The problem with a rally is that it's such a fuzzy issue, and it's far too easy for politicians to demonize the protesters. We *don't* like child pornography, and we *do* like children being safe on the internet. But, if you get a thousand (or more) people on the street trying to make the message succinct, I think it's going to fail.
I agree with Elias - the caucus is the target. Conroy doesn't seem to care for reasoned discussion, but if we can get some other Labor minds switched on and understanding our perspective, maybe change will eventually come from within? I know politicians can be two-faced at times about caring, as Warren's mentioned - but that doesn't mean we should assume they're all always going to be like that. I'm not sure where the suggestion for state ALP ministers came up - I agree that that's a waste of time. Senators and Federal MPs - particularly Labor ones - are where the focus needs to be. -- Pat On 08/01/2009, at 11:49 AM, Ash Angell wrote: > So should we organise some protests? Maybe if we can get enough > people to turn upwith some signs along the lines of "dont be > fuckings with the internet", we might make mainstream news coverage, > which in my opinion is the main reason more people aren't even AWARE > that such a thing might happen. > > Im reasonably sure everyone on this group AND in the Twitterverse > would turn up, maybe even some mainstream mums and dads too? > > I would also like to see the Microsoft's, the ISP's and the > Atlassians to speak up on our behalf. I dont think the people in > Australia with the right influence and power/money are being as > vocal as they could be. > > So how abouts it? Who's up for a good 'ol fashioned rally to drive > this legislation outta town? Lets make a whole lotta noise. > > Ash > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Geoff McQueen - Hiive Systems > <[email protected] > > wrote: > Elias and Will, > > > On the numbers so far, the issue isn't whether the filter in its > current proposed form would get up – with the Coalition and the > Greens saying they don't support it, then it won't get through. > > > Ministers don't go to the effort of writing legislation they know > won't get up unless they think they can force it across the line > with public support, and in the process use it as a wedge to > negatively impact their political adversaries. I don't know that the > Filter has enough mainstream understanding or care to be that kind > of wedge issue (IR/workchoices stuff, and class-warfare-taxation > like the luxury car tax increase when cars of that value are hardly > a luxury etc are examples of that). > > > The opportunity and benefit of putting your point to your local > member is exactly as Elias points out – it is so that your local > member can be a bit more informed, and hopefully that will translate > into a conversation here, a chat there, and if it comes to it, > taking a position in Caucus. The object is to get this thing wound > back from what's currently discussed before there's legislation; > sure, if the Libs/Nats and the Greens knock any filter proposal on > the head in the Senate, I won't be at all disappointed, but I'd > rather have the senate be presented with legislation for an opt-in, > optional waste of taxpayers dollars than the proposals we're seeing > now. > > > So, accepting your comments about politicians being expert at > convincing you they care enough to keep your vote and move you > along, my focus was to educate: excluding back the highly subjective > debate about censorship and where the line should be, a compulsory > filter is very very very clearly a very bad idea; while politicians > might be vote for bad ideas, they're probably less likely to if they > actually understand they're bad. > > > Geoff > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected] > ] On Behalf Of Elias Bizannes > Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2009 11:47 AM > > To: [email protected] > Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: Fwd: The Rudd Filter > > > With Labor, the caucus dominates. People you never hear about, > behind the scenes hold the balance of power. So a lower house member > isn't a waste, as they are equal voters on the behind the scenes > voting. > > > It's been a while, but the Labor party is essentially a group of > factions. It's institutionalised as the Left and the Right (ie, the > right always get leader of the party; the left always get deputy), > but there is the unofficial sub-factions which are groups of three > people sometimes. These factions determined everything - for > positions, to policy. A position on the filter for example, could > determine a pre-selection. They barter all they time. > > > From a longer term point of view - which is what we should be > thinking as this is a multi-year war and we are simply fighting > battles right now - we need a sea change within the party room. > Divide and conquer, in sync with all these other public facing > initiative, can make a big difference. > > I think Nick Hodges proposal of reacting by being proactive might be > the best strategy. It's embracing that yes, we do need to protect > the children - and creating a citizen-driven organisation that rates > websites would take the wind out of a mandatory filter. > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Warren Seen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I've been involved in a bit of lobbying here in Tas over the last year > or so (http://www.digitaltasmania.org/get-basslink-going), so I > thought I'd chuck in my 2c worth. > > Good politicians are