Website Bullied By Coalition Lawyers

Earlier this week, a rather blunt and straightforward website came online, voicing displeasure against a swathe of Coalition election policies.

The publisher has a right to have a say, right? Until the Coalition’s lawyers got wind of it, apparently.

The owner of the website, Jesse Richardson, issued a media statement (click for full size):

“My ISP contacted me on Wednesday afternoon to let me know that the federal opposition party’s lawyers were demanding my personal details. Despite this being a personal project not paid for or endorsed by anyone, I gave them permission to hand over my name, address, and phone number so that the site could stay up.”

“Approximately one hour later I received several phone calls making implied threats about my professional career. Who exactly was responsible for these phone calls isn’t entirely clear, but I do have the phone number of one of them at least.”

While I don’t necessarily approve the style and the language use of the website, what I absolutely do not approve of is the use of bullying tactics against a person who has every right to voice his political opinion, particularly during an election campaign.

This is particularly infuriating after Tony Abbott’s call to protect free speech:

“The Opposition Leader said that, if elected, he would work with his attorney-general, George Brandis, to require the commission to champion, instead of restrict, the right of free speech in Australia.”

Equally, while it might not be perfectly clear who made the threatening calls to Jesse, if he is to be believed, it is most curious that they should start shortly after he agreed for his details to be handed over.

It appears the opposition wants to be a bully towards free speech, despite proclaiming a desire to protect and even enhance free speech.

Nobody likes a bully.

I’ll be keeping an eye on this to see if anything comes of it – but something is certainly on the nose here.

The Ultimate Coalition Filtering Betrayal

At 12:00am this morning, the election advertising blackout commenced.

This morning on television, Opposition leader Tony Abbott confirmed that all of their policies for the 2013 election had been released, in preparation for the long awaited release of their costings.

Yet, this afternoon a serious piece of policy was released.

An old foe of the internet. A plan for internet filtering.

There has been no indication that such a policy was coming. The opposition were vehemently against the previous ALP mandatory internet filtering plan.

Yet here we have it again – controversial, and it is firing up the social media scene this evening.

Given the advertising blackout is now in force, there is no chance for opponents of such a scheme to bring it to the attention of the public. We would have to rely on the mainstream media – and we know they won’t follow that through.

It is dirty and underhanded. It is disingenuous, and it is deceitful.

It is a bloody disgrace.

The average schmo on the street will have no chance to understand the issue, and form an opinion on it before polling day on Saturday.

While this filter will be “opt-out” – meaning if you don’t want it, you can call your ISP and have it turned off – how many of the average schmo’s will actually know that?

What happens to you when you call up to “opt-out”? Does a note get put against your file?

Do you end up on a watch list, as suggested by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam?

“Tony Abbott has actually proposed that anyone who wants to access uncensored online content will have to put themselves on a watch list by opting out of the filter.”

Hot on the heels of Abbott’s promise to defend free speech too:

“The Opposition Leader said that, if elected, he would work with his attorney-general, George Brandis, to require the commission to champion, instead of restrict, the right of free speech in Australia.”

By trying to hide a policy to restrict rights, by burying it in a last minute, late in the afternoon policy release?

Spare me.

Opposition communications spokesperson Malcolm Turnbull used to complain that an internet filter would slow the internet down:

“Mr Turnbull, the Opposition’s new communications spokesman, says the filter will slow internet speeds and give parents a false sense of security.”

Apparently, the filters don’t do that any more. Or provide a false sense of security either.

The last minute announcement of the policy was later confirmed by former Optus executive and current Member for Bradfield, Paul Fletcher:

“Fletcher confirmed to ZDNet tonight that the reason the Coalition had decided to go down this path was to take out the confusion for parents who are unsure who or where to get filtering products from.”

Take out the confusion for parents? How about these comments from Fletcher rubbishing the previous ALP mandatory filter:

“Labor’s filter threatens to create a false sense of security in parents. In reality there is no quick fix for online threats – safety requires a combination of filtering software on home PCs, educational guidance about appropriate internet usage and parental responsibility. Home-based filters can assess and block a wider range of content than a static ISP level filter.”

Apparently when he posted this statement – (unprofessionally, it is undated) – such a filter that they proposed today creates “a false sense of security in parents”, even though today it’s a case of taking “out the confusion for parents”.

Apparently filtering is now a quick fix, and will provide no confusion for parents.

