<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>RE: [AusNOG] Rudd shelves Filtering legislation</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Few have seemed to realize that this is *NOT* a facts-based argument. Like all politics, to achieve your objective, one must be as ruthless and petty as the peddler of the FUD. It doesn't matter how we explain our position, it will never amount to anything more than a few easily dismissible network engineers whining about having to do more work. "Computer people are all creepy and weird anyway, they'd be into that stuff".<BR>
<BR>
We are stuck inside an echo chamber of self-reassurance and it is NOT helping our cause.<BR>
<BR>
Since we are all logical people, here are some facts: Airtime buys supporters and controversy buys airtime. Slow internet and broken websites are not controversy, Conroy's affiliation with Family First and the Assemblies of God fundamentalist agenda IS, but only if you know how to spin it properly. As a collective, we control the largest media distribution network in Australia: why are we not using this to our advantage?<BR>
<BR>
Our tact has not worked, it is not working and it will continue to fail if we push our two-year old monolithic agenda upon a public that is less interested in news and more interested in entertainment.<BR>
<BR>
I'm probably wrong - but maybe it's some food for thought?<BR>
<BR>
Curtis<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net on behalf of Andrew Oskam<BR>
Sent: Thu 6/3/2010 2:49 PM<BR>
To: ausnog@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Rudd shelves Filtering legislation<BR>
<BR>
Just saw this in my morning news read -<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.itnews.com.au/News/182029,iinet-primus-split-on-filter.aspx">http://www.itnews.com.au/News/182029,iinet-primus-split-on-filter.aspx</A><BR>
<BR>
I had a good long read and stopped for a rather large chuckle at a<BR>
number of snippits:<BR>
<BR>
> Concerns "a future government may misuse the ISP filters and extend<BR>
> the policy to cover freedom of speech or political dissent" were<BR>
> unfounded, he said.<BR>
Given that the censorship is yet to be released it's impossible for<BR>
anyone to collect hardened facts but I believe there have been numerous<BR>
occasions where the government has misused and abused programs it has<BR>
implement for their own political gain.<BR>
It's politics for christ sake! It's common knowledge that if you give<BR>
_anyone_ the power to run your life for you they may not necessarily<BR>
have your best interests at heart.<BR>
<BR>
A filter that is meant to protect you from Refused Content that is<BR>
listed on a blacklist that YOU, as an Australian citizen, is prohibited<BR>
from seeing is very scary.<BR>
<BR>
> The Primus chief also disagrees with those who oppose the filter plan<BR>
> on the premise that it is technically flawed.<BR>
I'm yet to see any evidence of its testing against IPv6 and the NBN<BR>
conditions therefore it cannot possibly have been thoroughly tested to<BR>
the point where it is deemed faultless.<BR>
<BR>
> "Sure, some people may wish to get around the filter, and we will deal<BR>
> with that in time," he said. "But I don't believe many Australian<BR>
> families will want to bypass it."<BR>
You're absolutely right - families won't want to bypass the filter<BR>
because they won't need to - the filter isn't blocking the content that<BR>
it SHOULD be.<BR>
Families aren't so concerned about the bestiality, terrorism and suicide<BR>
content purely because this content is much harder to simply stumble upon!<BR>
If they intend on pushing for this filter, then they should be focusing<BR>
on content that IS easy to stumble across because this is the content<BR>
children shouldn't be seeing.<BR>
It's simply a waste of money to push for a program that isn't satisfying<BR>
what parents want in protection for their children ultimately leading to<BR>
a false sense of safety - even if the onus for the childs protection<BR>
should be on the parents.<BR>
<BR>
> Bhatia said it is also important to note that the filter is "one<BR>
> component of the cyber-safety measures" required to protect<BR>
> Australians from harmful content.<BR>
<BR>
Surely you mean the same content that is difficult to find unless you're<BR>
actually looking hard enough.<BR>
<BR>
> "If a filter helps keep families safe on the internet then I'm not<BR>
> going to object to it," he said.<BR>
But it's not keeping families safe - Chat Rooms and MSN are the #1 place<BR>
where pedophiles stalk young children. Is the filter going to block<BR>
that? If not, then how is it protecting families?<BR>
<BR>
> Bhatia asserts that if most Australians were polled specifically<BR>
> around the details of Senator Conroy's filtering plan, there would be<BR>
> "overwhelming support" in relation to content that involves "child<BR>
> porn, rape, bestiality, drug making and training for terrorism et al".<BR>
I'm pretty sure that your assertions are overwhelmingly incorrect, IMO.<BR>
<BR>
When you scale bestiality, drug making, terrorism training and even<BR>
Child Porn against kidnapping and stalking of young children - I'm<BR>
fairly sure that that the latter becomes less common.<BR>
<BR>
Noggers, please do not take my statement as a sign that I don't care for<BR>
or consider the latter to be any less important or harmless - I'm simply<BR>
trying to make a point that, although the filter has the best of<BR>
intentions, it ultimately is flawed and does not satisfy what we need.<BR>
<BR>
</rant><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Andrew Oskam<BR>
<BR>
E percy@th3interw3bs.net<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
NOTICE:<BR>
<BR>
These comments are my own personal opinions only and do not necessarily<BR>
reflect the positions or opinions of my employer or their affiliates.<BR>
All comments are based upon my current knowledge and my own personal<BR>
experiences. You should conduct independent tests to verify the validity<BR>
of any statements made in this email before basing any decisions upon<BR>
those statements.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 12/05/10 3:18 PM, Mark Newton wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> On 12/05/2010, at 2:20 PM, Matt Shadbolt wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>> Has anyone in the media actually asked the direct question to Abbott?<BR>
>> Are the libs pro/anti filter?<BR>
><BR>
> The Libs aren't going to answer that until they see draft legislation.<BR>
><BR>
> The reason is pretty simple: If the Libs say they'll unequivocally<BR>
> oppose it<BR>
> now, the ALP will draft the legislation so that it contains something<BR>
> the libs<BR>
> support.<BR>
><BR>
> Having gone on the record saying they'll oppose it, they'll then be<BR>
> forced to<BR>
> either appear inconsistent by changing their minds, or stay true to their<BR>
> committment and vote against their own interests.<BR>
><BR>
> Wedge politics 101.<BR>
><BR>
> If draft legislation is ever released (still planned for March 2010<BR>
> apparently :)<BR>
> we'll get to see what the Coalition thinks about it. But don't bank<BR>
> on them<BR>
> staking-out any territory on it until then.<BR>
><BR>
> - mark<BR>
><BR>
> --<BR>
> Mark Newton Email:<BR>
> newton@internode.com.au <<A HREF="mailto:newton@internode.com.au">mailto:newton@internode.com.au</A>> (W)<BR>
> Network Engineer Email:<BR>
> newton@atdot.dotat.org <<A HREF="mailto:newton@atdot.dotat.org">mailto:newton@atdot.dotat.org</A>> (H)<BR>
> Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999<BR>
> "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> AusNOG mailing list<BR>
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
> <A HREF="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</A><BR>
> <BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>