masters of the art of making you think they give > a shit about your issue, so they can get you out the door when your 20 > minute slot is up. > > With lobbying State members, you're wasting your time and theirs - ALP > members will brush you off because it's the party line, Liberals will > express their displeasure since it's *their* party line, but then tell > you it's a Federal issue and there's nothing they can do anyway. > > Senators are the ones you really need to target, since the ALP has a > lower house majority the legislation will pass there unless they were > to allow a conscience vote (highly unlikely in my opinion) and some of > the ALP members voted against it - unfortunately we don't have any > really tech-heavy electorates that might be able to swing a seat or > two from Labor at the next election, as these are the places to really > apply pressure. > > At the end of the day, it comes down to who holds the balance of power > in the senate, and what sort of horse trading they'll do with the ALP > for their votes. > > Normally I'd suggest that it was a safe bet to be defeated in the > Senate as the Greens and Coalition are both against the filter, > however there's always a chance that the Nationals Senators might > split from the Coalition voting lines if sufficient enticement was > offered (like maybe first service for rural Queensland and NSW in any > NBN rollout?) > > I think the key to killing this thing is not just in lobbying > government, but in making the initiative so totally unpopular that > Conroy will have no option but to kill it on "technical grounds" to > save face. Add to that concerned businesses who may feel threatened by > the legislation - eg Betfair operates from Tasmania and i'd wager > [haha] that they're very worried that Nick Xenephon might push the > anti-gambling agenda through the filter and essentially kill their biz > here. > > The protest turnouts so far have been laughable in comparison to eg > the Gunns Pulp Mill here in Tas, so until they can get 8-10,000 warm > bodies showing their displeasure in one place, there's no real > incentive for Conroy et al to take that "out". You can twitter all day > every day about it, but it won't make a lick of difference politically > because no one can see that in the "real world". Figure out a way to > get people talking about it in public without the fear of being > labelled child pornographers and I imagine you'd see the vocal > opposition to this increase significantly. > > Cheers, > > Warren > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Ash Angell > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is there any benefit in doing the same thing for state members? I > know this > > is a federal issue, but is there any value at all? And what about > the > > Senators, since they are the last line of defense. > > Ash > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Geoff McQueen - Hiive Systems > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Pat, > >> > >> Good tip. If others want to get in on the act, 'call dibs' on > your local > >> member. > >> > >> You can use the shared spreadsheet at > >> http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=paG-OowBO9g-C8u-uOPbDHg > and put your > >> name next to your member. Once you've had a meeting, update the > date and > >> provide a couple of quick comments if you have the time... that > was we can > >> be a bit coordinated about this. > >> > >> If you don't know what electorate you're in, you can search at > >> http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/. > >> > >> According to http://www.aph.gov.au/HOUSE/info/sittings/index.htm > we've got > >> just a couple more weeks until Parliament sits again at the > beginning of > >> Feb, so the clock is ticking to try and nail down your local > member while > >> they're still at home... > >> > >> Geoff > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Pat Allan > >> Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2009 5:51 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: [SiliconBeach] Re: Fwd: The Rudd Filter > >> > >> > >> Cannot agree with Geoff more - if it matters, get out there and > talk > >> to politicians, especially Labor ones. If you local minister isn't > >> ALP, find a senator for your state who is. > >> http://freelancing-gods.com/posts/revisiting_internet_filter_action > >> > >> -- > >> Pat > >> > >> On 07/01/2009, at 1:22 PM, Geoff McQueen wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > Hi everyone, > >> > > >> > Things have been a bit quiet on the #nocleanfeed issue for a > little > >> > while, but following on from a prod by @pat to get off my butt > and > >> > register my opposition with my local MP, I made an appointment, > and > >> > today had a really good meeting with Sharon Bird (ALP), my local > >> > member. > >> > > >> > We had a really good chat, and I've taken the time to write up > the > >> > approach/argument I used, as well as make a few notes from the > >> > conversation at > >> > http://www.geoffmcqueen.com/2009/01/07/my-chat-about-nocleanfeed-with-sharon-bird-mp/ > >> > . > >> > > >> > If you're against the filter, I suggest you do similar and make > an > >> > appointment to chat with your local MP. They'll be easier to > pin down > >> > in January, and making an articulate argument in person is > invaluable > >> > given the amount of hyperbole flying around in general (on both > sides > >> > of the issue). > >> > > >> > Elias is write about the positive effect SiliconBeach has had > on this > >> > debate - now its time to make it personal ;-) > >> > > >> > Geoff > >> > > >> > > >> > On Nov 12 2008, 12:33 pm, "Elias Bizannes" > <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> >> From: Xenophon, Nick (Senator) <[email protected]> > >> >> Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:31 PM > >> >> Subject: RE: The Rudd Filter > >> >> To: Elias Bizannes <[email protected]> > >> >> > >> >> Dear Elias > >> >> > >> >> Thank you for your email to Nick Xenophon regarding the proposed > >> >> internet > >> >> clean feed. Nick shares your concerns that the technology being > >> >> advocated by > >> >> the government may not work. There is a real danger based on > trials > >> >> of the > >> >> technology that have been undertaken that banned sites will get > >> >> through the > >> >> filter and sites that were not intended to be banned will be > >> >> blocked. He > >> >> will continue to investigate this matter and decide on what he > >> >> believes is > >> >> the appropriate course of action in due course. > >> >> > >> >> I will forward your email to Nick and his advisors for their > >> >> information. > >> >> Thank you for taking the time to write to Nick on this important > >> >> issue. > >> >> > >> >> Kind Regards > >> >> *HANNAH WOOLLER* > >> >> Correspondence Officer for Nick Xenophon > >> >> Independent Senator for South Australia > >> >> > >> >> 212 Grenfell Street > >> >> ADELAIDE SA 5000 > >> >> p: 08 8232 1144 > >> >> f: 08 8232 3744 > >> >> > >> >> The information contained within this email may be > confidential and/ > >> >> or > >> >> legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, > access > >> >> to it is > >> >> unauthorised and any disclosure, copying, distribution or action > >> >> taken or > >> >> omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be > >> >> unlawful. > >> >> > >> >> *From:* Elias Bizannes [mailto:[email protected]] > >> >> *Sent:* Monday, 3 November 2008 1:08 AM > >> >> *To:* Abetz, Eric (Senator); Adams, Judith (Senator); Arbib, > Mark > >> >> (Senator); > >> >> Barnett, Guy (Senator); Bernardi, Cory (Senator); Bilyk, Catryna > >> >> (Senator); > >> >> Birmingham, Simon (Senator); Bishop, Mark (Senator); Boswell, > Ron > >> >> (Senator); > >> >> Boyce, Sue (Senator); Brandis, George (Senator); Brown, Carol > >> >> (Senator); > >> >> Bushby, David (Senator); Cameron, Doug (Senator); Carr, Kim > >> >> (Senator); Cash, > >> >> Michaelia (Senator); Colbeck, Richard (Senator); Collins, > Jacinta > >> >> (Senator); > >> >> Conroy, Stephen (Senator); Coonan, Helen (Senator); Cormann, > Mathias > >> >> (Senator); Crossin, Patricia (Senator); Eggleston, Alan > (Senator); > >> >> Ellison, > >> >> Christopher (Senator); Evans, Chris (Senator); Farrell, Don > >> >> (Senator); > >> >> Feeney, David (Senator); Ferguson, Alan (Senator); Fielding, > Steve > >> >> (Senator); Fierravanti-Wells, Concetta (Senator); Fifield, > Mitchell > >> >> (Senator); Fisher, Mary Jo (Senator); Forshaw, Michael > (Senator); > >> >> Furner, > >> >> Mark (Senator); Hanson-Young, Sarah (Senator); Heffernan, Bill > >> >> (Senator); > >> >> Hogg, John (Senator); Humphries, Gary (Senator); Hurley, Annette > >> >> (Senator); > >> >> Hutchins, Steve (Senator); Johnston, David (Senator); Joyce, > Barnaby > >> >> (Senator); Kroger, Helen (Senator); Ludlam, Scott (Senator); > >> >> Ludwig, Joe > >> >> (Senator); Lundy, Kate (Senator); Macdonald, Ian (Senator); > McEwen, > >> >> Anne > >> >> (Senator); McGauran, Julian (Senator); McLucas, Jan (Senator); > >> >> Marshall, > >> >> Gavin (Senator); Mason, Brett (Senator); Milne, Christine > (Senator); > >> >> Minchin, Nick (Senator); Moore, Claire (Senator); Nash, Fiona > >> >> (Senator); > >> >> O'Brien, Kerry (Senator); Parry, Stephen (Senator); Payne, > Marise > >> >> (Senator); > >> >> Polley, Helen (Senator); Ronaldson, Michael (Senator); Ryan, > Scott > >> >> (Senator); Scullion, Nigel (Senator); Sherry, Nick (Senator); > >> >> Siewert, > >> >> Rachel (Senator); Stephens, Ursula (Senator); Sterle, Glenn > >> >> (Senator); > >> >> Troeth, Judith (Senator); Trood, Russell (Senator); Wong, > Penelope > >> >> (Senator); Wortley, Dana (Senator); Xenophon, Nick (Senator); > >> >> Faulkner, John > >> >> (Senator); Brown, Bob (Senator) > >> >> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; > >> >> [email protected]; [email protected]; > >> >> [email protected]; > >> >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > >> >> [email protected]; [email protected]; > >> >> [email protected]; > >> >> [email protected]; [email protected] > ; > >> >> [email protected] > >> >> *Subject:* The Rudd Filter > >> >> > >> >> Attention: Senators of the Australian parliament > >> >> > >> >> With all due respect, I believe my elected representatives as > well > >> >> as my > >> >> fellow Australians misunderstand the issue of Internet > censorship. > >> >> Below I > >> >> offer my perspective, which I hope can re-position the debate > with > >> >> a more > >> >> complete understanding of the issues. > >> >> > >> >> The following letter can also be accessed via > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/ruddfilter/http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/ruddfilter/The_Rudd_Filter.pdf > >> >> Background > >> >> > >> >> The policy of the Australian Labor Party on its Internet > filter was > >> >> in > >> >> reaction to the Howard Government's family-based approach which > >> >> Labor said > >> >> was a failure. Then leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, > >> >> announced in > >> >> March 2006 <http://www.alp.org.au/media/0306/msloo210.php> > (Internet > >> >> > >> >> archive<http://web.archive.org/web/20060422120043/http:/www.alp.org.au/media/ > >> >> > ... > >> >> >) > >> >> that under Labor "all Internet Service Providers will be > required > >> >> to offer a > >> >> filtered 'clean feed' Internet service to all households, and to > >> >> schools and > >> >> other public internet points accessible by kids." The same press > >> >> release > >> >> states "Through an opt-out system, adults who still want to view > >> >> currently > >> >> legal content would advise their Internet Service Provider (ISP) > >> >> that they > >> >> want to opt out of the "clean feed", and would then face the > same > >> >> regulations which currently apply." > >> >> > >> >> The 2007 Federal election, which was led by Kevin Rudd, > announced the > >> >> election > >> >> pledge<http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf > >> >> > > >> >> that > >> >> "a Rudd Labor Government will require ISPs to offer a 'clean > feed' > >> >> Internet > >> >> service to all homes, schools and public Internet points > accessible > >> >> by > >> >> children, such as public libraries. Labor's ISP policy will > prevent > >> >> Australian children from accessing any content that has been > >> >> identified as > >> >> prohibited by ACMA, including sites such as those containing > child > >> >> pornography and X-rated material." > >> >> > >> >> Following the election, the Minister for Broadband, > Communications > >> >> and > >> >> Digital Economy Senator Stephen Conroy in December 2007 > clarified > >> >> that > >> >> anyone wanting uncensored access to the Internet will have to > opt- > >> >> out of the > >> >> service <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/31/2129471.htm > >. > >> >> > >> >> In October 2008, the policy had another subtle yet dramatic > shift. > >> >> When > >> >> examined by a Senate Estimates committee, Senator Conroy > >> >> > >> >> stated<http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/transcript/cybersafety-n > >> >> > ... > >> >> > > >> >> that > >> >> "we are looking at two tiers - mandatory of illegal material > and an > >> >> option > >> >> for families to get a clean feed service if they wish." Further, > >> >> Conroy > >> >> mentioned "We would be enforcing the existing laws. If > investigated > >> >> material > >> >> is found to be prohibited content then ACMA may order it to be > >> >> taken down if > >> >> it is hosted in Australia. They are the existing laws at the > moment." > >> >> > >> >> The interpretation of this, which has motivated this paper as > well as > >> >> sparked outrage by Australians nation-wide, is that all Internet > >> >> connection > >> >> points in Australia will be subjected to the filter, with only > the > >> >> option to > >> >> opt-out of the Family tier but not the tier that classifies > 'illegal > >> >> material'. While the term "mandatory" has been used as part of > the > >> >> policy in > >> >> the past, it has always been used in the context of making it > >> >> mandatory for > >> >> ISP's to offer such as service. It was never used in the > context of > >> >> it being > >> >> mandatory for Australians on the Internet, to use it. > >> >> > >> >> Not only is this a departure from the Rudd government's election > >> >> pledge, but > >> >> there is little evidence to suggest that it is not truly being > >> >> representative of the requests from the Australian community. > >> >> Senator Conroy > >> >> has shown evidence of the previous NetAlert policy by the > previous > >> >> government falling far below expectations. According to > Conroy, 1.4 > >> >> million > >> >> families were expected to download the filter, but many less > actually > >> >> > >> >> did<http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/ssc-conroy-confirms-commitm > >> >> > ... > >> >> >. > >> >> The estimated end usage according to Conroy is just 30,000 - > >> >> despite a $22 > >> >> million advertising campaign. The attempt by this government to > >> >> pursue this > >> >> policy therefore, is for its own ideological or political > >> >> > >> >> benefit<http://stilgherrian.com/politics/petitions_drove_filtering_policy > >> >> >. > >> >> The Australian people never gave the mandate nor is there > evidence to > >> >> indicate majority support to pursue this agenda. Further, the > >> >> government > >> >> trials to date have shown the technology to be ineffective. > >> >> > >> >> On the 27th of October, some 9,000 people had signed a > >> >> > >> >> petition<http://petitions.takingitglobal.org/oznetcensorship?signedpetition=14 > >> >> > ... > >> >> > > >> >> to > >> >> deny support of a government filter. At the time of writing this > >> >> letter on > >> >> the 2 November, this has now climbed to 13,655 people. The > >> >> government's > >> >> moves are being closely watched by the community and > activities are > >> >> being > >> >> planned to respond to the government should this policy > continue in > >> >> its > >> >> current direction. > >> >> > >> >> I write this to describe the impact such a policy will have if > it > >> >> goes > >> >> ahead, to educate the government and the public. > >> >> > >> >> Impacts on Australia Context > >> >> > >> >> The approach of the government to filtering is one dimensional > and > >> >> does not > >> >> take into account the converged world of the Internet. The > Internet > >> >> has - > >> >> and will continue to - transform our world. It has become a > >> >> utility, to form > >> >> the backbone of our economy and communications. Fast and wide- > >> >> spread access > >> >> to the Internet has been recognised globally