[AusNOG] What are we , collectively, doing about the impending mandatatory censorship scheme?

[Mark Smith]

On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 01:49:23 +1000
Andrew Oskam <percy at th3interw3bs.net> wrote:

> I'm in the same boat as you Skeeve - my thoughts exactly
> I just can't justify the loss of the NBN.
> 

That's tragic - actually I find it quite distasteful. You're* all
principled about not having a Internet filter, yet aren't prepared to
give up the NBN not to have it.

Once there is a filter in place, it'll inevitably stay in place, and
likely be tightened. The tools to implement "Fahrenheit 451" and
"1984" on the Internet will be in place and under government control.

An "NBN" is inevitable, regardless of whether the government sponsors it
or not, because as technology evolves to provide more bandwidth, and
users of that increased bandwidth require it, it'll be deployed,
because they'll be willing to pay for it, and that'll provide the
business case to provide it. The uptake of ADSL is a perfect example.

There is no acceptable trade off. The NBN has got to go if it means no
filter.



(*anybody willing to make this trade off)


> Sent from my iPhone
> -------------
> Andrew Oskam
> 
> On 08/07/2010, at 12:54 AM, Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve at eintellego.net>  
> wrote:
> 
> > Honestly, I am a Labor voter... well... was... not sure now.
> >
> >
> >
> > If Abbot hadn’t said he was going to scrap the NBN, I would be votin 
> > g for the Liberals... bring back Turnbull... I liked him L
> >
> >
> >
> > ...Skeeve
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
> >
> > eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
> >
> > skeeve at eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net
> >
> > Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
> >
> > Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
> >
> > www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
> >
> > --
> >
> > NOC, NOC, who's there?
> >
> >
> >
> > From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog- 
> > bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Moyle-Croft
> > Sent: Thursday, 8 July 2010 12:48 AM
> > To: Phillip Grasso
> > Cc: Skeeve Stevens; ausnog at ausnog.net
> > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] What are we , collectively, doing about the  
> > impending mandatatory censorship scheme?
> >
> >
> >
> > Senate seats might hurt them, but ask yourself this:
> >
> >
> >
> > What do you know about the Opposition's views on the filter?   If  
> > Labor lose will it mean scraping the idea or claiming it as their  
> > own to claim the same voting block?
> >
> >
> >
> > If the Opposition support it and so do Labor then the minorities are  
> > irrelevant in the Senate.
> >
> >
> >
> > MMC
> >
> >
> >
> > On 07/07/2010, at 11:55 PM, Phillip Grasso wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > you raise good points, let me say this;
> >
> >
> >
> > Senate Seats. Hit them where it hurts.
> >
> >
> >
> > my back of envelope count is that we'll need 338K votes to get 1  
> > senate seat.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1 Senate seat will probably be enough to do damage to a filtering  
> > program, especially when they would want to do deals to get other  
> > things across (assuming they don't have an overwhelming majority)
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc at internode.com.au 
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 07/07/2010, at 11:22 PM, Phillip Grasso wrote:
> >
> > > its been pretty clear what Google position all along. Why else do  
> > you think Conroy has it in for Google.
> > >
> > > The problem is that not enough 'outcry' from the industry is  
> > there, so Conroy is free to say he's got the support of the  
> > industry, with a possibly few big players in his back pocket due to  
> > NBN, he can say things such as 'industry consultation/support' etc.
> >
> > I think we could be super organised, with a huge media budget and  
> > the Fed Govt wouldn't change their mind before the election.
> >
> > If they did change their mind then the opposition would just use it  
> > to show (a) they're backing down and not delivering on YET another  
> > policy (b) not tough on Child Pornography (c) not protecting our  
> > kids.  Which ever of the arguments works the best for TonyA at the  
> > time.
> >
> > This isn't a rational argument.  It's clear the Conroy isn't  
> > interested in rational arguments.   The whole proposal is laughable  
> > (heck, I've just come back from the US where we ARE a joke because  
> > of this - most people think it's already running!), but still, the  
> > telecommunications industry is a poor block of votes compared to  
> > keeping the conservative Christian lobby on side (the people who  
> > want this).
> >
> > The focus really needs to be on these things:
> >
> > If Labor is reelected will they claim they have a mandate to  
> > implement the filter (even if no one voted Labor because of it).    
> > Or will it die as a "non-core promise" if Conroy is moved on as  
> > telecommunications minister?
> >
> > If the Liberals are elected instead, what will they do?   Will they  
> > show sanity and kill it (small-l liberal) or be beholden to the same  
> > conservative Christian lobby who have convinced Labor it's a good  
> > idea.
> >
> > Labor, as above, can't be and won't be able to chance their minds  
> > before the election.  The question is - will this be an election  
> > issue or will we be back to beating up on the vunerable and non- 
> > voting refugees again like the tough people we are.   (Must remind  
> > Christians like TonyA about what Christianity is about - seem to  
> > remember a few bits from the Bible from Sunday school and Jesus  
> > embracing everyone and looking after the poor and destitute, not  
> > just some of them - anyway, offtopic).
> >
> > MMC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog