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

[emdeex]

Here's my latest thoughts on this:

As a hypothetical, If you make an assumption that filtering will:

a) cost nothing at all
b) not impede internet traffic at all
c) be 100% effective and accurate

The question would then be about whether you believe that the
government has a right to choose to block what citizens can access.

Thinking about it as straight censorship, rather than a technical
issue, would perhaps focus the core issue.

regards,
Murray

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Nick Sibbing <nick at artful.com.au> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Melbwireless mailing list
> Melbwireless at wireless.org.au
> http://wireless.org.au/mailman/listinfo/melbwireless
>