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

[Nick Sibbing]

Gday Tyson thanks for raising it.

Suggested sound bites are:

As a group we support helping parents in their fight against  
objectionable web content. However we strongly disagree with this  
misguided one size fits all proposal. Mandatory ISP filtering is  
needlessly costly, virtually useless and would sharply reduce the  
benefits of the net for all Australians.

Filtering is unlikely to prevent access by kids to objectionable  
websites. They will easily get round it in minutes eg  by using  
overseas proxies. Also most objectionable material is shared by peer  
to peer which won't (can't?) be filtered.

Better to help parents by teaching simple effective strategies like  
keeping any internet PC  in the living room not kids bedrooms so it  
can be supervised.


Kind Regards
Nick Sibbing
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1300 278 385
http://artful.com.au  - Help From a Human
(alternative email artful at exemail.com.au)

On 10/12/2008, at 5:20 PM, Tyson Clugg 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 00:41 +1100, Mike Everest wrote:
>> Although I still think that it is important to keep up the pressure,
>> it looks like this one is increasingly likely to go the way of the
>> last attempt to do something similar about 10 years ago.
>
> I am aware that recent news reports suggest the government is already
> looking at scrapping their current policy.  However...
>
> There are a growing number of parents with young children in  
> Australia,
> especially since the Federal Government "baby bonus" scheme came into
> effect in 2002.  Many of the baby bonus children are now aged 5  
> years or
> older and are starting to use the Internet.  Parents want to protect
> their children, baby boomers want to protect their grandchildren... a
> significant portion of the public will eventually form strong opinions
> on this issue.  Public support for content filtering may be low at the
> moment, but public opinion may be swayed by the next round of  
> propaganda
> by various parties with vested interests in content filtering.  I feel
> that this issue is not likely to go away in the long term.
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Melbwireless mailing list
> Melbwireless at wireless.org.au
> http://wireless.org.au/mailman/listinfo/melbwireless