Lundy's Opt-out Option for Internet Filter

Hope this story about a possible opt-out option for Conroy's internet filter is accurate and has some legs:

A SPLIT has emerged in Labor ranks over Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's filter plan to limit internet porn after a backbencher confirmed she would seek to amend the legislation.

Labor Senator Kate Lundy plans to propose a filter “opt out” when the legislation goes before caucus.
Labor split as Kate Lundy proposes 'opt out' to Conroy ISP filter (The Australian, 24 FEb 2010)

I'm pessimistic as Senator Conroy has shown little interest in finding a consensus on this issue.

Sphere: Related Content

Anglican Church Leader Questions Internet Filter

From Canon Dr Ray Cleary, chair of the Melbourne Anglican Social Responsibilities Committee:

Federal Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy claims it is "just one part of a range of measures designed to make the internet a safer place". But questions remain. If there is to be a filter on selected subject matter such as child pornography what are the safety nets and accountability structures in place to prevent present and future governments censoring a range of political views, opinions and expressions that they find politically unacceptable or enabling them to track what individuals are looking at or accessing?

Conroy is right in suggesting we need a multi-pronged response to inappropriate material. I'm just not sure the filter should be one of those prongs.
Protecting children online takes more than a filter (The Age 14 Jan 2010)

Sphere: Related Content

Twitter Eruption over Australia's Internet Filter

A Global Voices post from Antoun Issa about Internet Filtering in Australia:

Australia's Communications Minister Stephen Conroy declared his determination last week to push through mandatory internet censorship of a government-defined blacklist of websites, sparking an online frenzy in blogs and on Twitter.

No Clean Feed - Stop Internet Censorship in AustraliaNews of the proposed internet censorship propelled the issue to a “trending topic” on Twitter for several hours, under the hashtag #nocleanfeed.

Australia pushes internet censorship; Twitter erupts

Disclosure: I am a GV author and this blog is quoted in Antoun's article.

Sphere: Related Content

Australia's Brand Spanking Clean Feed Internet Filter

A brand spanking new Internet filter is on the way. Senator Stephen Conroy's Clean Feed is another step closer. This follows the release of the ISP Filtering Live Pilot Report. Government decisions were announced the same day. Why bother to release the report at all?

The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has announced:

1. Introduction of mandatory ISP-level filtering of Refused Classification (RC) –rated content.
2. A grants program to encourage the introduction of optional filtering by Internet Service Providers, to block additional content as requested by households.
3. An expansion of the cyber-safety outreach program run by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the Cyber-Safety Online Helpline – to improve education and awareness of online safety.

Media Release 15 Dec 2009Measures to improve safety of the internet for families

There are many questions that need to be addressed:

The Blacklist

How many sites will be blocked? The report suggests that 10s or 100s of thousands are possible. 1000 were tested. In what ways is the current blacklist ineffective? the blacklist will be passed to ISPs in an encrypted form to avoid the list falling into the wrong hands. After the recent East Anglia climategate hacking, it won’t be long before that hope is dashed.

Passing on the Cost

ISP will be required to bear the costs. This could well be a disincentive to competition as small providers may be discouraged.

Non-sexual Content

As well as sexual sites Refused Classification RC (sic) list will include websites that contain "detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act".

There goes boxing and several other Olympic sports. How will the list deal with different crimes in different States? If euthanasia is legalised in one State, would sites explaining how to use the laws be banned? Would sites arguing for a change in the law face censorship? Would links to “undesirable” constitute the grounds for black listing?

What about literature, which is full of detailed examples of crime, violence and drug use? Trainspotting? Fight Club? Crime and Punishment? Film and Television sites also pose a risk.

Inaccuracy

"The Government will also establish a grants program to encourage and assist ISPs to offer additional filtering services on a commercial basis for those families that wish to have a wider range of material filtered..."

However, "All six ISPs achieved 100 percent accuracy in blocking the ACMA blacklist. This was a requirement of the pilot. In blocking additional categories of content all six ISPs achieved 78 percent to 84 percent accuracy..." Only 22 percent got through. That’s encouraging.

