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

[Kevin]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 17:20, Tyson Clugg
<tyson at melbournewireless.org.au>wrote:

> First of all, thanks to everyone that has taken the time to reply
> already.  Keep your thoughts and ideas coming, I appreciate your input!
>
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 12:27 +1100, emdeex wrote:
> > Conroy can't just decide to block something, it has to be passed into
> > law by parliament, to ban something, am I right?
>
> If the government applies their policies in an unlawful manner that is
> distinct from having bad policies in the first place.  I'd rather keep
> focus on what the proposed policies are, as opposed to how they become
> law.
>
> 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".  The Internet has made it possible for
> Australian citizens to broadcast content to the world, and for citizens
> of other nations to broadcast content to all Australians.  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.  What actions can the
> government take instead of mandatory content filtering to be seen as
> addressing these challenges?
>
> For the most part, ISPs act as "carriage service providers" by providing
> an Internet connection, and often as "content service providers" by
> providing web hosting for their users - these roles are defined by the
> Telecommunications Act (1997).  This Act provides the regulatory model
> that ISPs operate under, including the development of any industry
> "Codes of Practice".  Paraphrasing section 112 of the Act:
>  "The Parliament intends that [ISPs] should develop [industry codes]
> that [have regard to] the public interest, including the public interest
> in the efficient, equitable and ecologically sustainable supply of
> [internet services] in a manner that reflects the legitimate
> expectations of the Australian community."
>
> 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?
>

ISPs have offered censorware for free for many years.The Government more
recently.
People have not taken up the offers.
Parents have been responsible for their kids for longer.



>
> 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.
>
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 11:26 +1100, mw at freenet.net.au wrote:
> > Personally, I reckon that the previous govt policy of providing
> > client-side filter software to all who wants it, is easily the most
> > effective and least invasive.
>
> 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?  It could be argued that the
> current proposed policy is an attempt at redressing this scenario.  How
> do we counter this argument?  What about the costs of maintaining and
> supporting the existing filter software?
>

If the government wishes to offer an optional filter that ISPs could
set clients connections to hit that would be a reasonable solution

Imposing mandatory Censorship on the population of Australia
(especially with the minimal support shown by the distinct disinterest shown
to current options)
with side affects of a significant slow down to the performance of the
internet.
it will drive businesses and educated\capable Australians out of Australia

If a Parent thinks abdicating their parental responsibility is as easy as
"it's too hard" perhaps they shouldn't be adding to the population
Raising a child is hard. thinking about the best action in regards to your
children is hard welcome to the human race
**


>
>
> 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.
> 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.
>

Perhaps those supporting Mandatory Censorship should provide a cost benefit
statement and reasons why it should be introduced prior to it being
introduced.

Solutions for this problem can easily be found.
Move the computer to a common area
Have a parent watch what the kids are doing(not all the time just wander in
and out of the room)
An optional filter that ISPs can set clients connections to hit when
requested by the account holder

That's 5 mins thinking there and everything has been said before
yes it won't stop much of what is out there.
not much will that won't hit everything that isn't
a parent investing time and effort into monitoring and educating their own
children will provide the best chance of working.



> Whatever your take on the current situation, I'd still love to hear it.
> Please keep the responses rolling in!
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Tyson Clugg.
> President, Melbourne Wireless Inc.


++ to this part


Tacticus (kevin)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wireless.org.au/pipermail/melbwireless/attachments/20081210/75a491ed/attachment.html>