[AusNOG] Rudd shelves Filtering legislation

[Andrew Oskam]

Just saw this in my morning news read - 
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/182029,iinet-primus-split-on-filter.aspx

I had a good long read and stopped for a rather large chuckle at a 
number of snippits:

> Concerns "a future government may misuse the ISP filters and extend 
> the policy to cover freedom of speech or political dissent" were 
> unfounded, he said.
Given that the censorship is yet to be released it's impossible for 
anyone to collect hardened facts but I believe there have been numerous 
occasions where the government has misused and abused programs it has 
implement for their own political gain.
It's politics for christ sake! It's common knowledge that if you give 
_anyone_ the power to run your life for you they may not necessarily 
have your best interests at heart.

A filter that is meant to protect you from Refused Content that is 
listed on a blacklist that YOU, as an Australian citizen, is prohibited 
from seeing is very scary.

> The Primus chief also disagrees with those who oppose the filter plan 
> on the premise that it is technically flawed.
I'm yet to see any evidence of its testing against IPv6 and the NBN 
conditions therefore it cannot possibly have been thoroughly tested to 
the point where it is deemed faultless.

> "Sure, some people may wish to get around the filter, and we will deal 
> with that in time," he said. "But I don't believe many Australian 
> families will want to bypass it."
You're absolutely right - families won't want to bypass the filter 
because they won't need to - the filter isn't blocking the content that 
it SHOULD be.
Families aren't so concerned about the bestiality, terrorism and suicide 
content purely because this content is much harder to simply stumble upon!
If they intend on pushing for this filter, then they should be focusing 
on content that IS easy to stumble across because this is the content 
children shouldn't be seeing.
It's simply a waste of money to push for a program that isn't satisfying 
what parents want in protection for their children ultimately leading to 
a false sense of safety - even if the onus for the childs protection 
should be on the parents.

> Bhatia said it is also important to note that the filter is "one 
> component of the cyber-safety measures" required to protect 
> Australians from harmful content.

Surely you mean the same content that is difficult to find unless you're 
actually looking hard enough.

> "If a filter helps keep families safe on the internet then I'm not 
> going to object to it," he said.
But it's not keeping families safe - Chat Rooms and MSN are the #1 place 
where pedophiles stalk young children. Is the filter going to block 
that? If not, then how is it protecting families?

> Bhatia asserts that if most Australians were polled specifically 
> around the details of Senator Conroy's filtering plan, there would be 
> "overwhelming support" in relation to content that involves "child 
> porn, rape, bestiality, drug making and training for terrorism et al".
I'm pretty sure that your assertions are overwhelmingly incorrect, IMO.

When you scale bestiality, drug making, terrorism training and even 
Child Porn against kidnapping and stalking of young children - I'm 
fairly sure that that the latter becomes less common.

Noggers, please do not take my statement as a sign that I don't care for 
or consider the latter to be any less important or harmless - I'm simply 
trying to make a point that, although the filter has the best of 
intentions, it ultimately is flawed and does not satisfy what we need.

</rant>




Andrew Oskam

E  percy at th3interw3bs.net


NOTICE:

These comments are my own personal opinions only and do not necessarily 
reflect the positions or opinions of my employer or their affiliates. 
All comments are based upon my current knowledge and my own personal 
experiences. You should conduct independent tests to verify the validity 
of any statements made in this email before basing any decisions upon 
those statements.




On 12/05/10 3:18 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2010, at 2:20 PM, Matt Shadbolt wrote:
>
>> Has anyone in the media actually asked the direct question to Abbott? 
>> Are the libs pro/anti filter?
>
> The Libs aren't going to answer that until they see draft legislation.
>
> The reason is pretty simple:  If the Libs say they'll unequivocally 
> oppose it
> now, the ALP will draft the legislation so that it contains something 
> the libs
> support.
>
> Having gone on the record saying they'll oppose it, they'll then be 
> forced to
> either appear inconsistent by changing their minds, or stay true to their
> committment and vote against their own interests.
>
> Wedge politics 101.
>
> If draft legislation is ever released (still planned for March 2010 
> apparently :)
> we'll get to see what the Coalition thinks about it.  But don't bank 
> on them
> staking-out any territory on it until then.
>
>   - 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100603/fc6c8bdd/attachment.html>