The FAQ includes No.17. “Why does the Government consider demand exists for additional ISP-level filtering services?” The answer doesn’t mention demand just choice. The general public didn't use the free service and it has been discontinued. Why would they pay for an inaccurate service, especially one that may include over-blocking? But that's a sideshow, as filters for parents are already available on the market. You can already spy on your kids from work if you so desire. Big Father knows best!

Scope of Censorship/Protection

The RC system is not a filtering mechanism that will protect children from accidental or deliberate access to pornography, just the "illegal" stuff. Nor will it catch out child pornographers and paedophiles. Apparently, "Telstra found its filtering solution was not effective in the case of non-web based protocols such as instant messaging, peer-to-peer or chat rooms." ACMA will only list a very limited number of specific internet addresses (URLs).

Circumvention

According to the report, "A technically competent user could, if they wished, circumvent the filtering technology." Technical competence is widespread, including amongst the young. So why spend money on something that is easily circumvented.

Political Equations: In the Wink of an Eye

Kevin Rudd’s Labor government is unlikely to win many votes from this initiative. It’s uncertain if it will lose many in a climate change dominated election. What it faces is a major loss of goodwill from those who object to the filter's authoritarian potential. Imagine Tony Abbott or Kevin Andrews in charge of deciding what's appropriate. Don't mentioned RU486?

The good news is that the internet speeds should not be affected very much. It will be done in the wink of an eye, or as Telstra reported, a delay “equivalent to one seventieth of the blink of an eye”.

Kevin on Facebook: “The Rudd Government's approach to cyber-safety has been informed by the trial of internet filtering and extensive industry feedback about the most appropriate way to improve safety for families online.” What about community consultation? It’s the sort of action you would announce the week of COP15 in Copenhagen and ten days before Christmas. Most of those affected won’t read past the headline.

If the government’s aim is to protect children from inappropriate content, then this scheme won’t achieve that. If it wants to stop illegal material on the web, then it should be confined to criminal material of a sexual nature as proposed in the ALP’s policy in 2007. If it’s trying to increase its popularity amongst “families”, then it’s wasting time and money.

Sphere: Related Content

Clean Feed live pilot report imminent

The following is part of an email from Wayne Swan's electorate officer Finn McCarthy-Adams in response to concerns raised about the proposed internet filtering regime. Its authorship is unclear. It is provided without comment except to hope that the release of the forthcoming report on the trials will be thorough and complete:

ISP filtering

A part of the Government’s plan is to examine the introduction of ISP-level filtering for RC material. Content defined under the Scheme as RC material includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act.

The Government is also considering additional ISP content filtering options for those families who wish to have such a service.

The Government’s policy is being developed through an informed and considered approach, including industry consultation and close examination of overseas models to assess their suitability for Australia.

Filtering technologies have been adopted on a voluntary basis by ISPs in a number of countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Finland, predominantly to filter child pornography. In these countries, ISP filtering has not affected internet performance to a noticeable level.

Laboratory trial and live pilot

ACMA has completed a laboratory trial of a sample of the available ISP filtering technologies. The trial looked specifically at the effect of a range of filter products on network performance, effectiveness in identifying and blocking illegal content, scope to filter non-web traffic and the ability to customise the filter to the requirements of different end‑users. The laboratory trial indicated that ISP filtering products have developed in their performance and effectiveness since they were last assessed in 2005.

The Government is now undertaking a live pilot, which will provide valuable information on the effectiveness and efficiency of filters installed in an actual ISP network. A report of findings from the pilot is scheduled to be available mid 2009.

The Government is committed to working closely with the internet industry to address the concerns of network degradation, over and under blocking, circumvention and costs. These concerns will be carefully considered during the pilot and will further inform the Government’s cyber-safety policy.

The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (the Department) has prepared material on a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) about ISP filtering. This list is available on the Department’s website at http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_consumers/funding_programs__and__support/cybersafety_plan

ACMA blacklist

The existing ACMA blacklist is a list of internet web pages which are defined as ‘prohibited’ under Australian legislation. The list has been in place since 2000 and currently contains around 1100 URLs.

The ACMA blacklist is developed by complaints from the public about online content to ACMA. ACMA does not arbitrarily assess and classify content. Online content is assessed in accordance with the Scheme. The Scheme was established by the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. Content, which is the subject of a complaint, is assessed by ACMA and/or referred to the National Classification Board for classification.