Also apparently, such a filter takes away resources from more effective methods:

“Labor’s filter will divert resources from high quality police work. Ultimately, the best way of stopping internet crime is to give resources to enforcement agencies such as the Australian Federal Police. Every dollar spent on an ineffective filter is a dollar that could have been spent on those agencies.”

While I actually agree with that sentiment, apparently it is now fine to divert those resources.

In my home, we have free and open internet. Any device that my seven-year-old daughter uses, is filtered for “bad” things. This is my choice as parent, and solution I have implemented for myself.

The concept is actually quite simple.

We don’t need a government controlled and mandated – (and potentially government abusable) – mechanism in place to do this. Parents should be parents, and not take the lazy path to looking after their kids online.

I’ve taken a strong stance on internet filtering in Australia – (including walking away from being a Telstra customer on principle) – so this disgusting attempt to bully such a plan into law, after being staunchly against it for so long makes me sick.

We’ve been had. We’ve been betrayed.

While I haven’t always voted for the Coalition, I have never voted for Labor in my life. My vote for this Saturday remains undecided.

One thing that has been decided is that the Coalition can stick it up their ass now – no vote for you.

For the record, that doesn’t mean I’m voting Labor either.

If you want to bring in a policy – given this is a democracy, let the people see it up front and decide.

Don’t try hide it like cowards.

** UPDATE: 06/09/2013 06:43 ==========

So okay, apparently – (if you believe the Coalition) – this is not their policy. Abbott stated last night that they are not for an internet filter, and never have been for an internet filter. Turnbull said as much too. They described it as a “badly worded” announcement, and that such filter would be implemented on the user’s own equipment in their homes.

This simply doesn’t add up. If it is implemented in their homes, why would they need to call their ISP to opt-out? Frankly, if the filtering exists at all, and only the ISP can turn it off, even if it implemented on the end user “customer premise equipment” (CPE) – it is ISP level filtering.

Turnbull said it wasn’t even a policy he was involved with, despite being the communications spokesperson, and likely communications minister come Sunday morning.

But if this wasn’t policy, who was it that took the time to draft it, have it vetted, and then published? Where are the controls? Who went rogue and released this policy? Turnbull even went on Triple J and spoke about it – (skip to 26:20) – before the furore.

And why has the policy now been deleted? It’s all good though, here it is anyway, and here is Paul Fletcher even speaking about it with ZDnet when asked to confirm it.

No, frankly, what happened here is they got caught out and forced into a backflip.

It must be wonderful living up high in the clouds on bullshit mountain.

Triple 8 Wildcard Bathurst Entry Revealed

To be piloted by three-time World Touring Car Champion Andy Priaulx and three-time Race of Champions winner Mattias Ekström, today has seen the unveiling of the wildcard Bathurst 1000 entry from Triple 8 Race Engineering.

Looking very nice indeed!

Media Still Misrepresenting NBN Debate

One of the most frustrating parts of being a supporter of the current National Broadband Network (NBN) model is the constant misrepresentation of many of the aspects of the designs, financials, and rollout of the network.

While it is certainly true that the rollout hasn’t gone as smoothly as hoped, the project is broadly on track, both in terms of costs and progress – despite what some people will try and tell you.

And today we say yet another infuriatingly inaccurate report in the Fairfax press.

When the Coalition’s alternative plan was unveiled in April, it was costed at $29 billion:

“…a cut down version of the Government’s national broadband network for $29 billion…”

Yet the Fairfax piece today seems to have ‘trimmed’ it down a fraction:

“…compared with the Opposition’s roughly $20 billion option using fibre to the node…”

Roughly?

Roughly $9 billion out? Despite the full article actually espousing the financial benefits of the existing model?

Why misrepresent the policies? And by such a large amount?

Disingenuity, incompetence, or bias?

I don’t know the answer, but something stinks.

What Does Gigabit Broadband Look Like?

So what does this gigabit broadband everyone is talking about with the National Broadband Network (NBN) actually look like?

This demonstration comes from rural England’s B4RN co-operative, where the speeds available are directly comparable to the speeds the Coalition’s alternative NBN plan would deny 71% of Australian’s from receiving – and a network that members of the Coalition have been calling for as far back as 2004.

Frustrating.

Faceless Campaign Advertising

I don’t identify myself as either a Liberal supporter, or a Labor supporter. Despite the fact that I have predominantly voted on the Liberal side of the ledger in my adult life, these days I find myself very much in the ‘centre’ in terms of my political ideology.