as a priority > policy for > >> >> political and business leaders of the world. > >> >> > >> >> The Internet typically allows three broad types of activities. > The > >> >> first is > >> >> that of facilitating the exchange of goods and services. The > >> >> Internet has > >> >> become a means of creating a more efficient marketplace, and is > >> >> well known > >> >> to have driven demand in offline selling as > >> >> > >> >> well<http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/SCOR/0x0x101467/c60d8600-c8c8- > >> >> > ... > >> >> >, > >> >> as it creates better informed consumers to reach richer decision > >> >> making. On > >> >> the other hand, online market places can exist with > considerable less > >> >> overhead - creating a more efficient marketplace than in the > >> >> physical world, > >> >> enabling stronger niche markets through greater connections > between > >> >> buyers > >> >> and sellers. > >> >> > >> >> The second activity is that of communications. This has > enabled a > >> >> New Media > >> >> or Hypermedia of many-to-many communications, with people now > >> >> having a new > >> >> way to communicate and propagate information. The core value > of the > >> >> World > >> >> Wide Web can be realised from its founding purpose: created by > >> >> CERN<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN>, > >> >> it was meant to be a hypertext > >> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext> implementation > >> >> that would allow better knowledge sharing of its global > network of > >> >> scientists. It was such a transformative thing, that the role of > >> >> the media > >> >> has forever changed. For example, newspapers that thrived as > >> >> businesses in > >> >> the Industrial Age, now face challenges to their business > models, > >> >> as younger > >> >> generations are preferring to access their information over > Internet > >> >> services which objectively is a more effective way to do > >> >> > >> >> so<http://futureexploration.net/fom/2008/07/consumers_want_information_n > >> >> > ... > >> >> > > >> >> . > >> >> > >> >> A third activity is that of utility. This is a growing area of > the > >> >> Internet, > >> >> where it is creating new industries and better ways of doings, > now > >> >> that we > >> >> have a global community of people connected to share > information. The > >> >> traditional software industry is being changed into a service > >> >> > >> >> model<http://www.scripting.com/disruption/ozzie/TheInternetServicesDisrupti > >> >> > ... > >> >> > > >> >> where > >> >> instead of paying a license, companies offer an annual > subscription > >> >> to use > >> >> the software via the browser as platform (as opposed to a PC's > >> >> Window's > >> >> installation as the platform). Cloud computing is a trend > pioneered > >> >> by > >> >> Google, and now an area of innovation by other major Internet > >> >> companies like > >> >> Amazon and Microsoft, that will allow people to have their data > >> >> portable and > >> >> accessible anywhere in the world. These are disruptive trends, > that > >> >> will > >> >> further embed the Internet into our world. > >> >> > >> >> The Internet will be unnecessarily restricted > >> >> > >> >> All three of the broad activities described above, will be > affected > >> >> by a > >> >> filter. > >> >> > >> >> The impact on Markets with analysis-based filters, is that it > will > >> >> likely > >> >> block access to sites due to a description used in selling > items. > >> >> Suggestions by Senators have been that hardcore and fetish > >> >> pornography be > >> >> blocked - content that may be illegal for minors to view, but > >> >> certainly not > >> >> illegal for consenting adults. For example, legitimate > businesses > >> >> that used > >> >> the web as their shopfront (such as adultshop.com.au), will be > >> >> restricted > >> >> from the general population in their pursuit of recreational > >> >> activities. The > >> >> filter's restriction on information for Australians is thus a > >> >> restriction on > >> >> trade and will impact individuals and their freedoms in their > >> >> personal > >> >> lives. > >> >> > >> >> The impact on communications is large. The Internet has > created a > >> >> new form > >> >> of media called "social media". Weblogs, wiki's, micro-blogging > >> >> services > >> >> like Twitter, forums like Australian start-up business Tangler > and > >> >> other > >> >> forms of social media are likely to have their content - and > thus > >> >> service - > >> >> restricted. The free commentary of individuals on these > services, > >> >> will lead > >> >> to a censoring and a restriction in the ability to use the > >> >> services. "User > >> >> generated content" is considered a central tenet in the > >> >> proliferation of > >> >> web2.0, yet the application of industrial area controls on the > >> >> content > >> >> businesses now runs into a clash with people's public speech > as the > >> >> two > >> >> concepts that were previously distinct in that era, have now > merged. > >> >> > >> >> Further more, legitimate information services will be blocked > with > >> >> analysis-based filtering due to language that would trigger > >> >> filtering. As > >> >> noted in the ACMA > >> >> > >> >> report<http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310554/isp-level_interne > >> >> > ... > >> >> >, > >> >> "the filters performed significantly better when blocking > >> >> pornography and > >> >> other adult content but performed less well when blocking other > >> >> types of > >> >> content". As a case in point, a