The ACMA complaints process has been established by the Australian Parliament through the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and has been in place since 2000. If content is found to be prohibited and is hosted in Australia (i.e. located on a computer or server in Australia), ACMA will direct the content provider to remove or prevent access to the content.

If content is found to be prohibited and is hosted overseas, ACMA cannot have the material taken down but it must add the material to its blacklist. This blacklist is then provided to 14 PC filter vendors who use the list in their filtering products.

ACMA officers and Classification Board members applying the Scheme are highly trained and apply criteria set out in the Scheme’s legislative framework. Further, decisions made by the Classification Board can be reviewed by the Classification Review Board.

The scope of the definition of prohibited content in legislation cannot be expanded without changes to legislation being passed by Parliament, and the Government does not intend doing this.

Leaking of the ACMA blacklist

Purported versions of the ACMA blacklist of URLs have been placed on a website. The leaking and publication of a list, which includes RC URLs, is irresponsible and undermines efforts to improve cyber-safety and create a safe online environment for children.

It should be noted that the original version of the leaked list apparently contains 2395 URLs where the ACMA blacklist consisted of around 1100 URLs at the relevant time. ACMA advises that while there are some common URLs to those on the ACMA blacklist, there are URLs on the original leaked list that have never been the subject of a complaint or ACMA investigation, and have never been included on the ACMA blacklist.

ACMA is continuing to investigate this matter. I note that it is an offence under the Commonwealth Criminal Code to use the internet to make available child pornography or child abuse material.

Sphere: Related Content

Australia's Tangled Censorship Web

Confused by all the controversy surrounding the Australian Government plans to filter the internet? New Matilda has been holding forums about the proposed censorship regime. Here's some video to help explain.



Melbourne's session featured:

Colin Jacobs, Electronic Frontiers Australia
Michael Flood, Sociologist
Senator Scott Ludlam, Australian Greens

From Michael Flood:

I'm now far less than convinced that I used to be of the value of ISP based filtering as a strategy. I'm much more convinced of its technical problems and I'm more convinced of its political dangers. ... You can say that one of the early advocates of ISP filtering is now backing away from this.

No permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests.

Sphere: Related Content

Clean Feed: trawling for critics

According to The Age, iiNet has withdrawn from the trials of Clean Feed the Australian government's proposed mandatory internet filtering system:

AUSTRALIA'S third-largest internet service provider yesterday announced it would not participate in the Federal Government's trials of an internet filter, saying that to do so would conflict with its "corporate social responsibility".
Internet provider shuns filter trial

If an early report from The Age is to be believed Senator Conroy's department is also monitoring websites that are critical of his approach:

THE Government will begin trawling blog sites as part of a new media monitoring strategy, with documents singling out a website critical of Communications Minister Stephen Conroy for special mention.
Labor's blog-watch plan hits Whirlpool of dissent

If you're interested in the discussions then link to the Whirpool forums.

P.S. This blog's traffic is being monitored to see who's watching.

Sphere: Related Content

Clean Feed lurches on

If you didn't hear today's ABC Radio National's Background Briefing, Conroy's Clean Feed, download the podcast or listen to the repeat on Tuesday on Tuesday 17 March at 7pm.

In the name of protecting children, the government is investigating ways to filter 'unwanted' and 'inappropriate' material on the web—seen by some as the thin end of the censorship wedge.

A first class report.

Senator Conroy's Future Directions of the Digital Economy blog has been silent for nearly 6 weeks. Couldn't find anywhere to leave a comment anymore. As ABC reporter Wendy Carlisle remarked, the Minster for Communications isn't always that communicative. At one stage during the report he tells us that the trial is only about technology - the debate about what will be blocked will take place later on. I would be delighted to be corrected.

The Federal parliamentary internet feed is currently censored. Background Briefing has a couple of examples. One has upset anti-abortionists including Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi. Anyway with Nick Xenophon and the Liberal Party right opposed, Conroy and Kevin Rudd should save the money and redirect it to employment programs.

