aboard a V8 Supercar for a television demonstration run at last weekend’s Clipsal 500 in Adelaide.
Apart from taking it really really easy through the dangerous turn number eight, I think Neil showed that he’s still got a bit of pace in him. He certainly didn’t mess about through some corners, and particularly down the main straight into the Senna Chicane.
While I know exactly what they mean by the term “family underwear”, I’m a little concerned that we need the term “family underwear”.
Is that when the whole family wears the same pair of boxers?