[AusNOG] conroy reaffirms commitment to filter

[Phillip Grasso]

lets not fight each other and focus on the goal, which is to spread facts
through means "we" have at our disposal.

viral videos, -> youtube -> free advertising
online demonstrations -> changing websites,
adding billing notices -> facts campaing - low cost (lots of users just get
an email bill, so even lower cost).
facebook campaign -> the whole time to tell your mum.
influence the traditional media -> how do we get the traditional media
onside? to talk about facts, facts that general public can understand.

A few things we don't need;
fighting each other for 'technical' merit
Continuing to think this is a technical argument, technical people are on
board and most know that the filtering policy is rubbish, the people we
really need to influence is the general public that 'aren't aware'.

This is the type of messaging we are fighting;

""The evidence here in our testing and overseas, where this sort of filter
is operating in many countries, there is a negligible impact, 1/70th of the
blink of an eye."

Would we respond with a reasoned technical argument e.g.

from wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink>; a blink is between 300
to 400ms. So he is asserting a blink is 5ms. Considering that traffic
latency between two users in a local area might be between 5 - 10 ms, the
speed is significantly slower).

+P.S.) I do not believe this performance will scale.

or would we say
Filtering could be slow down your internet experience by more 300%!

(e.g. if an ISP has a central filter, potentially interstate users may be
forced to go through the central filter before dove tailing back to their
region).

------------------
Folks, as an industry we are fragmented, and in terms of a voting block we
are heavily distributed. So we should consider.

*-Marginal Seats and how we influence voters.
*We just need to influence enough of the swing seats. I'm sure the
government & opposition have their own strategies, but a small adjustment in
these areas make a huge difference overall.


*-Senate positions*, as an IT industry, we need to make sure any party that
proposals "Censorship" should be punished in terms of seats.
I think we can wield a significant influence as an industry, the whole ICT
industry is about 600K people, "If we can get the message" out to those
people, and a large enough chuck of them and their families change their
voting preferences (at least for senate) sets away from labour, i think that
would make enough off a difference for powers that be to take note.


Best Regards
   Phillip

---
I send this as an individual and not representing any organisation. (yet).

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au> wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 09:21 +1000, Curtis Bayne wrote:
> > Do what we (SONET) do: actively refuse to carry pro-filter content on
> > your network. If every one of us actively deny proponents to spread
> > their FUD
>
> The answer to darkness is not more darkness.
>
> You can't fight censorship by censoring its proponents. It just makes
> you look utterly hypocritical.
>
> Regards, K.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
> http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/ <http://www.biplane.com.au/%7Ekauer/>
>                +61-428-957160 (mob)
>
> GPG fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156
> Old fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100701/c33a177f/attachment.html>