Sphere: Related Content

Censorwatch: The people's Herdict

Concerned about internet filtering and censorship. Get the latest tool in the information flow, Herdict, compliments of The Berkman Center:

As governments and institutions throughout the globe increasingly work to control the flow of information on the Internet, online filtration and censorship have become significant threats to speech on the web. Even worse, these efforts often go undetected. The groups responsible rarely (if ever) announce their intentions, and the precise details of online censorship regimes are equally difficult to track. Obviously, this complicates attempts by activists and researchers to respond to Internet filtration or blocking.

Herdict Web attempts to shed light on this previously opaque activity on the web by generating a dynamic map of information accessibility around the world. Developed by Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Herdict Web provides up-to-date reports on where and when sites are inaccessible, and what kinds of users are facing difficulty. In turn, it transparently makes this information openly available online for discussion and further exploration by the public at large.

The Scoop on Herdict Web

To function effectively, it relies on input from individuals about inaccessbility to websites. That's us. What's that cliché about the price of democracy?

Sphere: Related Content

Damn the bloggers! Ban them!

So it begins! Apparently police want to "ban" blogs that are breaching the no-publication court order regarding alleged arsonist Brendan Sokaluk:

Victoria Police want to ban messages being posted on internet blogs about accused firebug Brendan Sokaluk.

The publication of Sokaluk's street address and his image has been banned by a court but members of the public have been freely publishing those details on the internet.
Police move to ban blogs on accused firebug The Age 17 February 2009

If it's illegal then prosecutions may be in order. Imagine trying to ban individual blog posts. Like chasing the winds. Perhaps Senator Stephen Conroy's office might have some ideas on how we might deal with rogue bloggers. Add them to the ACMA list perhaps?

Sphere: Related Content

Labor Responses to Internet Filtering Outcry

Sent out email last Friday to most Federal and State ALP members of parliament with a link to Internet Censorship Will Haunt Rudd Government. Have received 5 replies so far:

• From Amanda Fazio, New South Wales MLC, supporting the dumping of the policy. Her speech to the Legislative Council can be found at: Internet Censorship
• The second was a very private email that went astray, from the office of a Victorian MLA . Didn't receive a reply when I bounced it back. My lips are sealed.
• A response from Senator Kate Lundy's office, offering to forward any messages to Senator Conroy.
  
• From my Facebook friend the Finance Minister, Lindsay Tanner. The text seems to be a media release but was appreciated anyway.
• Chris Hayes MHR for Werriwa has sent the same response.

They are "aware that the proposal for ISP filtering has attracted some criticism from those, like yourself, who are concerned that it will lead to censorship of the internet. However, the Australian Government has no plans to stop adults from viewing material that is currently legal, if they wish to view such material.

The Government regards freedom of speech as very important and the Government’s cyber-safety policy is in no way designed to curtail this.

The internet is an essential tool for all Australian children through which they can exchange information, be entertained, socialise and do school work and research. The ability to use online tools effectively provides both a skill for life and the means to acquire new skills.

However, while the internet has created substantial benefits for children it has also exposed them to a number of dangers, including exposure to offensive content. As such, parents rightly expect the Government to play its part in the protection of children online.

The Government has committed $125.8 million over the next four years to a comprehensive range of cyber-safety measures, including law enforcement, filtering and education. Measures include:

· Australian Federal Police (AFP) Child Protection Operations Team - funding to detect and investigate online child sex exploitation;
· Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - funding to help deal with the increased activity resulting from the work of the AFP to ensure that prosecutions are handled quickly;
· ISP level filtering - funding to develop and implement ISP filtering, including undertaking a real world ‘live’ pilot;
· Education activities - funding to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to implement a comprehensive range of education activities;
· Websites / Online helpline - funding to ACMA to improve current Government
cyber-safety website resources and to make them easier for parents to use, and to provide up‑to‑date information. ACMA will also develop a children’s cyber-safety website to provide information specifically for children, and improve the online helpline to provide a quick and easy way for children to report online incidents that cause them concern;
· Consultative Working Group - funding for an expanded Consultative Working Group. The Group will consider the broad range of cyber-safety issues and advise the Government, to ensure properly developed and targeted policy initiatives;
· Youth Advisory Group - funding for a Youth Advisory Group which will provide advice to the Consultative Working Group on cyber-safety issues from a young person’s perspective; and
· Research - funding for ongoing research into the changing digital environment to identify issues and target future policy and funding.

