[AusNOG] Press: ITNews Story - NetAlert could have performed the internet filter function

[Mark Newton]

On 08/07/2010, at 5:22 PM, Peter Adkins wrote:

Unfortunately, it's getting to the point where a rebuttal from a technical standpoint is simply being dismissed,

FFS, people, I keep saying this, but I'm not sure you're getting it:

There is no rebuttal from a technical standpoint.  None. Nada. Zip.  The people
pushing the policy simply aren't interested, and will shamelessly enact legislation
which is technically impossible to comply with EVEN IF they're provided with
exhaustive advisory materials if said legislation dots their political i's and crosses
their rhetorical t's.

That doesn't mean tech arguments aren't important, it just means they need
to be rolled into the political ones.

For instance:  Here's a technical argument about performance:

"Not one single datapoint in the Enex trials last year provided any evidence
at all that speeds faster than 8 megabits per second can be censored without
performance loss.  One of the ISPs couldn't manage more than 0.25 Mbps."

Here's a political argument which uses the technical datapoint:

"How can the Government assure anyone that this is going to work on the
NBN when they've only tested up to 8% of NBN speeds?  That's like testing
a vehicle in an empty car park at 8 km/h and declaring it safe for operation
around pedestrians even though the car is designed to drive at 100 km/h
alongside thousands of other cars. This proposal is `unsafe at any speed.'"

and any attempts to express how the policy is a waste of money is being met with:
"BUT YOU CAN'T PUT A PRICE ON THE SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN!"

So there's a non-technical argument against that too:

"The quality of this debate has been dragged so deeply into the mud that
every rational criticism of the proposal is met with automatic, robotic
chants about child abuse.  The Minister cannot expect serious grown-up
discussion if he keeps debasing himself like that.  Can we all please agree
that there are valid reasons to oppose his proposal which have nothing
to do with support for child porn?"

You don't have to rebut the "can't put a price" line.  There's no point, anyone
who says something like that knows they're just taking the piss and they
don't care.

So you cut the legs out from under it by pointing out that they're debating
dishonestly, and challenging them to justify themselves.  That changes
the debate from, "Anything is okay to protect the chillun's!" into, "Can you
please not be so childish?" and shifts the subject onto their own intellectual
honesty.

I don't think that this situation is one which can be won through reasoning with Sen. Conroy directly, or even by-proxy.

Senator Conroy isn't in charge of this policy at the moment.  If he was
it'd have happened already.

Unfortunately, it seems that If the filter isn't implemented it will be picked up by those who either no not know, or do not care, about the reasons that it was scrapped and be cast as another "failure" of a Labor government.

You think?  I reckon such a decision would be met with relief.  Probably
by BOTH sides of the debate.

Have you spoken to many people about it in the last week?  I've been
quietly encouraged by the number of people I've seen saying, "I thought
Gillard would be better, but I can't vote for her as long as this thing
is still alive."

  - mark

--
Mark Newton                               Email:  newton at internode.com.au<mailto:newton at internode.com.au> (W)
Network Engineer                          Email:  newton at atdot.dotat.org<mailto:newton at atdot.dotat.org>  (H)
Internode Pty Ltd                         Desk:   +61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile: +61-416-202-223





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100708/ac326c02/attachment.html>