Whirlpool

Sent to minister@dbcde.gov.au

Dear Minister Conroy,

I think it is ludicrous for you to implement an ISP internet content filter that is mandatory for all Australians.

This is a waste of taxpayers money. I am a taxpayer and voter.

The details are sketchy and you have not made these details public as to how this is going to be implemented.

Some questions that I would like answers for are:

* Will there be any way to opt out from the scheme?
* What age level is the country's Internet to be made appropriate for? 15? 10? 5 years old?
* Who decides what material is "appropriate" for Australians to see?
* Who will maintain the blacklist of prohibited sites?
* How can sites mistakenly added to the list be removed?

Although all of us want to see children protected from content that could be disturbing or harmful, the clean-feed filter is not a good way to go about this, and could actually reduce the safety of children online

Australia is the only country to contemplate this type of filtering scheme which is accompanied with problems, dangers and uncertainties. This is an untested scheme that no other country in the world has contemplated.

Senator Conroy , I recommend you reconsider this policy as it will only hurt the honest and innocent internet users.

Your Government already offers free internet software for families. Let the families decide if they wish to filter their children’s internet activities, not the Government. The Rudd Labour Government is wanting to be become Australia’s “Internet Big Brother” which I believe is a step backward for responsible net users.

Davy Jones writes...

* Will there be any way to opt out from the scheme?
* What age level is the country's Internet to be made appropriate for? 15? 10? 5 years old?

Yes u can opt out of ISP-level filtering of X-rated sites.

No, X-rated sites are not meant to be seen by teenagers according to the laws.

tri400 writes...

Yes u can opt out of ISP-level filtering of X-rated sites.

Where is this "officially" stated can you quote your source ?

Did you read the EFA website? They are asking these questions. If it was like you say, why would they be asking these questions?

No, X-rated sites are not meant to be seen by teenagers according to the laws.

So you are stating that pornography defined by proposed internet filtering laws is only X-Rated material? Again please quote your source where it states this.

There's a whole thread on this issue. The OP must be new to the whole debate.

Mark's the resident expert and tells us that it's not going to float.

The media are the most interested about the issue because it sells papers.

Cheers WTW

There was an aritcle recently about the parliament house senators complaining because they had just been shifted onto the parliament house content filter system and could no longer do important research.

www.news.com.au/technolo...-5014108,00.html

Maybe NOW they will understand our concerns and actively move against this filter system.

Steve the (original) name pirate

WTW writes...

Mark's the resident expert and tells us that it's not going to float

That's great to hear. I like how WP has all these "resident experts" Now I can totally rely upon WP for the facts each and every time !!

Davy Jones writes...

Now I can totally rely upon WP for the facts each and every time !!

No of course not!

As with anything you need to educate yourself by doing the proper research and even then you can't be assured of something based on speculation.

Cheers WTW

WTW writes...

Mark's the resident expert and tells us that it's not going to float.

Be that as it may, anything can be made to look like it floats if you bulldoze enough rocks underneath it below the waterline.

They'll try hard, make no mistake.

- mark

The point is that we should be all writing to the Sen to express our dissatisfaction with this proposed legislation not bicker between ourselves.

I am sure ISP's don't want this defacto legislation requiring them to filter the internet. Again another instance of companies doing the governments bidding.. GST anyone? Every company is now a tax collector as well. So now every ISP will be their defacto censor as well.

WTW writes...

There's a whole thread on this issue.

Where? searching 'clean feed' in WP forums doesn't give any obvious thread as the "main" one.

MaxusD writes...

Where

Ask Mark, I'm sure he's got it book market. I had his awsome answers book marked then some prick stole my laptop... err my fault for not having gate, alarms and bookmark backups - rest assured... I still don't have bookmark backups but I'm off to look at security cameras this afternoon.

Cheers WTW

/forum-replies.cfm?t=910501

I think that's the one with all Marks gems

Can't remember what the url path addition is to just view his responses.

Cheers WTW

Ps: For a giggle try Mark Newton porn

WTW writes...

Can't remember what the url path addition is to just view his responses.

I believe you were referring to this:

/forum-replies.cfm?t=910501&ux=7978

Davy Jones writes...

The point is that we should be all writing to the Sen to express our dissatisfaction with this proposed legislation not bicker between ourselves.

why? What makes you think he (or ANY Federal Minister) actually READS his own mail. But if you want a standard

"We thank you for your interest in this important topic and support of child protection"

Form letter mail merged by some low level assistant in his office then feel free to go ahead

thanks guys.

Keep in mind Conroy is a right-wing ALP factional leader; he needs to to appeal to religous advocates within the ALP (eg the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees' Association) to retain support / influence.

In other words, don't think about the issue in simplistic terms - ie pollies being too stupid to see why filtering at source is a dumb idea.

It's not stupidity - guys like Conroy know what they are advocating, and they have very specific agendas & interests that they are in politics to push.

