<div dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;line-height:100%">There's days when I
think people in our industry have gotten too close to the ones and
zeros, and lost sight of the bigger picture. The State has an
obligation to protect people and property in those realms where it
exercises sovereign jurisdiction. Regulation of the internet has
lagged due to a gap in what the technology can deliver, and the Wild
West spirit with which adventurers have sought to carve out territory
in the internet. This is in no one's best interests, and it's
irresponsible to think that as technology makes enforcement possible,
legislation requiring it won't inevitably follow.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;line-height:100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;line-height:100%">If we're honest,
current technology is capable of routing the IPs of suspect FQDNs for
DPI leaving the bulk of internet traffic untouched (as is done in the
UK's CleanFeed). In such a scenario, the privacy arguments no longer
wash, and the technology arguments that applied 10 years ago have
been outpaced by Moore's Law. Time our industry picked its socks up.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;line-height:100%"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0cm;line-height:100%">The Inquiry mentions
that instead of silent blocking, there should redirection to a
blocking page, notification that the page has been blocked, the
reason for the block, and a line of appeal. That all seems
ridiculously sensible.</p><p style="margin-bottom:0cm;line-height:100%"><br></p><p style="margin-bottom:0cm;line-height:100%">Kind regards</p><p style="margin-bottom:0cm;line-height:100%"><br></p><p style="margin-bottom:0cm;line-height:100%">Paul Wilkins</p><p style="margin-bottom:0cm;line-height:100%"><br></p>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 29 April 2016 at 22:23, Mark Newton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:newton@atdot.dotat.org" target="_blank">newton@atdot.dotat.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Successful lobbying uses the politicians' ideology to create reasons to do what the lobbyist is in favor of.</div><div><br></div><div>For example, there are plenty of "classic liberal" reasons, which plenty of Liberal MPs will sympathize with, to do things that are in the best interests of the Internet industry and Internet users.</div><div><br></div><div>There are also plenty of "dry Liberal" small-government reasons supporting exactly the same outcomes.</div><div><br></div><div>And there are plenty of "big society" reasons which will appeal to ALP MPs to do precisely the same things.</div><div><br></div><div>All three sets of arguments can be made at the same time, with each one persuading a different subset of people about the defensiveness and rhetorical safety of making the same decisions that favor our aims.</div><div><br></div><div>This industry has been culturally incapable of providing reasons to support its aims that are any more complicated or nuanced than, "It is correct." And even then, there is very little in the way of follow-up: the industry can't hold an argument for longer than three months, and has been singularly absent at promoting positions in the face of political opposition for ten years -- which is, in truth, actually required.</div><div><br></div><div>Zero MPs are even remotely interested in correctness. So arguments based on educating them about what the correct answer is will universally fail, no matter who is in power.</div><div><br></div><div>Everyone here should know this, because it's all any of you have ever known, because you've not had the nous to mount a sophisticated argument about anything, and have consequently always failed in the same way. </div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div> - mark</div><div><br>-- <div>Tiny screen, imaginary keyboard.</div><div><br></div></div></font></span><div><div class="h5"><div><br>On 29 Apr 2016, at 19:56, Peter Tiggerdine <<a href="mailto:ptiggerdine@gmail.com" target="_blank">ptiggerdine@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">This is probably drifting into the off-topic but ideology trumps money as does religion.<div><br></div><div>All the money in the world wouldn't persuade the government to make good decision because they believe that national security is more important and civil liberties and right to privacy. So irrespective of the education and lobbying you're going to struggle to change their belief.</div><div><br></div><div>The government knows that while it can blindside the public though miss-education, they can do anything. Hence my original point.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes you are right on the mark *pun intended* that the carriers and associated organisations need to apply more pressure but going up against ideology is a waste of time.</div><div><br></div><div> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Regards,<div><br></div><div>Peter Tiggerdine</div><div><br></div><div>GPG Fingerprint: 2A3F EA19 F6C2 93C1 411D 5AB2 D5A8 E8A8 0E74 6127</div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Mark Newton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:newton@atdot.dotat.org" target="_blank">newton@atdot.dotat.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Apr 29, 2016, at 1:47 PM, Peter Tiggerdine <<a href="mailto:ptiggerdine@gmail.com" target="_blank">ptiggerdine@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> education is the key. The problem with the government is that it doesn't want to be educated because of ideology.<br>
><br>
> Uneducatable (probably made up word, but you get the drift) people are the true definition of stupid. And lets face it government is where all these types seem to congregate the most.<br>
<br>
</span>Money wins against education hands-down.<br>
<br>
The belief that politicians would do the right thing, if only they knew enough about the subject matter to make well-reasoned decisions, is absurd, completely unsupported by empirical evidence.<br>
<br>
There are very well-organized and well-funded organizations lobbying in favor of control of the internet. The Internet community fails time and time again because it has not learned enough lessons from previous defeats to become well-organized and well-funded enough to make its counter-case effectively.<br>
<br>
The government knows it can marginalize and destroy internet industry participants with no blowback whatsoever. As long as that remains true, ISPs and users will continue to be outmaneuvered.<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
- mark<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
AusNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>