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

Matthew Moyle-Croft mmc at internode.com.au
Thu Jul 8 20:23:22 EST 2010


I'd prefer that the money goes towards Child Protection agencies and various programs to help kids that are actually at risk in their own homes from abuse and neglect.   That'd actually do some good, rather than worrying about the very middle class fears of the "big bad unknown internet".

You know - protect kids from actual harm.

MMC

On 08/07/2010, at 6:57 PM, Phillip Grasso wrote:

I'd prefer filter millions to go towards development and implementation of an online safety campaign for school children. Have a program that will actually either be implemented in schools / or a serious roadshow. Should cover everything from stranger danger to online bullying and

1). Help Protect Australian children from the real predators
2). Educate children on responsible internet usage, and cyber bullying etc.
3). Create the awareness of other real threats online, e.g. phishing etc.

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Chris Pollock <Chris.Pollock at staff.pipenetworks.com<mailto:Chris.Pollock at staff.pipenetworks.com>> wrote:
Agreed, which is why it has to be attacked from a logical point of view.

Argue that:
a) the filter cannot and will not work for what it's claimed to be needed for,
b) the filter is designed to block access to material that is 100% legal,
b) the filter isn't designed to or going to stop child porn, and
c) the money to be spent on something that doesn't stop or catch child porn producers and consumers COULD be better spent funding our great police force who make an ACTUAL difference by catching ACTUAL criminals and putting them in JAIL, rather than turning a blind eye to it.

Keep it factual, logical and on-topic.  We cannot let him get away with Affirming the Consequent[1].  There are a million other arguments, like its potential for subversion for political agendas (eg blocking online gambling to increase domestic gambling and thus tax revenue, restricting access to material that is critical of the government[2]), or how it will slow the networks down, or incur huge manpower costs for ISPs, or how one even defines what constitutes an Internet connection, but they can come later - we need to attack the core logical foundations of the proposal.

[1] http://stephenconroyisanidiot.tumblr.com/post/782995113/affirming-the-consequent
[2] This is already happening without a filter - what will he do with one? http://stephen-conroy.com/page.php?4

--
Chris Pollock
Technical & Install Manager
PIPE Networks Limited

PPC-1 is now live!
6900 km, 20 Months, 2.56 Tbps, 12.5 kilovolts, $200 Million and 100% Australian Owned.
http://www.pipeinternational.com<http://www.pipeinternational.com/>


Mobile :  +61 4 1074 7765
Phone :  +61 7 3233 9813
Fax     :  +61 7 3233 9885
Web    :  www.pipenetworks.com<http://www.pipenetworks.com/>


________________________________
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net> [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>] On Behalf Of Peter Adkins
Sent: Thursday, 8 July 2010 5:53 PM
To: Mark Newton

Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Press: ITNews Story - NetAlert could have performedthe internet filter function

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

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

Can this not be chalked up as Senator Conroy blatantly lying to the general public by enforcing the need for a flawed filter?

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Mark Newton <newton at internode.com.au<mailto:newton at internode.com.au>> wrote:

On 08/07/2010, at 4:45 PM, Roland Chan wrote:

> Again, the requirement in the DBCDE website is to prevent inadvertant access.

That means the policy being advanced by DBCDE right now is a
failure to deliver what Conroy has portrayed as an ALP election
promise in 2007.

The current proposal fails outright to deliver on that new 2010
requirement as well.  Google has identified over a trillion URLs
on the 'net, millions of those would meet the RC definition.  At
last update, Conroy's proposal will "prevent" so-called "accidental"
access to 355 of them, for the princely sum of $44.5m.

 - mark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100708/3dfc4b2e/attachment.html>


More information about the AusNOG mailing list