site containing the word > "breast", > >> >> would be > >> >> filtered despite it having legitimate value in providing breast > >> >> cancer > >> >> awareness. > >> >> > >> >> Utility services could be adversely affected. The increasing > trend of > >> >> computing 'in the cloud' means that our computing > infrastructure will > >> >> require an efficient and open Internet. A filter will do nothing > >> >> but disrupt > >> >> this, with little ability to achieve the policy goal of > preventing > >> >> illegal > >> >> material. As consumers and businesses move to the cloud, > critical > >> >> functions > >> >> will be relied on, and any threat in the distribution and under- > >> >> realisation > >> >> of potential speeds, will be a burden on the economy. > >> >> > >> >> Common to all three classes above, is the degradation of > speeds and > >> >> access. > >> >> The ACMA report claims that all six filters tested scored an 88% > >> >> effectiveness rate in terms of blocking the content that the > >> >> government was > >> >> hoping would be blocked. It also claims that over-blocking of > >> >> acceptable > >> >> content was 8% for all filters tested, with network > degradation not > >> >> nearly > >> >> as big of a problem during these tests as it was during previous > >> >> previous > >> >> trials, when performance degradation ranged from 75-98%. In this > >> >> latest > >> >> test, the ACMA said degradation was down, but > >> >> > >> >> The Government has recognised with the > >> >> > >> >> legislation<http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/cth/bill_em/bsasb > >> >> > ... > >> >> > > >> >> it > >> >> bases its regulatory authority from, that "whilst it takes > >> >> seriously its > >> >> responsibility to provide an effective regime to address the > >> >> publication of > >> >> illegal and offensive material online, it wishes to ensure that > >> >> regulation > >> >> does not place onerous or unjustifiable burdens on industry and > >> >> inhibit the > >> >> development of the online economy." > >> >> > >> >> The compliance costs alone will hinder the online economy. ISP's > >> >> will need > >> >> to constantly maintain the latest filtering technologies, > >> >> businesses will > >> >> need to monitor user generated content to ensure their web > services > >> >> are not > >> >> automatically filtered and administrative delays to unblock > legal > >> >> sites will > >> >> hurt profitability and for some start-up businesses may even > kill > >> >> them. > >> >> > >> >> And that's just for compliance, lets not forget the actual > impact > >> >> on users. > >> >> As *Crikey* has reported (Internet filters a success, if > success = > >> >> > >> >> failure<http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080729-Internet-filters-a-success > >> >> > ... > >> >> >), > >> >> even the best filter has a false-positive rate of 3% under > ideal lab > >> >> conditions. Mark Newton (the network engineer who Senator > Conroy's > >> >> office > >> >> attacked > >> >> recently<http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/10/23/1224351430987.html?page=ful > >> >> > ... > >> >> >) > >> >> reckons that for a medium-sized ISP that's 3000 incorrect blocks > >> >> *every > >> >> > >> >> second*<http://stilgherrian.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ellis-2008-10-20.pdf > >> >> >. > >> >> Another maths-heavy > >> >> > >> >> analysis<http://girtby.net/archives/2008/7/31/bayes-theorem-1-mandatory-filter > >> >> > ... > >> >> > > >> >> says > >> >> that every time that filter blocks something there's an 80% > chance > >> >> it was > >> >> wrong. > >> >> > >> >> The Policy goal will not be met & will be costly through this > >> >> approach > >> >> > >> >> The Labor party's election policy > >> >> > >> >> document<http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf > >> >> > > >> >> states > >> >> that Labor's ISP policy will prevent Australian children from > >> >> accessing any > >> >> content that has been identified as prohibited by ACMA, > including > >> >> sites such > >> >> as those containing child pornography and X-rated material. > Other > >> >> than being > >> >> a useful propaganda device, to my knowledge children and people > >> >> generally > >> >> don't actively seek child pornography, and a filter does > nothing to > >> >> prevent > >> >> these offline real-world social networks of paedophiles to > restrict > >> >> their > >> >> activities. > >> >> > >> >> What the government seems to misunderstand, is that a filter > regime > >> >> will > >> >> prove inadequate in achieving any of this, due to the reality > of how > >> >> information gets distributed on the Internet. > >> >> > >> >> *[image: Composition of Internet traffic by you.]* > >> >> > >> >> *Source:http://www.ipoque.com/userfiles/file/internet_study_2007.pdf* > >> >> > >> >> Peer-to-peer networks (P2P), a legal technology that also proves > >> >> itself > >> >> impossible to control or filter, accounts for the majority of > >> >> Internet > >> >> traffic, with figures of between 48% in the Middle East and > 80% in > >> >> Eastern > >> >> Europe <http://www.ipoque.com/userfiles/file/ > >> >> internet_study_2007.pdf>. As > >> >> noted earlier, the ACMA trials have confirmed that although they > >> >> can block > >> >> P2P, they cannot actually analyse the content as being illegal. > >> >> This is > >> >> because P2P technologies like torrents are completely > decentralised. > >> >> Individual torrents cannot be identified, and along with > encryption > >> >> technologies, make this type of content impossible to