These initiatives will tackle the issue of cyber-safety from a number of directions to help clean up the online environment and protect Australian children from the dangers of the internet now and into the future. This approach acknowledges the key role parents and carers have in the online safety of children, and provides them with the necessary information to assist with this task. This initiative also recognises that there is no single solution to ensure children can access the internet safely.

A key part of the Government’s plan to make the internet a safer place for children is the introduction of ISP level filtering. The policy reflects our community’s growing belief that ISPs should take some responsibility for enabling the blocking of illegal material on the internet. Filtering would cover illegal and prohibited content using an expanded ACMA blacklist of prohibited sites, which includes images of the sexual abuse of children.

Consideration is being given to more sophisticated filtering techniques for those individual families who wish to exclude additional online content in their own homes.

The Government wants to ensure that Australian parents can access a ‘clean feed’ internet service. This will be informed by the technology adopted in countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Canada where ISP filtering, predominantly of child pornography, has been successfully introduced without affecting internet performance to a noticeable level.

The Government’s ISP filtering policy is being developed through an informed and considered approach, including industry consultation and close examination of overseas models to assess their suitability for Australia.

ACMA recently completed an extensive laboratory trial of available ISP filtering technology. The trial looked specifically at the effect of a range of filter products on network performance, effectiveness in identifying and blocking illegal and inappropriate content, scope to filter non-web traffic, and the ability to customise the filter to the requirements of different end-users.

The laboratory trial indicated that ISP filtering products have developed in their effectiveness since they were last assessed in 2005. The Government will now proceed with a ‘live’ pilot in the second half of 2008 which will provide valuable information on the effectiveness and efficiency of filters installed in a ‘real world’ ISP network. An Expression of Interest will be released in due course seeking the participation of ISPs in the pilot.

The Government is committed to working closely with internet industries to address any concerns, including costs and internet speeds. These concerns will be carefully considered during the pilot and will further inform the Government’s cyber‑safety policy."

As yet there is no response from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy. Perhaps his email is vetted too well or perhaps not well enough. Or perhaps the reply went astray. It does happen.

By the intensity of the opposition on the blogosphere, his office is probably receiving a lot of hostile email. There are now more than 20 Facebook groups against the internet filtering proposal.

Sphere: Related Content

Internet Censorship Will Haunt Rudd Government

During the early noughties I was teaching Year 12 English Studies at Katherine High School in the Northern Territory. A very useful website for studying Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice was The Republic of Pemberley. One year the site was blocked by the NT Department of Education. Apparently their black list was outsourced to a U.S. firm in silicon valley.

Presumably the website was inappropriate because it mentioned prejudice or pre-marital sex or shot-gun marriages. It was possible to correct this gross case of censorship and incompetence and have the site put on their 'White List' but it was too late for the students’ examination revision. This is the inevitable result of politicians and bureaucrats trying to decide what we should have access to on the Internet.

Sometime in the near future the Senate may have to vote on the controversial internet filtering regime currently under construction by the Rudd Labor government. For a range of reasons let’s hope that either it doesn’t come to legislation or it is buried there.

Senator Stephen Conroy’s current trials are unpopular with a diverse range of people.

The criticisms include:

• it goes too far: it is not just about hard-core pornography; it may censor so-called illegal sites such as those advocating euthanasia
• as an opt-out system it infringes our freedoms, that is if individuals are able to opt-opt at all
• it is censorship and like all censors they will start small and grow fast especially if there is no public scrutiny or accountability
• what is being censored is likely to be kept secret
• it is impracticable according to many of the ISPs
• it appears to be made it up as they go along
• it has numerous technical problems
• it may slow the internet
• it will not achieve its goals, uncertain as they are, in particular regarding child pornography

A visit to the Facebook group No Australian Internet Censorship will give some idea of the strength of opposition. A quick 'internet filtering' or "clean feed" web search will reveal a host of negative voices.

Now is the time for the government to walk away from this proposal. Keep or modify the opt-in system that exists now, if they wish. My views on that white elephant can be found at Filtering the Internet or my blog archives.

Kevin Rudd and Stephen Conroy have to drop this scheme now or it will haunt them for years to come. It is incredibly unpopular with many of their own party members and supporters. Even anti-Labor commentators such as Andrew Bolt are against it!

