<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 17:20, Tyson Clugg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tyson@melbournewireless.org.au">tyson@melbournewireless.org.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
First of all, thanks to everyone that has taken the time to reply<br>
already. Keep your thoughts and ideas coming, I appreciate your input!<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 12:27 +1100, emdeex wrote:<br>
> Conroy can't just decide to block something, it has to be passed into<br>
> law by parliament, to ban something, am I right?<br>
<br>
</div>If the government applies their policies in an unlawful manner that is<br>
distinct from having bad policies in the first place. I'd rather keep<br>
focus on what the proposed policies are, as opposed to how they become<br>
law.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 02:01 +1100, Sunnz wrote:<br>
> I think the internet is often incorrectly compared to TV and magazines<br>
> - ISP are not the content provider per se, but a communication<br>
> carrier, more like faxes and phones for example.<br>
<br>
</div>It is worth noting that the Broadcasting Services Act (1992) was written<br>
before the Internet became such a fundamental part of our society. It<br>
was written with the view that a central provider uses "datacasting"<br>
equipment to broadcast content "to persons having equipment appropriate<br>
for receiving that content". The Internet has made it possible for<br>
Australian citizens to broadcast content to the world, and for citizens<br>
of other nations to broadcast content to all Australians. This presents<br>
legislative challenges to the government who need to be seen to be<br>
providing a duty of care to minors - including restricting their access<br>
to content that parents find inappropriate. What actions can the<br>
government take instead of mandatory content filtering to be seen as<br>
addressing these challenges?<br>
<br>
For the most part, ISPs act as "carriage service providers" by providing<br>
an Internet connection, and often as "content service providers" by<br>
providing web hosting for their users - these roles are defined by the<br>
Telecommunications Act (1997). This Act provides the regulatory model<br>
that ISPs operate under, including the development of any industry<br>
"Codes of Practice". Paraphrasing section 112 of the Act:<br>
"The Parliament intends that [ISPs] should develop [industry codes]<br>
that [have regard to] the public interest, including the public interest<br>
in the efficient, equitable and ecologically sustainable supply of<br>
[internet services] in a manner that reflects the legitimate<br>
expectations of the Australian community."<br>
<br>
It could be argued that the government is trying to get ISPs to clean up<br>
their own act by providing content filtering services as some members of<br>
the community could legitimately expect. Furthermore it could be argued<br>
that the ISPs have been dragging their heels on this issue, forcing the<br>
government to consider alternative means of meeting expectations of the<br>
Australian community, rather than through self regulation. What should<br>
our response be to this type of argument?<br>
</blockquote><div><br>ISPs have offered censorware for free for many years.The Government more recently.<br>People have not taken up the offers.<br>Parents have been responsible for their kids for longer.<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
It is understandable that ISPs want no part in this - implementing<br>
content filtering raises their costs which they must pass on to<br>
consumers, and degrades services which draws complaints. But by not<br>
implementing filtering it could be argued that the "legitimate<br>
expectations of the Australian Community" have not been met. How much<br>
of the community shares this expectation is an issue on its own, but a<br>
portion of the population will indeed want such filtering, and will<br>
expect the government to provide it.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 11:26 +1100, <a href="mailto:mw@freenet.net.au">mw@freenet.net.au</a> wrote:<br>
> Personally, I reckon that the previous govt policy of providing<br>
> client-side filter software to all who wants it, is easily the most<br>
> effective and least invasive.<br>
<br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 11:39 +1100, Emil Mikulic wrote:<br>
> Do you mean? <a href="http://www.netalert.gov.au/filters.html" target="_blank">http://www.netalert.gov.au/filters.html</a><br>
><br>
> $85 million spent, downloaded 100,000 times in the first 1.5 weeks,<br>
> and two weeks later still being used by less than 3000 people.<br>
<br>
</div>I have spoken with some "baby boomers" and found those I spoke to feel<br>
that anything that has to be installed on an individual PC is too hard<br>
for most parents to do, and that children are likely to find ways to<br>
disable it anyway. This leaves the ISP as the next likely point to<br>
implement content filtering, but if the ISP doesn't want to provide<br>
filtering services what should be done? It could be argued that the<br>
current proposed policy is an attempt at redressing this scenario. How<br>
do we counter this argument? What about the costs of maintaining and<br>
supporting the existing filter software?<br></blockquote><div><br>If the government wishes to offer an optional filter that ISPs could<br>set clients connections to hit that would be a reasonable solution <br><br>Imposing mandatory Censorship on the population of Australia <br>
(especially with the minimal support shown by the distinct disinterest shown to current options) <br>with side affects of a significant slow down to the performance of the internet. <br>it will drive businesses and educated\capable Australians out of Australia<br>
<br>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<br>Raising a child is hard. thinking about the best action in regards to your children is hard welcome to the human race<br>
<strong style="font-weight: normal;"></strong><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 10:53 +1100, Emil Mikulic wrote:<br>
> I'm worried that you've made the assumption that filtering has<br>
> to be implemented in some way. It doesn't. Not filtering is a<br>
> perfectly viable alternative to the government's plans. I hope<br>
> that point gets presented.<br>
<br>
</div>You've failed to present any arguments supporting your statement.<br>
Please elaborate as to why not implementing any content filtering is a<br>
viable alternative to mandatory content filtering for all citizens, then<br>
we can form policy based on your supporting arguments.<br></blockquote><div><br>Perhaps those supporting Mandatory Censorship should provide a cost benefit statement and reasons why it should be introduced prior to it being introduced.<br>
<br>Solutions for this problem can easily be found.<br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">Move the computer to a common area<br>Have a parent watch what the kids are doing(not all the time just wander in and out of the room)<br>
An optional filter that ISPs can set clients connections to hit when requested by the account holder<br><br></div>That's 5 mins thinking there and everything has been said before<br>
<div>yes it won't stop much of what is out there.<br>
not much will that won't hit everything that isn't<br>
a parent investing time and effort into monitoring and educating their own children will provide the best chance of working.</div><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Whatever your take on the current situation, I'd still love to hear it.<br>
Please keep the responses rolling in!<br>
<br>
Sincerely yours,<br>
<font color="#888888">Tyson Clugg.<br>
President, Melbourne Wireless Inc.</font></blockquote><div><br>++ to this part<br><span id="ctl00_leftColumnContentPlaceHolder_ContentLabel"><br><br></span>Tacticus (kevin)<br></div></div>