This policy is certainly an outrage. Mr Rudd has already been shown to be an advocate of "Government knows best" mentalities, especially when he starts arguing about "drawing lines" in the sand concerning government grants or welfare. Now the internet "line" is being drawn. Internet content filtering should be left in the domain of parents not a government bureaucrat. If the argument is that "the community expects the Government to act to prohibit access to child pornography" then the government should educate the community, especially families, about responsible internet usage controls for children. Parents have the ultimate responsibility of raising their children, not governments. Thus, governments must and should promote policies which give parents the tools to make their own choices for their own children, rather than draconian one-size-fits-all approach that effectively opens the floodgates to lazy parenting.

The worst part of this policy is the fact that it is mandatory and you must opt out in order to obtain an unhindered feed. This is unreasonable and raises risks of unfair targeting by law enforcement agencies.

The opposition should oppose this policy.

Ron Paul, US Presidential candidate, sums it up nicely:

“I believe strongly that the internet should not be regulated by the federal government and believes even more strongly that people should be free to engage in the activities they wish, as long as they are willing to take responsibility for their actions.”

www.infowars.net/article...60807_b_Paul.htm

And no, you're not pro-child porn or other such unsavoury behaviour because you oppose internet censorship.

Octavius writes...

Thus, governments must and should promote policies which give parents the tools to make their own choices for their own children, rather than draconian one-size-fits-all approach that effectively opens the floodgates to lazy parenting.

Ignoring the fact that there are already filtered services filling the required market niche today, and also ignoring the fact that the last two decades of child rearing experience shows that parents are plainly able to bring up kids in the presence of uncensored Internet access, the Government appears to believe that mandatory censorship is one of "the tools to make their own choices."

Eric Arthur Blair would be rolling in his grave.

And no, you're not pro-child porn or other such unsavoury behaviour because you oppose internet censorship.

That's not what Senator Conroy says:

"Labor makes no apologies to those who argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road," Mr Conroy said yesterday. "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree."

So there you go. I had no idea it was all that simple :-)

- mark

Mark Newton writes...

Ignoring the fact that there are already filtered services filling the required market niche today, and also ignoring the fact that the last two decades of child rearing experience shows that parents are plainly able to bring up kids in the presence of uncensored Internet access, the Government appears to believe that mandatory censorship is one of "the tools to make their own choices."

Completely true. And even the market solutions that provide opt-in filters have shown a very small take-up rate, meaning parents are either happy with their own internet usage controls for their children, or are unaware of the ISP services. If the latter is the case, then education is the key. Mandatory filtering is a ridiculous alternative and simply reiterates "Rudd knows best". Rudd knows jack all about people's individual circumstances would be my crude response.

Eric Arthur Blair

We're all going to have to use his official name, for fear of "Orwell" or "Orwellian" invoking the filter designed and orchestrated by an oppressive Government.

That's not what Senator Conroy says:

Such buffoonery should not be tolerated by the people of Australia. The Government should never decide what constitutes freedom of expression. Once the Government draws the line, freedom of expression ceases to exist.

So there you go. I had no idea it was all that simple :-)

Me neither. ;-)

"The federal government has shelved the launch of several new TV channels .."
www.theage.com.au/nation...080521-2gla.html

Conroy is really kicking goals - government censorship of the internet, and now continuing the restrictions on media growth. Is there a theme emerging with this Government? Am I just ultra-annoyed because I gave up half a Saturday in November last year to hand out How to Vote cards for them?

MaxusD writes...

Is there a theme emerging with this Government?

No its just labor's socialist doctrine. Decisions by committee. Hence no decisions. They have learnt nothing from being in opposition for 12 years. Pissing off the media sector who got you elected is not good policy.

MaxusD writes...

Am I just ultra-annoyed because I gave up half a Saturday in November last year to hand out How to Vote cards for them?

No. It just makes you more annoyed than you would otherwise be. No one likes to be forced to admit that they were wrong and helped the wrong side win the election. But there has to be things that the government does that annoy you for that to be true.

I'm ultra-annoyed that enough people voted for Labor for me to suffer the consequences of a Federal Labor government.

Labor was presented with a real opportunity to change its ways and make the negative stereotypes of Labor no longer relevant when it won the last election. But, surprise, surprise it hasn't made use of the opportunity.

mdgm writes...

o one likes to be forced to admit that they were wrong and helped the wrong side win the election.

Not the wrong side - my problem is that filtering is the kind of thing I'd expect from the Liberals. And let's not forget that the Liberal's Senator Coonan resisted introducing new TV licences as well.

MaxusD writes...

Not the wrong side - my problem is that filtering is the kind of thing I'd expect from the Liberals.

So? It was part of their (ALPs) election package (so you voted for it)

mdgm writes...

I'm ultra-annoyed that enough people voted for Labor for me to suffer the consequences of a Federal Labor government.

+1

mdgm writes...

I'm ultra-annoyed that enough people voted for Labor for me to suffer the consequences of a Federal Labor government.

You're going to herring this as off-topic, but you brought the political aspect into the debate yourself.

Get some perspective ffs. We all know that there's a probable chance the filter isn't going to go ahead. So in your opinion, the chance of a filter clearly outweighs EVERYTHING else the Labor Party as done in response to the Liberals. Bear in mind that includes Iraq, climate change, IR laws, health, infrastructure and education funding ETC. ETC.