Asher Moses sums up recent opposition in an article in The Age yesterday:

As opposition grows against the Government's controversial plan to censor the internet, the head of one of Australia's largest ISPs has labelled the Communications Minister the worst we've had in the past 15 years.
Net censorship plan backlash

Recent articles at GetUp! detail the growing concern.
From Irene Graham:

If Labor implements non-optional ISP-level filtering, which would be contrary to their 2007 election policy, they will prove beyond doubt that Labor is not trustworthy. Accordingly, regardless of the type/s of material Labor says will be on their secret compulsory blocking list, such statements will not be trustworthy either. Labor's intention to mandate non-optional ISP-level blocking must be opposed.
Secret, unaccountable, censorship is incompatible with democracy

From Colin Jacob:

Technologically, Internet filtering is a real nightmare. Regardless of the scheme adopted, a slowdown in Internet speeds is inevitable, and the more aggressive the filtering, the slower the network access becomes.

...But would the scheme protect children? All signs point to no. Even if the bureaucrats could somehow devise filtering criteria acceptable to all parents, the filters would let too much material through, and would be easy to circumvent.
Filtering at Odds with Broadband Revolution

In these dire economic times, save some money. The money would be better spent on the digital revolution in schools.

Sink this before it helps to sink the government’s credibility.

Sphere: Related Content

Steve Fielding: chief censor

It would be ironic if the government's opt-out internet filtering system is blocked by the conservatives, especially Senator Steve Fielding. The Age reports:

Family First Senator Steve Fielding wants hardcore pornography and fetish material blocked under the Government's plans to filter the internet, sparking renewed fears the censorship could be expanded well beyond "illegal material".

The Opposition said it would most likely block any attempts to introduce the controversial mandatory ISP filtering policy, so the Government would need the support of Senator Fielding as well as the Greens and Senator Nick Xenophon to pass the legislation.
Net filters may block porn and fetish sites

Populists politics, wowserism and moralising have made this issue into a hot one for Stephen Conroy. Despite the problems with an opt-in filtering system, it is time for the Rudd government to reconsider.

There has certainly been a strong reaction around the blogosphere:

I have a simple message to Senator Conroy. Stop bullying opponents of the scheme and take time to listen to those affected by this hideous plan.
iTWire: Mandatory Content Filtering in Australia

Sphere: Related Content

3 May: World Press Freedom Day

From Amnesty Interantional

World Press Freedom Day on 3 May highlights the importance of freedom of the press, and reminds governments to uphold their citizens’ right to freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It’s also a chance for us to reflect on the damage caused to individuals when freedom of the press is denied.

Who said that freedom of the press was owning one? You often get that feeling in Western Australia where there is a virtual monopoly of print media.

Hopefully where there is "free" internet, that is becoming less of the case. Little comfort for the Chinese or the Tibetans at the moment.

Sphere: Related Content

Back to Boab Country

We are back from 5 weeks visiting the other half of Australia. The photo was taken just before we left in mid December. It's a flowering boab.

Now it's back to business. It was almost impossible to follow Federal politics through the mass media while travelling. Standard fare was stories complaining about Labor implementing its election program and policies. The post-election reaction to proposed internet censorship is an excellent example. Those of us who opposed Stephen Conroy's opt-out version tried to get debate going before the vote. That's what elections are supposed to be about. Seems that don't rock the boat and/or we'll change it afterwards won the day.

Friends of the Labor government have a lot to do in the next 3 years to make sure that it does make a difference. The trick will be to move from essentially oppositional politics to getting real change happening. Vigorous debate is an essential part of that process.

Ideas for doing this on a regular basis are welcome. The usual online suspects will no doubt be involved. I feel a Facebook group coming on. The Rudd Cabinet is meeting in Perth next week and the PM will be holding a public forum on the 20th. We can only hope this will be more than a honeymoon event.

Labor View is intended as a place for labor supporters to share ideas and opinions. When you visit please leave a COMMENT below.

Sphere: Related Content

YouTube Odd Spots

#1 After John Howard

Laborview's first venture into vidcast home production. Who will be the next Liberal Prime Minister? Only 10 seconds but from little things...

#2 Internet filters: Safe Eyes

Logged onto the Australian government site NetAlert to checkout their Web censor. There are two commercial programs to choose. Safe Eyes is the only one which works on Macs so I downloaded it for a trial. ★★★ for usability. Luddites will have some problems downloading and applying settings.