filter or > >> >> identify > >> >> what it is. > >> >> > >> >> However, whether blocked or filtered, this is ignoring the fact > >> >> that access > >> >> can be bypassed by individuals who wish to do so. > >> >> Tor<http://www.torproject.org/> is > >> >> a network of virtual tunnels, used by people under authoritarian > >> >> governments > >> >> in the world - you can install the free software on a USB > stick to > >> >> have it > >> >> working immediately. It is a sophisticated technology that > allows > >> >> people to > >> >> bypass restrictions. More significantly, I wish to highlight > that > >> >> some Tor > >> >> servers have been used for illegal purposes, including child > >> >> pornography and > >> >> p2p sharing of copyrighted files using the bit torrent > protocol. In > >> >> September 2006, German authorities seized data center equipment > >> >> running Tor > >> >> software <http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/09/11/1050215.shtml> > >> >> during a child > >> >> pornography crackdown, although the TOR network managed > >> >> toreassemble itself > >> >> with no impact to its > >> >> network<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/ > 20060911-7709.html>. > >> >> This technology is but one of many available options for > people to > >> >> overcome > >> >> a ISP-level filter. > >> >> > >> >> For a filtering approach to be appropriate, it will require > not just > >> >> automated analysis based technology, but human effort to > maintain the > >> >> censorship of the content. An expatriate Australian in China > claims > >> >> that a staff > >> >> of 30,000 are employed by the Golden Shield > >> >> > >> >> Project<http://dedlog.blogspot.com/2008/10/internet-censorship-recurring-nigh > >> >> > ... > >> >> > > >> >> (the > >> >> official name for the Great Firewall) to select what to block > along > >> >> with > >> >> whatever algorithm they use to automatically block sites. With > >> >> legitimate > >> >> online activities being blocked through automated software, it > will > >> >> require > >> >> a beefed up ACMA to handle support from the public to > investigate and > >> >> unblock websites that are legitimate. Given the amount of false > >> >> positives > >> >> proven in the ACMA trials, this is not to be taken likely, and > >> >> could cost > >> >> hundreds of millions of dollars in direct taxpayers money and > >> >> billions in > >> >> opportunity cost for the online economy. > >> >> > >> >> Inappropriate government regulation > >> >> > >> >> The governments approach to regulating the Internet has been one > >> >> dimensional, by regarding content online with the same type > that was > >> >> produced by the mass media in the Industrial Era. The > Information Age > >> >> recognises content not as a one-to-many broadcast, but > individuals > >> >> communicating. Applying these previous-era provisions is > actually a > >> >> restraint beyond traditional publishing. > >> >> > >> >> Regulation of the Internet is provided under the *Broadcasting > >> >> Services > >> >> Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999 (Commonwealth)*. Schedule > Five > >> >> and > >> >> seven of the amendment claim the goal is to: > >> >> > >> >> - Provide a means of addressing complaints about certain > >> >> Internet content > >> >> - Restrict access to certain Internet content that is > likely to > >> >> cause > >> >> offense to a reasonable adult > >> >> - Protect children from exposure to Internet content that is > >> >> unsuitable > >> >> for them > >> >> > >> >> Mandatory restricting access can disrupt freedom of expression > >> >> under Article > >> >> 19 of the*International Covenant on Civil and Political > Rights* and > >> >> disrupt > >> >> fair trade of services under the Trade Practices Act. > >> >> > >> >> It is wrong for the government to take the view of mandating > >> >> restricted > >> >> access, but instead should allow consumers that option to > >> >> participate in a > >> >> system that protects them. To allow a government to interpret > what a > >> >> "reasonable adult" would think is too subjective for it to be > >> >> appropriate > >> >> that a faceless authority regulates, over the ability for an > >> >> individual > >> >> adult to determine for themselves. > >> >> > >> >> The Internet is not just content in the communications sense, > but > >> >> also in > >> >> the market and utility sense. Restricting access to services, > which > >> >> may be > >> >> done inappropriately due to proven weaknesses in filtering > >> >> technology, would > >> >> result in > >> >> > >> >> - reduced consumer information about goods and services. > >> >> Consumers will > >> >> have less information due to sites incorrectly blocked > >> >> - violation of the WTO's cardinal principles - the "national > >> >> treatment" > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> principle<http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm > >> >> >, > >> >> which requires that imported goods and services be treated > the > >> >> same as those > >> >> produced locally. > >> >> - preventing or hindering competition under the > interpretation > >> >> of section > >> >> 4G of th*e Trade Practices Act*. This means online businesses > >> >> will be > >> >> disadvantaged from physical world shops, even if they > create more > >> >> accountability by allowing consumer discussion on forums that > >> >> may trigger > >> >> the filter due to consumers freedom of expression. > >> >> > >> >> Solution: an opt-in ISP filter that is optional for Australians > >> >> > >> >> Senator Conroy's crusade in