Sure with the Liberals we may not have had a mandatory filter (And we most likely wont either) but it's hardly an election swinging issue, people didn't vote on it, people won't vote on it in the future and if this is your criticism of the Labor government then you are in dire need of perspective and a broader outlook on life.

So you're saying because they did some things right we should just put up with a few bullshit regressive policies?

you are in dire need of perspective and a broader outlook on life

if the populace doesn't ever try to get through to governments then they can't answer the populace in policy form. I have no problem with labor govt - but by hell this censorship to me seems to be a betrayal of my trust. you're right - I would have voted for them anyway to get rid of our ultra conservative incumbent, but that doesn't mean for a second that I like all of their policies, it simply means that on the balance they were less shit from my point of view.

I think you're look whilst trying to be broad fails because if one is forced to accept everything there is no choice.

Marxx writes...

You're going to herring this as off-topic

Nope. Freedom of Speech is a good thing. I've had my say, and you're entitled to yours as well.

So in your opinion, the chance of a filter clearly outweighs EVERYTHING else the Labor Party as done in response to the Liberals.

No. It's just one of many things. Obviously as I didn't vote for Labor, I don't agree with many of your reasons to vote for Labor (and I'm not going to start a debate on them cause that would be off-topic). I was responding to someone who was ultra-annoyed at what Labor had done. If it was a big enough deal to them they didn't have to vote for Labor.

mdgm writes...

If it was a big enough deal to them they didn't have to vote for Labor.

My intention here was to express annoyance @ Conroy rather than the ALP. Assuming the ALP to some extent reflects society at large, the majority of Labor MPs are not going to understand the full technical arguments, or (as we all seem to be agreeing in this forum) appreciate the implications of filtering for freedom of expression in this country. So it falls to Conroy to develop the party's policy in this field.

My b*tch is that while the Labor Govt is superior to its predecessor generally, in the specific area of ITC we've got Conroy, a conservative who relies on conservative support for his place in the Senate.

MaxusD writes...

My b*tch is that while the Labor Govt is superior to its predecessor generally, in the specific area of ITC we've got Conroy, a conservative who relies on conservative support for his place in the Senate.

Perhaps the right approach then is to single out the Labor members who are more evenly balanced and tell them that our votes are for them and we will continue to support them so long as they keep their extremist colleagues in line.

Who knows, done right popular pressure could force a rethink of who holds the position Conroy currently fills.

James writes...

Perhaps the right approach then is to single out the Labor members who are more evenly balanced and tell them that our votes are for them and we will continue to support them so long as they keep their extremist colleagues in line.

Very succinctly put.

One word sums it all up:

1984

If George Orwell could see the world today, he'd shudder. What makes people think that we actually live in a democracy - we don't. Hell, Australians don't even have the legislative right to freedom of speech. This filter will end up getting passed, and it'll be used to spy on the populace at every level. The US is already moving to ratify this, and in fact, it is expected that the US ISPs will have to comply and track every users usage. Our rights are being continually breached, and this is due to the fact that the average Australian is far too stupid (well, let me correct that, most nationalities!) and apathetic to even care about it all. Governments know they can get away with **** like this, cos only the "radicals" will complain, and they are minority. The rest of the world looks at is as being whingers and fools.

There's a song by famed Irish political folk singer, Christy Moore that sums it up (called Yellow Triangle):

"When first they came for the criminals I did not speak
Then they began to take the jews
When they fetched the people who were members of trades unions
I did not speak

Then they took the bible students
Round they took the homosexuals
Then they gathered up the students and the gypsies

I did not speak
I did not speak

Eventually they came for me there was no one left to speak"

The current US fascist regime spied on up to 100,000 US citizens illegally, and the courts did nothing about it. Do we really expect our government, deep allies of the US, to be any different? In the UK, it is no different - they're talking about making genetic testing mandatory for ALL citizens. I'll die fighting before I give those rights up.

Sometimes the only way to deal with this over abuse by governments is civil disobedience. Do you really think the government would lock up half or 2/3rds of it's populace? I doubt it, they'd have a riot on their hands. Of course, with governments like China, Nigeria etc, anything is possible.

Dave

tri400 writes...

No, X-rated sites are not meant to be seen by teenagers according to the laws.

Are 18 and 19 year olds not teenagers?

dpastern writes...

There's a song by famed Irish political folk singer, Christy Moore that sums it up (called Yellow Triangle):

I also like the very similar sentiments expressed by NOFX in "Re-gaining Unconsciousness":

"First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.

Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us."

Davy Jones writes...

Australia is the only country to contemplate this type of filtering scheme

China?

Different intent, but then again the Chinese government knows what is best for it's people also.

mdgm writes...

I'm ultra-annoyed that enough people voted for Labor for me to suffer the consequences of a Federal Labor government.

Aren't you lucky you live in country where you get the opportunity to be annoyed that democracy works.

canon1d writes...

Aren't you lucky you live in country where you get the opportunity to be annoyed that democracy works.

Or sometimes doesn't as the case may be. But a good observation. :)