Last night I posted about Liberal campaign material hiding its origins – a practice I find dishonest, and I’m sure all sides of politics do it.

Here’s another I just found in an online election advert:

A bunch of claims – (which may or may not be true) – but no clear marking of which side of politics is making the claim.

At least “Damian Mantach” has put his name on it – (as would be legally required of him) – as the authoriser of the message.

Who is he?

He is the state director of the Liberal Party in Victoria.

All the ‘positive’ LNP advertising seems to have the LNP logos plastered all over it. The ‘negative’ stuff has its origins blurred.

If your policies and positions are the ‘shiznit’ – why hide?

As I said earlier, I’m sure both sides do it – so how about some campaign reform to get rid of this dishonest practice?

Bathurst: Our Mountain

I love the Bathurst weekend – it’s my favourite weekend of any year. Many people around me don’t ‘get it’.

These people do:

Why Hide Behind An Anonymous Envelope?

Three weeks deep into the election campaign, and the first sign of life from the local LNP candidate.

Clearly with the extremely marginal status of the neighbouring seat of Corangamite, all the campaign funding for the Geelong area is concentrated over there. The LNP seemingly have little or no interest in the Corio electorate.

Safe ALP and all.

I haven’t even seen a single poster or pamphlet for the LNP candidate, and as a result until tonight, I didn’t even know the name of their candidate.

But today when he did finally rear his head, the envelope is completely anonymous – no name, no party name – nothing.

Why hide? In contrast the sitting ALP member – on the same day – delivers his material. Proudly named and exposed on the envelope.

Are the LNP too scared that people won’t open their material, that they have to hide the identity of it?

If someone wants to win my vote, I expect a little more effort than an unaddressed, identity-obscured envelope.

Rupert And The Election – Best Media Watch Ever

Is Rupert Murdoch trying to twist the outcome of the federal election?

Most likely, your answer to that question will depend on your political persuasion. However, before you decide, take a look at the latest episode of Media Watch:

You really have to wonder, don’t you?

Ending Political Tobacco Donations May Not Be So Easy

As the federal election campaign moves along, news comes today that Kevin Rudd intends to reform party political donations, and ban such from tobacco companies should he win the September 7th poll.

Rudd Pledges To Stub Out Big Tobacco’s Political Push

“Tobacco companies will be frozen out if Labor is re-elected, with Kevin Rudd pledging to completely end their involvement in the political process, and to phase out any investment in cigarette firms by public sector super funds.”

“The move is designed to end big tobacco’s influence and to wedge Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, whose party has not ruled out accepting donations from cigarette makers.”

“The ALP stopped taking tobacco industry support in 2004 but the Coalition continues to accept donations.”

While personally I am undecided as to whether actively preventing tobacco companies from making political donations is a fair thing to do – (after all, being a democracy, everyone should have the right to donate as they see fit) – but given the massive cost burden smoking and related illnesses places on our health system, the argument for doing so has a lot of merit.

If such a ban comes about, we should remember that tobacco companies get around bans all the time – so any ban needs to be watertight.

How do they get around the bans? Very sneakily – and here is an example from Australia’s past.

In 1995, tobacco advertising in sport was banned in Australia – existing advertising contracts were allowed to run their course, but new contracts were not permitted to be initiated.

In motorsport, we saw Phillip Morris – through its popular ‘Peter Jackson’ brand – actively sponsoring teams between 1986 and 1995. See below the Peter Jackson Falcon of Glenn Seton from the 1995 season:

Phillip Morris wanted to continue sponsorship after the introduction of the advertising ban, and managed to find a way to do it. Observe the ‘Pack Leader’ Falcon of Alan Jones from the 1996 season:

Eerily similar, isn’t it?

It might have said ‘Pack Leader’ on the car, but after many seasons with the same or similar liveries on the cars, people still subconsciously saw ‘Peter Jackson’.

Even though it didn’t actually say ‘Peter Jackson’.

Not a tobacco brand, so nothing to see here, right?

In a delicious piece of irony, come the Bathurst 1000 that year – the biggest annual motorsport television audience in the nation – the lead ‘Pack Leader’ Falcon caught fire while ‘leading the pack’:

If we’re going to ban tobacco donations to political parties, all well and good – but lets make sure we close all the potential loop holes.

Because frankly, they still want to be leaders of the pack.