the name of child pornography is not > >> >> the issue. > >> >> The issue, in addition to the points raised above, is that > mandatory > >> >> restricting access to information, is by nature a political > process. > >> >> If the Australian > >> >> Family Association <http://www.family.org.au/> writes an article > >> >> criticising > >> >> homosexuals <http://www.family.org.au/Journals/2003/challenge.htm > >, > >> >> is this > >> >> grounds to have the content illegal to access and > >> >> > >> >> communicate<http://defendingscoundrels.com/2008/10/conroy-misleads-the-senate-on- > >> >> > ... > >> >> > > >> >> as > >> >> it > >> >> incitesdiscrimination<http://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/legislation/index.html > >> >> >? > >> >> Perhaps the Catholic Church should have its website banned > because of > >> >> theirstance > >> >> on homosexuality? <http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357 > > > >> >> > >> >> If the Liberals win the next election because the Rudd > government > >> >> was voted > >> >> out due to pushing ahead with this filtering policy, and the > >> >> Coalition > >> >> repeat recent history by controlling both houses of government - > >> >> what will > >> >> stop them from banning access to the Labor party's website? > >> >> > >> >> Of course, these examples sound far fetched but they also > sounded far > >> >> fetched in another vibrant democracy called the Weimar > >> >> Republic<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic>. > >> >> What I wish to highlight is that pushing ahead with this > approach to > >> >> regulating the Internet is a dangerous precedent that cannot be > >> >> downplayed. > >> >> Australians should have the ability to access the Internet with > >> >> government > >> >> warnings and guidance on content that may cause offence to the > >> >> reasonable > >> >> person. The government should also persecute people creating and > >> >> distributing information like child pornography that > universally is > >> >> agreed > >> >> by society as a bad thing. But to mandate restricted access to > >> >> information > >> >> on the Internet, based on expensive imperfect technology that > can > >> >> be routed > >> >> around, is a Brave New World that will not be tolerated by the > >> >> broader > >> >> electorate once they realise their individual freedoms are being > >> >> restricted. > >> >> > >> >> This system of ISP filtering should not be mandatory for all > >> >> Australians to > >> >> use. Neither should it be an opt-out system by default. > Individuals > >> >> should > >> >> have the right to opt-into a system like this, if there are > >> >> children using > >> >> the Internet connection or a household wishes to censor their > >> >> Internet > >> >> experience. To mandatory force all Australians to experience the > >> >> Internet > >> >> only if under Government sanction, is a mistake of the highest > >> >> levels. It > >> >> technologically cannot be assured, and it poses a genuine > threat to > >> >> our > >> >> democracy. > >> >> > >> >> If the Ministry <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth> > >> >> under > >> >> Senator Conroy does not understand my concerns by responding > with a > >> >> template > >> >> answer six months > >> >> later<http://Liako.Biz/2008/07/internet-censorship-in- > australia/>, > >> >> and clearly showing inadequate industry consultation despite my > >> >> request, > >> >> perhaps Chairman Rudd can step in. I recognise with the looming > >> >> financial > >> >> recession, we need to look for ways to prop up our export > markets. > >> >> However > >> >> developing in-house expertise at restricting the population that > >> >> would set > >> >> precedent to the rest of the Western world, is something that's > >> >> funny in a > >> >> nervous type of laughter kind of way. > >> >> > >> >> Like many others in the industry, I wish to help the > government to > >> >> develop a > >> >> solution that protects children. But ultimately, I hope our > elected > >> >> representatives can understand the importance of this potential > >> >> policy. I > >> >> also hope they are aware anger exists in the governments > actions to > >> >> date, > >> >> and whilst democracy can be slow to act, when it hits, it hits > hard. > >> >> > >> >> Kind regards, > >> >> > >> >> Elias Bizannes > >> >> > >> >> ---- > >> >> > >> >> Postal address: 201 Sussex St, Sydney 2011 > >> >> > >> >> Telephone: (02) 8266 1473 > >> >> > >> >> Mobile: +61412 338 508 > >> >> > >> >> E-mail: elias.bizannes at gmail dot com > >> >> > >> >> Elias Bizannes works for a professional services firm and is a > >> >> Chartered > >> >> Accountant. He is a champion of the Australian Internet industry > >> >> through the > >> >> Silicon Beach Australia community and also currently serves as > Vice- > >> >> Chair of > >> >> the DataPortability Project. The opinions of this letter reflect > >> >> his own as > >> >> an individual (and not his employer) with perspective > developed in > >> >> consultation with the Australian industry. > >> >> > >> >> This letter may be republished freely. HTML > >> >> version<http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/ruddfilter/index.html> > >> >> and PDF > >> >> version<http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/ruddfilter/The_Rudd_Filter.pdf > >> >> > > >> >> version. > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Elias Bizanneshttp://liako.biz > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Elias Bizannes > http://liako.biz > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