Registered as Casanova and tried it out. It allowed you to open YouTube and blocked some fairly innocuous bikini dancers. Put in a Search for "John Howard" but this was blocked. All other offensive searches were also blocked. The program apparently does not block internet games or social networking but stops chat rooms. Lost interest quickly and uninstalled.

For my thoughts on Internet filtering see: Internet Lights
or an extended version at On Line Opinion

Labor View is intended as a place for labor supporters to share ideas and opinions. When you visit please leave a COMMENT below.

Sphere: Related Content

Internet Filtering #2

An extended version of Internet Lights has been posted to ON LINE Opinion, the e-journal of social and political debate. If you haven't done so yet, visit their website and bookmark it.

Labor View is intended as a place for labor supporters to share ideas and opinions. When you visit please leave a COMMENT below.

Sphere: Related Content

Internet Lights

John Howard’s announcement of a $189 million Internet filter program must be challenged on a range of grounds. Is it an appropriate role for government? Will we be getting value for money? Is it practicable? Who will control the regulators?

From a conservative government, it is a turn around from the rhetoric of the past. Isn’t this the kind of socialism we expect from Rudd’s mob? Individuals should make decisions and pay for matters related to personal privacy and family values. If parents want to buy filters shouldn’t the market provide them. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for something that is voluntary and private?

How many new teachers or police would $189 million pay for? 2500? 3000? Perhaps it is too cynical to ask how much is new money given the expenditure on the current NetAlert program. Is this a re-badging of NetAlert with some free software thrown in? Is it just another vote buying exercise?

The effectiveness of the software must be queried. The software being promised hasn’t even been finished yet. Will it block sites with particular words? This could cut off access to online dictionaries, encyclopaedia, literature and academic papers amongst a long list of important places that may contain the nominated offensive vocabulary. About five years ago I was teaching ‘Pride and Prejudice’ with Year 12 students when a key, innocuous website was blocked by the Northern Territory Education Department regulators who turned out to be in California. Perhaps we’ll ban all chat and social networking sites. Who knows what people might write.

More bizarre is how it might deal with images? Goodbye to Michelangelo’s David! Will flickr and other photo services be cut? Do we stop all video access? At least we would be protected from government announcements on YouTube and political websites and blogs like Kevin07. If you think this is joke, my political blog, Labor View from Broome, has been blocked by the Victorian Education department and the Chinese. Perhaps they were offended by the post ‘Beat me! Beat me!’ which showed Mark Vaile and Kerri-anne Kennerley whipcracking together. Apparently in Victoria they block servers not just sites. So much for selective targeting. Google who own blogger.com might be interested in that! There are many obscenities on the Web. Fast food and barbie ads, for instance. What about images of violence, war and starvation?

I almost forgot audio. How will they stop offending song lyrics and other sound files? What about the kinds of services offered now by telephone which grace the classifieds in our local papers?

Doubtless there will be options to turn the filter on and off so that adults can use the Internet. This will inevitably lead to a competition to develop a hack to get around the censors. Teenagers will know how to get around the filter within a week or find computers without the blockers. Censorship doesn’t stop curiosity, it encourages it. Blockers may help against the worst aspects of the Web but they are not a substitute for the kind of openness and values that help young people to deal with modern media.

The PM’s media release says that we will be able to block websites selected by the Australian Internet regulators. Who are these regulators? What criteria and guidelines will they use? Will their responsibilities be confined to pornography? Who will oversee our guardians? Federal Ministers like Kevin Andrews? Will the regulators decisions be subject to appeal? Will we even be able to find out who is censoring our websites and blogs without going through expensive freedom of information processes?

We must question the cost and effectiveness of this latest vote grabber, which has not been thought through properly. The Minister for Communications Helen Coonan has previously rejected a similar idea "Clean Feed" from Labor.

Just as light cigarette filters didn’t stop cancer, we cannot filter out all the evil aspects of modern society. Finding solutions to an increasingly confronting world will not be as easy as clicking a mouse.

Labor View is intended as a place for labor supporters to share ideas and opinions. When you visit please leave a COMMENT below.

Sphere: Related Content