[MLB-WIRELESS] Government Internet Filter - What do you think?

[Emil Mikulic]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 05:20:51PM +1100, Tyson Clugg wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 02:01 +1100, Sunnz wrote:
> > I think the internet is often incorrectly compared to TV and magazines
> > - ISP are not the content provider per se, but a communication
> > carrier, more like faxes and phones for example.
> 
> It is worth noting that the Broadcasting Services Act (1992) was written
> before the Internet became such a fundamental part of our society.  It
> was written with the view that a central provider uses "datacasting"
> equipment to broadcast content "to persons having equipment appropriate
> for receiving that content"

Clive Hamilton has been doing a great job of conflating the Internet
with TV.  If you address this point, I hope you make it very clear that
the internet is not a television.  If you really must make an analogy,
compare it to the postal service or a phone network, like Sunnz
suggested.

And if the Broadcasting Services Act is getting this wrong then the
Act should be fixed.

> It could be argued that the government is trying to get ISPs to clean
> up their own act by providing content filtering services as some
> members of the community could legitimately expect.  Furthermore it
> could be argued that the ISPs have been dragging their heels on this
> issue, forcing the government to consider alternative means of meeting
> expectations of the Australian community, rather than through self
> regulation.  What should our response be to this type of argument?

That if there were demand for such a service, the free market would
provide more of it.  Not provide it, provide more of it.  Because there
are already ISPs that sell ISP-level filtering:

- http://www.webshield.net.au/
- http://www.itxtreme.com.au/

AFAIK Netspace provides filtered feeds to schools.
Does anyone know of any others?

> It is understandable that ISPs want no part in this - implementing
> content filtering raises their costs which they must pass on to
> consumers, and degrades services which draws complaints.  But by not
> implementing filtering it could be argued that the "legitimate
> expectations of the Australian Community" have not been met.  How much
> of the community shares this expectation is an issue on its own
> but a portion of the population will indeed want such filtering, and
> will expect the government to provide it.

Why not user pays?

It's not like spending taxes on roads and infrastructure, it's a
specific feature that can be provided and billed on a per-user basis,
and I suspect only a small minority of users actually wants it.

> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 11:39 +1100, Emil Mikulic wrote:
> > Do you mean?  http://www.netalert.gov.au/filters.html
> > 
> > $85 million spent, downloaded 100,000 times in the first 1.5 weeks,
> > and two weeks later still being used by less than 3000 people.
> 
> I have spoken with some "baby boomers" and found those I spoke to feel
> that anything that has to be installed on an individual PC is too hard
> for most parents to do, and that children are likely to find ways to
> disable it anyway.  This leaves the ISP as the next likely point to
> implement content filtering, but if the ISP doesn't want to provide
> filtering services what should be done?

I'd say: don't wait for the government to act, move to an ISP that
offers this service right now!  See above for two suggestions.

However, the children will still find ways around it.

> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 10:53 +1100, Emil Mikulic wrote:
> > I'm worried that you've made the assumption that filtering has
> > to be implemented in some way.  It doesn't.  Not filtering is a
> > perfectly viable alternative to the government's plans.  I hope
> > that point gets presented.
> 
> You've failed to present any arguments supporting your statement.

Sorry.

> Please elaborate as to why not implementing any content filtering is a
> viable alternative to mandatory content filtering for all citizens, then
> we can form policy based on your supporting arguments.

I think the majority of Australians don't need a filter to protect
them from content they've already decided not to watch.

Why do we need a filter at all?  Is there a single answer to this
question?

Is it to protect children from pictures of naked people, or to protect
children from pedophiles?  Those two points keep getting conflated.

If some parents think that it's appropriate to give their children
internet access, but either can't or won't supervise is, why should the
government be charged with parenting these children?

You wrote earlier:
> This presents legislative challenges to the government who need to be
> seen to be providing a duty of care to minors - including restricting
> their access to content that parents find inappropriate.

The government doesn't restrict minors from watching MA15+ movies on TV.
The OFLC classifies movies, but only parents/guardians can perform the
actual restricting.

What sort of argument were you looking for specifically, Tyson?
Can anyone else help me out here?

--Emil (long time lurker, first time poster)